Antithrombotic regimens and need for critical care interventions among patients with subdural hematomas.
Intracranial hemorrhage
Neurotrauma
Subdural hematoma
Traumatic brain injury
Journal
The American journal of emergency medicine
ISSN: 1532-8171
Titre abrégé: Am J Emerg Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8309942
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 2021
09 2021
Historique:
received:
03
01
2021
revised:
09
03
2021
accepted:
10
03
2021
pubmed:
22
3
2021
medline:
7
9
2021
entrez:
21
3
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Antithrombotic-associated subdural hematomas (SDHs) are increasingly common, and the possibility of clinical deterioration in otherwise stable antithrombotic-associated SDH patients may prompt unnecessary admissions to intensive care units. It is unknown whether all antithrombotic regimens are equally associated with the need for critical care interventions. We sought to compare the frequency of critical care interventions and poor functional outcomes among three cohorts of noncomatose SDH patients: patients on no antithrombotics, patients on anticoagulants, and patients on antiplatelets alone. We performed a retrospective cohort study on all noncomatose SDH patients (Glasgow Coma Scale > 12) presenting to an academic health system in 2018. The three groups of patients were compared in terms of clinical course and functional outcome. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine predictors of need for critical care interventions and poor functional outcome at hospital discharge. There were 281 eligible patients presenting with SDHs in 2018, with 126 (45%) patients on no antithrombotics, 106 (38%) patients on antiplatelet medications alone, and 49 (17%) patients on anticoagulants. Significant predictors of critical care interventions were coagulopathy (OR 5.1, P < 0.001), presence of contusions (OR 3, P = 0.007), midline shift (OR 3.4, P = 0.002), and maximum SDH thickness (OR 2.4, P = 0.002). Significant predictors of poor functional outcome were age (OR 1.8, P < 0.001), admission Glasgow Coma Scale score (OR 0.3, P < 0.001), dementia history (OR 4.2, P = 0.001), and coagulopathy (OR 3.5, P = 0.02). Isolated antiplatelet use was not associated with either critical care interventions or functional outcome. Isolated antiplatelet use is not a significant predictor of need for critical care interventions or poor functional outcome among SDH patients and should not be used as a criterion for triage to the intensive care unit.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Antithrombotic-associated subdural hematomas (SDHs) are increasingly common, and the possibility of clinical deterioration in otherwise stable antithrombotic-associated SDH patients may prompt unnecessary admissions to intensive care units. It is unknown whether all antithrombotic regimens are equally associated with the need for critical care interventions. We sought to compare the frequency of critical care interventions and poor functional outcomes among three cohorts of noncomatose SDH patients: patients on no antithrombotics, patients on anticoagulants, and patients on antiplatelets alone.
METHODS
We performed a retrospective cohort study on all noncomatose SDH patients (Glasgow Coma Scale > 12) presenting to an academic health system in 2018. The three groups of patients were compared in terms of clinical course and functional outcome. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine predictors of need for critical care interventions and poor functional outcome at hospital discharge.
RESULTS
There were 281 eligible patients presenting with SDHs in 2018, with 126 (45%) patients on no antithrombotics, 106 (38%) patients on antiplatelet medications alone, and 49 (17%) patients on anticoagulants. Significant predictors of critical care interventions were coagulopathy (OR 5.1, P < 0.001), presence of contusions (OR 3, P = 0.007), midline shift (OR 3.4, P = 0.002), and maximum SDH thickness (OR 2.4, P = 0.002). Significant predictors of poor functional outcome were age (OR 1.8, P < 0.001), admission Glasgow Coma Scale score (OR 0.3, P < 0.001), dementia history (OR 4.2, P = 0.001), and coagulopathy (OR 3.5, P = 0.02). Isolated antiplatelet use was not associated with either critical care interventions or functional outcome.
CONCLUSION
Isolated antiplatelet use is not a significant predictor of need for critical care interventions or poor functional outcome among SDH patients and should not be used as a criterion for triage to the intensive care unit.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33744487
pii: S0735-6757(21)00220-5
doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2021.03.035
pmc: PMC9069411
mid: NIHMS1685176
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Anticoagulants
0
Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
6-12Subventions
Organisme : NINDS NIH HHS
ID : T32 NS047996
Pays : United States
Organisme : NINDS NIH HHS
ID : U01 NS069763
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of competing interest DR reports no conflict of interest. LP reports no conflict of interest. BF reports no conflict of interest. LBN reports no conflict of interest. OA reports no conflict of interest. DW reports no conflict of interest. NK reports no conflict of interest.
Références
J Trauma. 2009 Mar;66(3):942-50
pubmed: 19276776
Neurocrit Care. 2015 Dec;23(3):427-33
pubmed: 26275677
J Neurotrauma. 2020 Oct 1;37(19):2069-2080
pubmed: 32312149
Neurocrit Care. 2019 Feb;30(1):157-170
pubmed: 30136076
Am J Emerg Med. 2014 Aug;32(8):844-50
pubmed: 24857248
J Neurosurg. 1989 Dec;71(6):858-63
pubmed: 2585078
Am J Med. 2015 Dec;128(12):1300-5.e2
pubmed: 26144101
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2014 Apr;76(4):965-9
pubmed: 24662858
Stroke. 2014 Jun;45(6):1672-8
pubmed: 24876259
J Trauma. 2011 Jun;70(6):E101-7
pubmed: 20805765
CMAJ. 2011 Oct 4;183(14):1581-8
pubmed: 21876014
JAMA Neurol. 2019 Sep 01;76(9):1049-1059
pubmed: 31157856
Am J Emerg Med. 2021 Aug;46:176-182
pubmed: 33071105
Acta Neurochir (Wien). 1996;138(2):185-91
pubmed: 8686543
World Neurosurg. 2017 Nov;107:94-102
pubmed: 28774762
JAMA. 2017 Feb 28;317(8):836-846
pubmed: 28245322
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2014 Dec;77(6):969-73
pubmed: 25423540
Crit Care Med. 1999 Mar;27(3):633-8
pubmed: 10199547
Neurocrit Care. 2017 Feb;26(1):70-79
pubmed: 27230968
Ann Emerg Med. 2013 May;61(5):509-517.e4
pubmed: 23021347
J Neurosurg. 2019 Apr 12;132(5):1616-1622
pubmed: 30978691
Am J Epidemiol. 2007 Mar 15;165(6):710-8
pubmed: 17182981
J Trauma. 2005 Mar;58(3):518-22
pubmed: 15761345
JAMA Surg. 2013 Aug;148(8):763-8
pubmed: 23784088
J Neurosurg. 2012 Aug;117(2):324-33
pubmed: 22631691
West J Emerg Med. 2019 Mar;20(2):307-315
pubmed: 30881551
J Neurosurg. 2018 Jun 1;:1-8
pubmed: 29905511
World Neurosurg. 2018 Nov;119:e374-e382
pubmed: 30071339
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2015 Mar;78(3):614-21
pubmed: 25710435
West J Emerg Med. 2015 Sep;16(5):707-14
pubmed: 26587095
Acad Emerg Med. 2017 Nov;24(11):1377-1386
pubmed: 28871614
J Neurosurg. 2015 Nov;123(5):1209-15
pubmed: 25794342
N Engl J Med. 2019 Apr 4;380(14):1326-1335
pubmed: 30730782
Crit Care Med. 2011 Jul;39(7):1619-25
pubmed: 21423002
Am J Epidemiol. 1989 Jan;129(1):125-37
pubmed: 2910056
Injury. 2012 Nov;43(11):1827-32
pubmed: 21839444
Neurocrit Care. 2010 Apr;12(2):211-9
pubmed: 19806475
Am J Forensic Med Pathol. 2016 Sep;37(3):174-8
pubmed: 27428027
J Neurosurg. 2008 Oct;109(4):664-9
pubmed: 18826353
Neurosurg Focus. 2017 Nov;43(5):E12
pubmed: 29088960