Intracardiac thrombus (ICT) formation is a common complication of several cardiovascular diseases. Warfarin is recommended for treatment of ICT by guidelines based on observational studies occurring before the advent of nonvitamin K antagonist direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). We aim to evaluate the current prescribing patterns at our institution and to compare the efficacy and safety profiles of warfarin versus DOACs for ICT. This is a retrospective review of adult patients treated with oral anticoagulation for ICT between May 2013 and December 2019. Our primary end point was complete thrombus resolution. Secondary outcomes included time to resolution of thrombus, treatment failure, and duration of therapy. Safety end points included stroke and systemic embolization (SSE) and bleeding events. A total of 123 patients were included (DOAC n = 61; warfarin n = 62). At baseline, more patients in the DOAC group had anemia [6 (10%) vs. 0 (0%), P = 0.013] and alcohol use disorder [6 (10%) vs. 0 (0%), P = 0.013]. Complete thrombus resolution occurred in 50 (82%) and 46 (74%) patients in the DOAC and warfarin groups, respectively (P = 0.298). There was a shorter time to thrombus resolution in the DOAC group versus the warfarin group {63 days [interquartile range (IQR) 40-138] vs. 123 days , P = 0.003}. There were no differences found in SSE or bleeding between the groups [DOAC 11 (19%) vs. warfarin 17 (28%), P = 0.213]. For patients with an ICT, treatment with a DOAC for at least 3 months may be a comparable alternative to warfarin in safety and efficacy.

Purpose A critical shortage of small-volume parenteral solutions in late 2017 led hospitals to develop strategies to ensure availability for critical patients, including administration of antibiotics as intravenous push (IVP). Minimal literature has been published to date that assesses the safety of administration of beta-lactams via this route. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety of IVP administration of select beta-lactam antibiotics. Methods We performed a retrospective review of IVP administrations of aztreonam, ceftriaxone, cefepime, and meropenem at two campuses of the New York University Langone Health system after October 2017. Patients receiving surgical prophylaxis or more than one IVP antibiotic simultaneously were excluded. The primary endpoint was adverse events (ADE) following IVP administration of antibiotics. Results We evaluated 1000 patients who received IVP aztreonam (n = 43), ceftriaxone (n = 544), cefepime (n = 368) or meropenem (n = 45). There were 10 (1%) ADE observed, 5 of which were allergic reactions. Four ADE were neurotoxicity related to IVP cefepime. Based on the Naranjo score, 1 adverse event was “probably” and 3 were “possibly” related to cefepime IVP administration. Lastly, only 1 report of phlebitis was observed with the use of IVP ceftriaxone. Conclusions The use of IVP as an alternative to intravenous piggyback (IVPB) during times of drug shortage for select beta-lactam antibiotics appears to be safe, and ADE are similar to those previously described for IVPB administration. Future studies evaluating clinical outcomes between IVP and IVPB administration may be of benefit.

Bleeding following cardiac surgery that warrants transfusion of blood products is associated with significant complications, including increased mortality at 1 year following surgery. Factor concentrates, such as prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC), or recombinant activated factor VII (rFVIIa) have been used off-label for bleeding in cardiac surgery that is refractory to conventional therapy. The objective of this retrospective study is to assess the hemostatic effectiveness of 4-factor PCC or rFVIIa for bleeding after a broad range of cardiac surgeries. Patients were included if they were at least 18 years of age and had undergone cardiac surgery with bleeding requiring intervention with 4-factor PCC or rFVIIa. There were no differences observed in the number of packed red blood cells (4-factor PCC: 2 units vs. rFVIIa: 2 units), fresh frozen plasma (0 units vs. 1 unit) or platelet (2 units vs. 2 units) transfusions following the administration of 4-factor PCC or rFVIIa. The patients in the rFVIIa group, required more cryoprecipitate than those in the 4-factor PCC group (4-factor PCC: 2 units (range 0-6) vs. rFVIIa: 2 units (range 0-8), p = 0.03). There were no differences in secondary outcomes of chest tube output at 2, 6, 12 and 24 hours, nor was there a difference in reexploration rates or the median length of stay in the intensive care unit. Thromboembolic complications at 30 days were similar between the two groups (4-factor PCC: 13% vs. rFVIIa 26%, p = 0.08). The total median dose requirement for 4-factor PCC was 1000 units (15 units/kg) and 2 mg (20 mcg/kg) for rFVIIa. The results demonstrate feasibility of utilizing the minimum amount of drug in order to achieve a desired effect. Both 4-factor PCC and rFVIIa appear to be safe and effective options for the management of bleeding associated with cardiac surgery.

Background: Recombinant factor VIIa (rFVIIa) (Novoseven®) is utilized for the reversal of anticoagulation-associated bleeding and refractory bleeding in cardiac surgery. In August 2015, rFVIIa was transferred from the blood bank to the pharmacy at New York University (NYU) Langone Health. Concordantly, an off-label dosing guideline was developed. The objective of this study was to describe utilization and cost of rFVIIa and assess compliance to our dosing guideline. Methods: We performed a retrospective, observational review of rFVIIa administrations post-implementation of an off-label dosing guideline. All patients who received rFVIIa between September 2015 and June 2017 were evaluated. For each rFVIIa administration, anticoagulation and laboratory values, indications for use, dosing, ordering and administration times, concomitant blood products, and adverse events were collected. Adverse events included venous thromboembolism, stroke, myocardial infarction, and death due to systemic embolism and mortality. The primary endpoint was the utilization of rFVIIa in accordance with the off-label dosing guideline. Secondary endpoints included hemostatic efficacy of rFVIIa, adverse events, blood products administered, and cost-effectiveness of rFVIIa transition to pharmacy. Results: A total of 63 patients [pediatric ( n = 6), adult ( n = 57)] received rFVIIa, with the majority of use for refractory bleeding after cardiac surgery. The utilization of rVIIa decreased after development of the off-label dosing guideline and transition from blood bank to pharmacy. The total incidence of thromboembolic events within 30 days was 19.6%; 17.6% arterial and 2% venous; 70% of patients with an adverse event were over 70 years of age. Use of rFVIIa reduced the median number of units of blood products administered. Conclusion: Administration of rFVIIa for cardiac surgery appears to be effective for hemostasis. Transitioning rFVIIa from the blood bank to pharmacy and implementation of a dosing guideline appears to have reduced utilization. Patients receiving rFVIIa should be monitored for thromboembolic events. Elderly patients may be at higher risk for thromboembolic events.

Limited evidence is available to guide periprocedural management of oral anticoagulants in the setting of interventional radiology (IR) procedures. For direct oral anticoagulants, therapy interruption (TI) is based on medication half-life and procedural bleeding risk. Periprocedural management of warfarin includes INR monitoring, and possible bridging with parenteral anticoagulants. It is unknown if these recommendations apply to IR procedures. To evaluate bleeding complications and thromboembolic events following periprocedural management of the factor Xa (FXa) inhibitors or warfarin in patients undergoing IR procedures. We performed a retrospective, observational study at NYU Langone Health (NYULH) of all adult patients who underwent an IR procedure from January 2015 to July 2017 and were receiving apixaban, rivaroxaban, or warfarin. Patients who were pregnant or who had a mechanical heart valve were excluded. At NYULH, TI is not required for FXa inhibitors, and an INR < 3 is recommended for patients on warfarin undergoing low risk procedures. For moderate/high risk procedures, TI for 48 h or 72 h with reduced renal function, is recommended for FXa inhibitors, and an INR < 1.5 is recommended for patients on warfarin. We evaluated 350 IR procedures, with a total of 174 low bleeding risk and 176 moderate/high bleeding risk. The 30-day major bleeding rate was 0.9%, clinically relevant non-major bleeding rate was 3%, minor bleeding rate was 1% and thromboembolic event rate was 1%. The periprocedural oral anticoagulation management strategy at NYULH appears safe given the low 30-day incidence of bleeding and thromboembolic events.