RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Patients with a bleeding tendency with normal laboratory tests have been described as having an unclassified bleeding disorder or bleeding disorder of unknown cause (BDUC). There are very little data available on how to manage pregnancy. OBJECTIVES: To study management and outcomes of these patients at four United Kingdom hemophilia comprehensive care centers. METHODS: Retrospective case note review from 2010-2020. RESULTS: Sixty deliveries in 36 patients were recorded. The median International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis bleeding assessment tool score was 9. In 54 cases for which data were available, the odds ratio for post partum hemorrhage (PPH) was 6.3 for no primary hemostatic prophylaxis versus prophylaxis (95% confidence interval 1.2-34.2, p < .05); 7/9 (78%) versus 16/45 (36%) PPH incidence for the groups, respectively. Hemostatic prophylaxis was with tranexamic acid but some patients received desmopressin or platelet infusions. Secondary PPH was seen in 5/60 (8%) of cases. No neonatal bleeding complications or maternal thromboembolic complications were noted. Avoidance of regional anesthesia and fetal delivery precautions were commonly advised, but in the small number of cases in which they occurred no complications were noted. CONCLUSIONS: Despite hemostatic prophylaxis PPH was commonly seen. Further prospective studies of BDUC patients are required to determine optimal management in pregnancy as well as determine the pathophysiological basis of bleeding.
Asunto(s)
Hemofilia A , Hemostáticos , Hemorragia Posparto , Ácido Tranexámico , Embarazo , Femenino , Humanos , Ácido Tranexámico/efectos adversos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Estudios Prospectivos , Desamino Arginina Vasopresina , Hemofilia A/tratamiento farmacológico , Hemostáticos/efectos adversosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Bleeding of unknown cause (BUC) and unclassified bleeding disorders (UBD) are increasingly recognized. There is no guidance on diagnosis and management. OBJECTIVES: To examine UK haemophilia centre registration patterns and current practice for UBD patients. METHODS: In a two-step process, the UK National Haemophilia Database (NHD) was reviewed for registration patterns of UBD patients and a survey of UK haemophilia centers was conducted (January/February 2021) to capture current practice for diagnosis and management of patients with UBD. RESULTS/DISCUSSION: Overall, registrations with the NHD for UBD patients has sharply risen from 2012 to 2020 and in 2019 accounted for 2.65% of registered patients. For the survey, the response rate was 52/67 (78%). Practice was widely variable; 35/52 (67%) centers register UBD; among these 35 centers, terminology included UBD (28 centers), undiagnosed bleeding disorder (four centers), and BUC (three centers); 34/52 (65%) centers use a formal bleeding assessment tool. For management of dental extraction and high bleeding risk surgery in a fictional UBD patient we found that tranexamic acid was widely used; however, beyond this a variety of hemostatic products were advised including blood products, recombinant factor VIIa/prothrombin complex concentrate, and desmopressin. There was general consensus (≈90%) on avoiding regional anesthesia in pregnancy, but no agreement on the need for fetal precautions to avoid bleeding at delivery (50% would advise these). There was a disparity of opinion on chemical thromboprophylaxis, and management of patients without prior hemostatic challenges and offspring of these patients. CONCLUSION: This study provides a snapshot of current practice and real-world data in this area. Future studies need to address the gaps in evidence.