ArticleMayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes2024
Improving Patient Safety Through Proper Ordering and Administration of Andexanet Alfa.
Article in Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate prescribing practices for the anti-Xa reversal agent, andexanet alfa, to identify challenges in ordering and administering this medication, and to offer recommendations to improve patient safety. Patients and Methods: This retrospective study reviewed all adult patients treated with andexanet alfa (AA) at a single institution between January 1, 2018, and March 31, 2020. We identified ordering and administration benchmarks based on recommendations from previous clinical trials on AA. We then reviewed these medical records to determine compliance with these benchmarks. We also collected data related to thrombotic complications and mortality. Results: Twenty-two AA dosing sets (loading and infusion dose) were given to 20 patients. Eight (36%) dosing sets met our ordering benchmarks regarding appropriate dose, time since last direct oral anticoagulants, urgency of administration, and documentation. Three (14%) dosing sets met the administrative benchmarks of being started within 30 minutes of the initial order, and 13 (59%) dosing sets had timely infusion of the infusion dose after the loading dose. No dosing set met all our administration benchmarks. There was 1 thrombotic event within 24 hours of the correct AA dose and 1 potential death related to AA. Conclusion: This study highlights challenges in ordering and administering AA at our institution and brings awareness to potential similar concerns at other institutions. These challenges also identified the need for optimized order sets, a streamlined administration process, and frequent provider education to improve patient safety.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.