Dataset Information

Heparin use in hemodialysis patients following gastrointestinal bleeding.

ABSTRACT: Heparin is commonly given during hemodialysis (HD). Patients undergoing HD have a high rate of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB). It is unclear whether or when it is safe to give heparin after acute GIB. We describe the patterns and safety of heparin use with outpatient HD following an acute GIB.We identified patients aged ? 67 who, from 2004-2008, experienced GIB requiring hospitalization within 2 days of receiving maintenance HD with heparin. We used Cox regression to estimate the risk of recurrent GIB and death associated with receiving heparin the day they resumed outpatient HD post-GIB.Of the 1,342 patients who had GIB, 1,158 (86%) received heparin at a median dose of 4,000 units with their first outpatient HD session after discharge from GIB. On average, their post-GIB doses were slightly lower than their pre-GIB doses (mean change: -214 ± 3,266 units, p < 0.02). However, only 27% of patients had a decrease in their dose, while 21% had their dose increased. We did not find an increased risk of death or recurrent GIB associated with using heparin post-GIB (HR; 95% confidence interval (CI), for death: 1.01; 0.69-1.48; for recurrent GIB: 0.78; 0.39-1.57).The vast majority of these high-risk patients received heparin on the very first day they resumed outpatient HD post-GIB, and the majority at unchanged doses to those received pre-GIB. Even if the practice was not associated with increased risks of death or re-bleeding, it highlights an area for possible system-based improvement to the care for patients on HD.

SUBMITTER: Shen JI

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4246045 | biostudies-literature | 2014

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Heparin use in hemodialysis patients following gastrointestinal bleeding.

Shen Jenny I JI Mitani Aya A AA Winkelmayer Wolfgang C WC

American journal of nephrology 20141017 4

<h4>Background</h4>Heparin is commonly given during hemodialysis (HD). Patients undergoing HD have a high rate of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB). It is unclear whether or when it is safe to give heparin after acute GIB. We describe the patterns and safety of heparin use with outpatient HD following an acute GIB.<h4>Methods</h4>We identified patients aged ≥ 67 who, from 2004-2008, experienced GIB requiring hospitalization within 2 days of receiving maintenance HD with heparin. We used Cox regres ...[more]

PMID: 25341418

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundUpper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is one of the most common, high risk emergency disorders in the western world. Almost nothing has been reported on longer term prognosis following upper GI bleeding. The aim of this study was to establish mortality up to three years following hospital admission with upper GI bleeding and its relationship with aetiology, co-morbidities and socio-demographic factors.MethodsSystematic record linkage of hospital inpatient and mortality data for 14 212 people in Wales, UK, hospitalised with upper GI bleeding between 1999 and 2004 with three year follow-up to 2007. The main outcome measures were mortality rates, standardised mortality ratios (SMRs) and relative survival.ResultsMortality at three years was 36.7% overall, based on 5215 fatalities. It was highest for upper GI malignancy (95% died within three years) and varices (52%). Compared with the general population, mortality was increased 27-fold during the first month after admission. It fell to 4.3 by month four, but remained significantly elevated during every month throughout the three years following admission. The most important independent prognostic predictors of mortality at three years were older age (mortality increased 53 fold for people aged 85 years and over compared with those under 40 years); oesophageal and gastric/duodenal malignancy (48 and 32 respectively) and gastric varices aetiologies (2.8) when compared with other bleeds; non-upper GI malignancy, liver disease and renal failure co-morbidities (15, 7.9 and 3.9); social deprivation (29% increase for quintile V vs I); incident bleeds as an inpatient (31% vs admitted with bleeding) and male patients (25% vs female).ConclusionOur study shows a high late as well as early mortality for upper GI bleeding, with very poor longer term prognosis following bleeding due to malignancies and varices. Aetiologies with the worst prognosis were often associated with high levels of social deprivation.

Project description:Background:Low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH) replaced unfractionated heparin (UFH) in multiple indications. Although LMWH efficacy in hemodialysis was demonstrated through multiple studies, their safety remains controversial. The potential bioaccumulation in patients undergoing chronic hemodialysis raised the question of bleeding risk among this population. Objective:The aim of this study was to evaluate bleeding risk among patients with chronic hemodialysis receiving LMWH or UFH for the extracorporeal circuit anticoagulation. Design:We conducted a retrospective cohort study on data extracted from the Régie de l'assurance maladie du Québec (RAMQ) and Med-Echo databases from January 2007 to March 2013. Setting:Twenty-one hemodialysis centers in the province of Québec, Canada. Patients:Chronic hemodialysis patients. Measurements:Bleeding risk evaluated by proportional Cox model for time-dependent exposure using demographics, comorbidities, and drug use as covariates. Methods:Minor, major, and total bleeding events identified using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9)/International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes in the RAMQ and Med-Echo databases. Exposure status to LMWH or UFH was collected through surveys at the facility level. Results:We identified 5322 prevalent and incident patients with chronic hemodialysis. The incidence rate for minor, major, and total bleeding was 9.45 events/1000 patient-year (95% confidence interval [CI]: 7.61-11.03), 24.18 events/1000 patient-year (95% CI: 21.52-27.08), and 32.88 events/1000 patient-year (95% CI: 29.75-36.26), respectively. We found similar risks of minor adjusted hazard ratio (HR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.68-1.61), major (HR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.63-1.10), and total bleeding (HR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.72-1.14) when comparing LMWH with UFH. Limitations:Potential misclassification of patients' exposure status and possible underestimation of minor bleeding risk. Conclusion:LMWH was not associated with a higher minor, major, or total bleeding risk. LMWH did not increase the risk of bleeding compared with UFH for the extracorporeal circuit anticoagulation in hemodialysis. The convenience of use and predictable effect made LMWH a suitable alternative to UFH in hemodialysis.

Project description:BackgroundAcute gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) may be a severe condition in immunocompromised patients and may require intensive care unit (ICU) admission. We aimed to describe the clinical spectrum of critically ill immunocompromised patients with GIB and identify risk factors associated with mortality and severe GIB defined by hemorrhagic shock, hyperlactatemia and/or the transfusion of more than 5 red blood cells units. Finally, we compared this cohort with a control population of non-immunocompromised admitted in ICU for GIB.ResultsRetrospective study in 3 centers including immunocompromised patients with GIB admitted in ICU from January, 1st 2010 to December, 31rd 2019. Risk factors for mortality and severe GIB were assessed by logistic regression. Immunocompromised patients were matched with a control group of patients admitted in ICU with GIB. A total of 292 patients were analyzed in the study, including 141 immunocompromised patients (compared to a control group of 151 patients). Among immunocompromised patients, upper GIB was more frequent (73%) than lower GIB (27%). By multivariate analysis, severe GIB was associated with male gender (OR 4.48, CI95% 1.75-11.42, p = 0.00), upper GIB (OR 2.88, CI95% 1.11-7.46, p = 0.03) and digestive malignant infiltration (OR 5.85, CI95% 1.45-23.56, p = 0.01). Conversely, proton pump inhibitor treatment before hospitalization was significantly associated with decreased risk of severe GIB (OR 0.25, IC95% 0.10-0.65, p < 0.01). Fifty-four patients (38%) died within 90 days. By multivariate analysis, mortality was associated with hemorrhagic shock (OR 2.91, IC95% 1.33-6.38, p = 0 .01), upper GIB (OR 4.33, CI95% 1.50-12.47, p = 0.01), and long-term corticosteroid therapy before admission (OR 2.98, CI95% 1.32-6.71, p = 0.01). Albuminemia (per 5 g/l increase) was associated with lower mortality (OR 0.54, IC95% 0.35-0.84, p = 0.01). After matching with a control group of non-immunocompromised patients, severity of bleeding was increased in immunocompromised patients, but mortality was not different between the 2 groups.ConclusionMortality is high in immunocompromised patients with GIB in ICU, especially in patients receiving long term corticosteroids. Mortality of GIB is not different from mortality of non-immunocompromised patients in ICU. The prophylactic administration of proton pump inhibitors should be considered in this population.

Project description:Background:Given the lack of clear indications for the use of warfarin in the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients on hemodialysis and the potential risks that accompany warfarin use in these patients, we systematically reviewed stroke and bleeding outcomes in hemodialysis patients treated with warfarin for AF. Objective:To systematically review the stroke and bleeding outcomes associated with warfarin use in the hemodialysis population to treat AF. Design:Systematic review. Setting:All adult hemodialysis patients. Patients:Patients on hemodialysis receiving warfarin for the management of AF. Measurements:Any type of stroke and/or bleeding outcomes. Methods:MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and MEDLINE(R) via OVID (1946 to January 11, 2017), and EMBASE via OVID (1974 to January 11, 2017) were searched for relevant literature. Inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and case series in English that examined stroke and bleeding outcomes in adult population of patients (over 18 years old) who are on hemodialysis and taking warfarin for AF. Studies with less than 10 subjects, case reports, review articles, and editorials were excluded. Quality of selected articles was assessed using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Results:Of the 2340 titles and abstracts screened, 7 met the inclusion criteria. Two studies showed an association between warfarin use and an increased risk of stroke (Hazard Ratio: 1.93-3.36) but no association with an increased risk of bleed (HR: 0.85-1.04), while 4 studies showed no association between warfarin and stroke outcomes (HR: 0.12-1.17) but identified an association between warfarin and increased bleeding outcome (HR: 1.41-3.96). And 1 study reported neither beneficial nor harmful effects associated with warfarin use. Limitations:The major limitation to this review is that the 7 included studies were observational cohort studies, and thus the outcome measures were not specified and predetermined in a research protocol. Conclusion:Our systematic review demonstrated that for patients with AF who are on hemodialysis, warfarin was not associated with reduced outcomes of stroke but was rather associated with increased bleeding events.

Project description:BackgroundIt is unknown whether there exist certain subsets of patients outside of the intensive care unit in whom the risk of nosocomial gastrointestinal bleeding is high enough that prophylactic use of acid-suppressive medication may be warranted.ObjectiveTo identify risk factors for nosocomial gastrointestinal bleeding in a cohort of non-critically ill hospitalized patients, develop a risk scoring system, and use this system to identify patients most likely to benefit from acid suppression.DesignCohort study.PatientsAdult patients admitted to an academic medical center from 2004 through 2007. Admissions with a principal diagnosis of gastrointestinal bleeding or a principal procedure code for cardiac catheterization were excluded.Main measuresMedication, laboratory, and other clinical data were obtained through electronic data repositories maintained at the medical center. The main outcome measure-nosocomial gastrointestinal bleeding occurring outside of the intensive care unit-was ascertained via ICD-9-CM coding and confirmed by chart review.Key resultsOf 75,723 admissions (median age = 56 years; 40 % men), nosocomial gastrointestinal bleeding occurred in 203 (0.27 %). Independent risk factors for bleeding included age > 60 years, male sex, liver disease, acute renal failure, sepsis, being on a medicine service, prophylactic anticoagulants, and coagulopathy. Risk of bleeding increased as clinical risk score derived from these factors increased. Acid-suppressive medication was utilized in > 50 % of patients in each risk stratum. Our risk scoring system identified a high risk group in whom the number-needed-to-treat with acid-suppressive medication to prevent one bleeding event was < 100.ConclusionsIn this large cohort of non-critically ill hospitalized patients, we identified several independent risk factors for nosocomial gastrointestinal bleeding. With further validation at other medical centers, the risk model derived from these factors may help clinicians to direct acid-suppressive medication to those most likely to benefit.

Project description:BackgroundThere are limited data on the safety of colonoscopy in patients with lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB). We examined the various adverse events associated with colonoscopy in acute LGIB compared with non-GIB patients.MethodsEmergency hospitalized LGIB patients (n = 161) and age- and gender-matched non-GIB controls (n = 161) were selected. Primary outcomes were any adverse events during preparation and colonoscopy procedure. Secondary outcomes were five bowel preparation-related adverse events--hypotension, systolic blood pressure <100 mmHg, volume overload, vomiting, aspiration pneumonia and loss of consciousness--and four colonoscopy-related adverse events--including hypotension, perforation, cerebrocardiovascular events and sepsis.ResultsDuring bowel preparation, 16 (9%) LGIB patients experienced an adverse event. None of the LGIB patients experienced volume overload, aspiration pneumonia or loss of consciousness; however, 12 (7%) had hypotension and 4 (2%) vomited. There were no significant differences in the five bowel preparation-related adverse events between LGIB and non-GIB patients. During colonoscopy, 25 (15%) LGIB patients experienced an adverse event. None LGIB patient had perforation or sepsis; however, 23 (14%) had hypotension and 2 (1%) experienced a cerebrocardiovascular event. There was no significant difference in the four colonoscopy-related adverse events between LGIB and non-GIB patients. In addition, no significant difference in any of the nine adverse events was found among subgroups: patients aged ≥65 years, those with comorbidities, and those with antithrombotic drug use.ConclusionsAdverse events in bowel preparation and colonoscopy among acute LGIB patients were low. No significant difference was found in adverse events between LGIB and non-GIB patients. These adverse events were also low in elderly LGIB patients, as well as in those with co-morbidities and antithrombotic drug use, suggesting that colonoscopy performed during acute LGIB did not increase adverse events.

Dataset Information

Heparin use in hemodialysis patients following gastrointestinal bleeding.

Publications

Heparin use in hemodialysis patients following gastrointestinal bleeding.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets