Urgent Management of Bleeding in Immune Thrombocytopenia: Towards a Standardized Protocol in the Emergency Department
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Severe bleeding is a rare but serious complication of immune thrombocytopenia (ITP). A standard approach to treatment is lacking and the delivery of emergency care is often disjointed. The objective of this study was to describe 1) the treatments and outcomes of ITP patients who present to the emergency department (ED) with severe thrombocytopenia and bleeding; and 2) predictors of worsening bleeding or death among ITP patients presenting to the ED. Methods We did a retrospective cohort study of all patients with ITP who presented to the ED with severe thrombocytopenia (platelet count <20 x109/L) and bleeding in 4 academic hospitals affiliated with McMaster University in Hamilton, Canada between January 2008 and April 2016. Patients were followed from arrival to the ED until 10 days after hospital admission, discharge or death. We extracted demographic data, bleeding symptoms at presentation, all ITP treatments administered, new or worsening bleeding, thrombosis and mortality. Bleeding was graded using the ITP Bleeding Score. We defined major bleeding as intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), pulmonary bleeding, or gross gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB). We summarized the results descriptively by frequencies (percentage), and medians (interquartile range [IQR]). Ethics approval was obtained from the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board. Funding was provided by the Platelet Disorder Support Association. Results We identified 110 patients who presented to the ED (n=139 ED visits) with platelets <20 x109/L and bleeding. Median age was 59 years (IQR: 38-74) and 57% were female. For 63 patients (57%), this was their initial presentation of ITP; for the remaining 47 patients, 36% had previously been treated for ITP and had received a median of 3 (IQR: 2-4) ITP therapies. Twenty-eight patients presented to the ED with major bleeding; the remaining 82 patients had ED visits with minor bleeding only. There were 31 ED visits with major bleeding at presentation including GIB (n=23 visits), ICH (n=4), pulmonary hemorrhage (n=3) and GIB plus ICH (n=1). Median platelet count among patients with major bleeding was 3 x109/L (IQR: 3-8 x109/L). Patients received a median of 3 ITP therapies (IQR: 2-4) after presentation to the ED, including intravenous immune globulin (IVIG; 90% of visits), corticosteroids (77% of visits), platelet transfusions (74% of visits), and romiplostim (3% of visits). Median time from ED presentation to first treatment was 7.6 (4.5-9.5) hours. Treatment for bleeding was initiated by Internal Medicine or Hematology consultants in 19/31 visits (61%) or Emergency Department physicians in 12/31 visits (39%). One patient developed arterial thrombosis and 2 patients died, both from bleeding. There were 6 patients who initially presented to the ED with minor bleeding but who subsequently developed major bleeding after a median of 2 days (range: 1-7). All 6 patients had oral purpura and 4 had frank hematuria before or coincident with the development of major bleeding. Conclusions Management of ITP-associated bleeding in the ED consisted mostly of IVIG, corticosteroids and platelet transfusions. Time to first ITP treatment was greater than 7 hours from ED presentation. Oral purpura and hematuria were associated with the development of new or worsening bleeding. A standardized protocol for the management of ITP bleeding in the ED would help identify patients at risk for new or worsening bleeding, and improve health care delivery by making appropriate treatments available in a timely manner. Disclosures Arnold: Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; UCB: Consultancy; UCB: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,119 | 0,090 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,006 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,009 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».