Monthly Archives: December 2019

Practice guidelines

Best Practices For TBI Patients On Oral Anticoagulants: Part 1

Leave a comment

Over the past five years, there has been a tremendous increase in the number of patients presenting to hospitals with traumatic brain injury. The bulk of these injuries occur in the elderly, and a rapidly growing number of them are taking anticoagulants for management of their medical comorbidities. Although there is a growing body of literature addressing this issue, many practical questions remained unanswered. This is due to the lack of randomized controlled studies of the clinical problems involved. And given the ethical issues of obtaining consent for them, there likely never will be.

An interdisciplinary group of Austrian experts was convened last year to consider the most common questions asked about TBI and concomitant anticoagulant use. They reviewed the existing literature from 2007 to 2018 and combined it with their own expertise to construct some initial answers to those questions.

Over the course of my next few posts, I’ll dig into each of the questions and review their suggested answers. And remember, all these Q&A apply to patients with known/suspected TBI with known/suspected oral anticoagulant use.

Let’s start with some diagnosis questions.

Q1. Should head CT be performed in all patients with known or suspected TBI and suspected or known use of anticoagulants?

Answer: All patients with TBI and potential or known use of anticoagulants should undergo an initial screening CT scan of the head.

A number of systems that predict the utility of head CT already exist (e.g. Canadian head CT rules). However, they do not and cannot take into account the various permutations of drugs and other medical conditions that may influence coagulation status. Vitamin K antagonists (VKA) like warfarin have been clearly shown to increase mortality after TBI. Data involving the use of anti-platelet agents or direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) are a bit less clear.

Q2. Should a repeat head CT scan be repeated in these patients, and if so, when?

Answer: Patients with intracranial hemorrhage on their initial scan should have a repeat within 6-24 hours, based on the location of the bleed.

The natural course of patients who have an identified intracranial hemorrhage is extremely unpredictable. For that reason, a repeat scan is suggested. However, there are no consistent data that would indicate when this should occur. Indications and potential for progression vary by type of bleed (subarachnoid, subdural, epidural, intraparenchymal). Thus, you must work with your neurosurgeons to arrive at a reasonable repeat interval, and it may be different for a high-risk location (epidural) vs one with low risk (subarachnoid).

Q3. Should a patient with an initial head CT that is negative be admitted for neurologic monitoring?

Answer: Patients taking only aspirin with GCS 15 and initially negative head CT may be discharged. All other patients should be admitted for at least 24 hours for neurologic monitoring as follows (q1 hr x 4 hrs, q2 hr x 8 hrs, q4 hr x 12 hrs). Repeat head CT is indicated if there is any deterioration in neurologic exam.

Multiple papers have described the occurrence of delayed intracranial hemorrhage in patients taking oral anticoagulants other than aspirin. Although some bleeds may develop days or weeks after the initial injury, the majority occur during the first 24 hours. Routine repeat head CT in this group of patients with an initially negative scan has not been found to be helpful.

Q4. What about patients with an initially negative head CT who cannot be examined neurologically (intubation, sedation, dementia)?

Answer: Unexaminable patients should undergo a repeat head CT within 6-24 hours based on the underlying risk factors for development of delayed hemorrhage.

There is no real literature on this topic, but this statement makes sense. Each center should pick a reasonable time interval and include it in their own practice guideline.

In my next post, I’ll review the panel’s recommendations on coagulation tests and target levels for reversal of the various classes of anticoagulants.

Reference: Diagnostic and therapeutic approach in adult patients with traumatic brain injury receiving oral anticoagulant therapy: an Austrian interdisciplinary consensus statement. Crit Care 23:62, 2019.

Thorax

Does Chest Tube Size Matter? Part 3

Leave a comment

So far, I’ve looked at the only two papers in the trauma literature that examine the question of chest tube size for hemothorax. As you may recall, both were woefully underpowered. Finding no difference in a study without enough subjects does not infer that the two interventions have the same results. It simply means that a (much) better study needs to be done.

One of these papers admitted that more work needed to be done, the other did not. And the one that admitted no weaknesses has been quoted by some of the pigtail catheter studies I am reviewing this week as supporting their hypothesis. They are using it as the rationale that even small catheters might work. Hmm, faulty premises?

After reviewing the pigtail for hemothorax literature since the beginning of time, I found exactly two papers that address the issue. And really, it’s just one. The first one published in 2012 was the initial series. The numbers were expanded over the following years by the same authors, and the new data was published in 2017. Of interest, the authors cite their own early paper as supporting the effectiveness of using a pigtail catheter, even though it can’t due to very low numbers Let’s dig in.

This one comes from the group a the University of Arizona in Tucson. They prospectively collected data on pigtail catheter insertions from 2008 to 2014. The outcomes studied included initial drainage output, catheter complications, and failure rate (incomplete drainage requiring another intervention).

Tubes and pigtails were placed by attending physicians or residents. Patient selection was at the discretion of the attending surgeon. The total patient group was analyzed, and then it was split into emergent placement vs non-emergent placement. Here are the factoids:

  • A total of 307 chest tubes and 189 pigtails were placed; pigtail usage increased over the study period
  • Pigtail catheter patients were older overall, especially in the non-emergent group (this was admitted as selection bias in the paper)
  • Initial output was higher in the pigtail group and reached statistical significance in the emergent placement group (500 cc vs 250 cc)
  • Pigtail insertion complications trended higher for all patients and in the non-emergent group, but not in the emergent placement group (??)
  • Failure rates were not different across the groups

The authors state the their study “clearly demonstrates favorable outcomes in pigtail catheter usage.” But does it?

Bottom line: Once again, this is a completely underpowered study. The pigtail results would need to be 2-3 times better than chest tube results to show any statistical significance. But they are not. So being non-inferior doesn’t mean anything with such small numbers. However, if you properly power a study that shows no differences, then they truly are equivalent. But with the work available to date, you can’t just run out and start using pigtails because they are “as good as” chest tubes. 

There were a few statistically significant differences in this study, but again this is clouded by other design problems. The emergent group had significantly more initial output through the pigtails. This is odd from a fluid dynamics point of view. How do you get more of a thick liquid to drain from a tiny tube? 

One potential explanation is the ability to more accurately measure the initial output in the pigtail group. When a chest tube is inserted, there is frequently some blood loss on the bed which is difficult to estimate. But when a pigtail is inserted there is almost never any leakage. It all comes out through the tube. Could the excess pigtail drainage be accounted for by external loss during chest tube placement?

The real bottom line: There are a grand total of three published papers in the past seven years that have tried to deal with tube size in traumatic hemothorax. All of them are completely underpowered and rely on the lack of significant differences to tout that they are equivalent. The real answer is: we don’t know. This is certainly not the quality of data you want to use to change your practice. We don’t know for sure if smaller tubes and pigtails result in more retained hemothoraces or followup procedures. So buyer beware! If you choose to use small tubes or pigtails in your patients, you are in uncharted territory. The first author of the 2012 small tube paper even stated that a larger multi-center is needed. I completely agree! Meanwhile, I’ll stick to big (36 Fr) and bigger (40 Fr) for hemothorax.

Reference: A Prospective Study of 7-Year Experience Using Percutaneous 14-French Pigtail Catheters for Traumatic Hemothorax / Hemopneumothorax at a Level-1 Trauma Center: Size Still Does Not Matter. World J Surg 42(1):107-113, 2012.