부산대학교 도서관

Purpose: Pre-injury oral anticoagulants are associated with worse outcomes in geriatric (G-60) trauma patients, but there are limited data comparing warfarin with direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC). We sought to compare outcomes in G-60 trauma patients taking pre-injury DOACs vs. warfarin. Methods: All trauma patients, age ≥60 who were admitted to the hospital and taking an oral anticoagulant pre-injury were retrospectively identified. Patients were excluded if their reason for admission was a suicide attempt or penetrating extremity injury. Outcome measures included blood transfusions, hospital LOS, and mortality. A second analysis was performed, whereby patients were matched using ISS and age. Results: There were 3,941 patients identified; 331 had documentation of anticoagulant use, pre-injury (warfarin, n = 237; DOAC, n = 94). Demographics were similar, but ISS [9 (4-13) vs. 8 (4-9), p = .027], initial INR [2.2 (1.8-2.9) vs. 1.2 (1.1-1.5), p < .001], and the use of pharmacologic reversal agents (48 vs. 14%, p < .001) were higher in the warfarin group. There was no difference in the use of blood transfusions (24 vs. 17%, p = .164) or mortality (5.9 vs. 4.3%, p = .789) between warfarin and DOAC groups, respectively. However, LOS was longer in the warfarin group [5 (3-7.5) vs. 4 (2-6.3) days, p = .02]. Matched analysis showed no difference in blood transfusions (23 vs. 17%, p = .276), mortality (2.1 vs. 4.3%, p = .682) or LOS [5 (3-7) vs. 4 (2-6.3) days, p = .158] between warfarin and DOAC groups, respectively. Conclusion: Pre-injury DOACs are not associated with worse clinical outcomes compared to warfarin in G-60 trauma patients. Higher use of pharmacologic reversal agents with warfarin may be related to differences in mechanism of action and effect on INR.