4.6 Article

Assessment of need for hemostatic evaluation in patients taking valproic acid: A retrospective cross-sectional study

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 17, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0264351

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to determine the coagulopathies induced by VPA in patients undergoing high-risk surgery. The results showed that approximately 46.6% of the patients using VPA exhibited coagulation disorders, with platelet function disorder being the most common.
Introduction Valproic acid (VPA) is a frequently prescribed anti-epileptic drug. Since its introduction side effects on hemostasis are reported. However, studies show conflicting results, and the clinical relevance is questioned. We aimed to determine the coagulopathies induced by VPA in patients who undergo high-risk surgery. The study results warrant attention to this issue, which might contribute to reducing bleeding complications in future patients. Methods Between January 2012 and August 2020, 73 consecutive patients using VPA were retrospectively included. Extensive laboratory hemostatic assessment (including platelet function tests) was performed before elective high-risk surgery. Patient characteristics, details of VPA treatment, and laboratory results were extracted from medical records. Results 46.6% of the patients using VPA (n = 73) showed coagulopathy. Mainly, platelet function disorder was found (36.4%). Thrombocytopenia was seen in 9.6% of the patients. Data suggested that the incidence of coagulopathies was almost twice as high in children as compared to adults and hypofibrinogenemia was only demonstrated in children. No association was found between the incidence of coagulopathies and VPA dosage (mg/kg/day). Conclusion A considerable number of patients using VPA were diagnosed with coagulopathy, especially platelet function disorder. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm the need for comprehensive laboratory testing before elective high-risk surgery in these patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据