Oral anticoagulants (OACs) are medications commonly used in patients with atrial fibrillation and other cardiovascular conditions. Both warfarin and direct oral anticoagulants are susceptible to drug-drug interactions (DDIs). DDIs are an important cause of adverse drug reactions and exact a large toll on the health care system. DDI for warfarin mainly involve moderate to strong inhibitors/inducers of cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2C9, which is responsible for the elimination of the more potent S-isomer of warfarin. However, inhibitor/inducers of CYP3A4 and CYP1A2 may also cause DDI with warfarin. Recognition of these precipitating agents along with increased frequency of monitoring when these agents are initiated or discontinued will minimize the impact of warfarin DDI. Direct oral anticoagulants are mainly affected by medications strongly affecting the permeability glycoprotein (P-gp), and to a lesser extent, strong CYP3A4 inhibitors/inducers. Dabigatran and edoxaban are affected by P-gp modulation. Strong inducers of CYP3A4 or P-gp should be avoided in all patients taking direct oral anticoagulant unless previously proven to be otherwise safe. Simultaneous strong CYP3A4 and P-gp inhibitors should be avoided in patients taking apixaban and rivaroxaban. Concomitant antiplatelet/anticoagulant use confers additive risk for bleeding, but their combination is unavoidable in many cases. Minimizing duration of concomitant anticoagulant/antiplatelet therapy as indicated by evidence-based clinical guidelines is the best way to reduce the risk of bleeding.

The recent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) challenges pharmacists worldwide. Alongside other specialized pharmacists, we re‐evaluated daily processes and therapies used to treat COVID‐19 patients within our institutions from a cardiovascular perspective and share what we have learned. To develop a collaborative approach for cardiology issues and concerns in the care of confirmed or suspected COVID‐19 patients by drawing on the experiences of cardiology pharmacists across the country. On March 26, 2020, a conference call was convened composed of 24 cardiology residency‐trained pharmacists (23 actively practicing in cardiology and 1 in critical care) from 16 institutions across the United States to discuss cardiology issues each have encountered with COVID‐19 patients. Discussion centered around providing optimal pharmaceutical care while limiting staff exposure. The collaborative of pharmacists found for the ST‐elevation myocardial infarction patient, many institutions were diverting COVID‐19 rule‐out patients to their Emergency Department (ED). Thrombolytics are an alternative to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) allowing for timely treatment of patients and decreased staff exposure. An emergency response grab and go kit includes initial drugs and airway equipment so the patient can be treated and the cart can be left outside the room. Cardiology pharmacists have developed policies and procedures to address monitoring of QT prolonging medications, the use of inhaled prostacyclins, and national drug shortages. Technology has allowed us to practice social distancing, while staying in close contact with our teams, patients, and colleagues and continuing to teach. Residents are engaged in unique decision‐making processes with their preceptors and assist as pharmacist extenders. Cardiology pharmacists are in a unique position to work with other pharmacists and health care professionals to implement safe and effective practice changes during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Ongoing monitoring and adjustments are necessary in rapidly changing times.

OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the time course of thrombocytopenia in patients with Impella devices (Abiomed, Danvers, MA). DESIGN: This was a retrospective, multicenter review of electronic medical records at a large hospital system from April 2018 to August 2020. SETTING: Electronic medical records of patients at SSM Health hospitals were reviewed. PATIENTS: Patients 18–89 years old admitted to an SSM Health hospital from April 2018 to August 2020 who received greater than or equal to 24 hours of percutaneous mechanical circulatory support (pMCS) with an Impella device were included. Exclusion criteria were use of other pMCS devices, history of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT), and presence of device upon transfer from an outside hospital. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Ninety-three patients were included. The median duration of pMCS was 63.5 hours. Thrombocytopenia occurred in 86% of patients and was evident 24 hours after device placement. The platelet nadir occurred 84 hours after device placement. Platelet recovery occurred 86.5 hours after device removal. The duration of thrombocytopenia was 156 hours. Signs of hemolysis were present in 44.09% of patients, were evident 12–24 hours after device placement, and resolved after device removal. CONCLUSIONS: Thrombocytopenia occurred in the majority of patients and was evident 24 hours after device placement. The time course of thrombocytopenia mirrored that of hemolysis.

Despite sacubitril/valsartan being on the market since 2015, clinicians are still determining the best way to initiate therapy to optimize outcomes and minimize potential for side effects. The purpose of this study is to investigate real-world outpatient experience of prescribing sacubitril/valsartan therapy based on appropriate patient selection, dosing conversion, and tolerability. This retrospective cohort study evaluated patients' prescribed sacubitril/valsartan therapy in cardiology clinics associated with an academic institution between February 1, 2016, and August 30, 2018. Patients were excluded if they were less than 18 years of age, enrolled in a clinical trial involving sacubitril/valsartan, or had insufficient data. The primary outcome was to determine how many heart failure patients initiated on sacubitril/valsartan were performed so appropriately based on guideline and package insert recommendations. Select secondary outcomes included rates of adverse events and need for adjustment of concomitant heart failure medications. A total of 250 patients were included in this study. For the primary outcome, 125 patients (50%) were appropriately initiated on sacubitril/valsartan. Those who were inappropriately initiated on the medication experienced more symptoms of hypotension (16% in the appropriate start group vs. 28% in the inappropriate start group; P = 0.022) and required more dose decreases of sacubitril/valsartan (6% in the appropriate start group vs. 13% in the inappropriate start group; P = 0.049). In outpatient clinical practice, almost half of patients initiated on sacubitril/valsartan were performed so outside of guideline recommendations, which was associated with an increased risk of hypotension and dose reductions.

No abstract