Oral Anticoagulant Use by Emergency Medical Services Patients in the United States ================================================================================== * Henry Wang * Mengda Yu * Ching Min Chu * Travis P. Sharkey-Toppen * J. Madison Hyer * Michelle Nassal * Alix Delamare * Joanthan Powell * Lai Wei * Ashish Panchal ## ABSTRACT **OBJECTIVE** Oral anticoagulant (OAC) use raises the risk of death in life-threatening conditions such as hemorrhagic stroke, trauma and traumatic brain injury. We sought to describe the national characteristics of Emergency Medical Services patients with a history of OAC use. **METHODS** We used prehospital electronic medical record data from 2018-2020 from the ESO Data Collaborative. We included adults (age≥18 years) receiving 911 EMS care. OAC use included warfarin, dabigatran, rivaroxaban and apixaban. We determined the incidence of EMS calls by OAC users as well as their variation by EMS agency. We compared EMS call, patient, and response characteristics between OAC and non-OAC users, including primary impressions and hospital diagnoses. **RESULTS** There were 16,244,550 adult 911 EMS events, including 906,575 by OAC users (56 per 1,000 911 events). Compared with non-OAC users, OAC users were more likely to be older (73.6 vs. 56.9 years), white (78.0% vs. 51.4%) and non-Hispanic (84.5% vs. 78.0%). Incidents involving OAC users were more likely at nursing homes, rehabilitation or long-term care facilities (17.0% vs. 9.2%) but less likely to involve trauma (14.7% vs. 18.1%) or cardiac arrest (1.2% vs. 1.4%). Among OAC users, the most common EMS primary clinical impressions were chest pain (7.4%), altered mental status (7.3%), injury (6.5%), abdominal pain (4.3%), and brain injury (2.8%). **CONCLUSIONS** In this national series of prehospital events, 1 in 18 adult EMS encounters involved OAC users. These results provide key perspectives on the presentation of the OAC users in EMS care. Keywords * Emergency Medical Services * anticoagulants * hemorrhage * medications ## INTRODUCTION ### Background Life-threatening hemorrhage such as traumatic brain injury, hemorrhagic stroke, gastrointestinal bleeding or vascular or visceral injury from blunt or penetrating trauma, is among the most important time-critical conditions treated by prehospital Emergency Medical Services (EMS).1,2 Common EMS interventions for life-threatening bleeding include direct hemorrhage control, tourniquet application, administration of intravenous fluids and vasopressors. Select EMS units are also able to treat hemorrhage with blood products such a red blood cells, whole blood and plasma.3–5 ### Importance Oral anticoagulants such as warfarin and direct oral anticoagulants (OAC - dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban) are widely used in the outpatient setting for treating or preventing a range of medical conditions. For example, OACs may be used patients with to prevent strokes in patients with atrial fibrillation or after prosthetic heart valve replacement. OACs are also commonly used to treat or prevent thromboembolism.6 Oral anticoagulant use is increasing internationally.6–11 A major pitfall of OACs is that their use increases the risk of serious bleeding, including life-threatening hemorrhage.6 Given EMS’s role in the emergent treatment of hemorrhage, knowledge of a patient’s OAC use history is essential, potentially influencing prehospital care and outcomes. Despite the prevalence of OAC use, there are no broad descriptions of OAC use history among patients receiving EMS care. ### Goals of this Investigation Leveraging a large-scale EMS electronic health record system, we sought to describe the characteristics and course of EMS patients with a history of oral anticoagulant (OAC) use. ## METHODS ### Study Design and Setting We analyzed data from the ESO Data Collaborative (Austin, TX). This analysis was approved by the Ohio State University Office of Responsible Research Practices. The ESO Data Collaborative (Austin, TX) is one of the largest out-of-hospital electronic health record systems in the United States. The software product collects clinical information for the EMS encounter, including event characteristics, patient demographics, clinical signs and symptoms, interventions, vital signs, and outcomes. The software contains data validation (forcing) options to require or constrain user entries for select data elements. The current software follows the National EMS Information System (NEMSIS) version 3 standard and the associated data definitions.12 More than 2,000 EMS agencies use the ESO electronic health record software system. The ESO Data Set is a repository of clinical data from EMS agencies that agreed to providing de-identified data for research and benchmarking. The data have been used in a wide range of research studies.13–16 In select communities, these EMS records are linked with hospital outcomes data through a proprietary bi-directional Healthcare Data Exchange (HDE) system. Among participating hospitals and EMS agencies, hospital data elements (including ICD-10 diagnosis codes and dispositions) are linked with the prehospital record using HL7 messaging. ### Selection of Participants We included all adult patients (≥18 years) receiving “911” EMS care with a reported history of oral anticoagulant use. EMS providers reported medication history as obtained during the course of clinical care. OAC used included the reported use of warfarin (Coumadin®), dabigatran (Pradaxa®), rivaroxaban (Xarelto®), and apixaban (Eliquis®). While not part of the primary analysis, we also identified instances of reported injected anticoagulants, including heparin, enoxaparin (Lovenox®), dalteparin (Fragmin®), Fondaparinux (Arixtra®), and Edoxaban (Savaysa®). We included only medications reported as part of the patient’s medical history, not medications administered during EMS care. We did not study other oral medications that may potentiate bleeding such as such as antiplatelet agents (-e.g., aspirin or clopidogrel). ### Outcomes We focused on clinical variables plausibly associated with or influenced by a history of OAC use. Variables of primary interest included patient characteristics (age, sex, race, ethnicity), incident characteristics (location type, medical vs. trauma, cardiac arrest, census region). We also determined the primary clinical impression reported by EMS providers; we grouped the impressions according to ICD-10 categories as implemented in the NEMSIS v.3 system.17 We also identified subcategories within each primary impression major category. For the subset of EMS events linked to hospital data, we identified the primary hospital discharge diagnosis, grouping according to ICD-10 disease category. ### Data Analysis We determined the number and incidence of adult 911 responses with a reported patient history of OAC use. Using univariate logistic regression, we compared patient, incident and care characteristics between OAC vs non-OAC users. We compared EMS primary clinical impressions between events involving OAC and non-OAC users. Among cases linked to hospital data, we assessed differences in primary discharge diagnoses between OAC and non-OAC users. ## RESULTS During the study period (2018-2020) there were 16.2 million 911 responses. A history of patient OAC use was reported for 906,575 911 events (55.8 per 1,000 911 events (95% CI 55.7-55.9%)). (Figure 1) The most commonly reported OACs were apixaban (46.0%), warfarin (34.8%), rivaboxarin (17.5%) and dabigatran (2.4%). (Table 1) The use of other injectable anticoagulants was reported for a smaller number of patients. When stratified by EMS agency, the median incidence of OAC use was 54 per 1,000 911 responses (95% CI: 52, 56, min 0, max 500). ![FIGURE 1](http://medrxiv.org/http://medrxiv.stage.highwire.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/09/29/2023.09.27.23296256/F1.medium.gif) [FIGURE 1](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/09/29/2023.09.27.23296256/F1) FIGURE 1 Study population. View this table: [TABLE 1](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/09/29/2023.09.27.23296256/T1) TABLE 1 Oral and other anticoagulants reported by EMS patients. Only oral anticoagulants (OAC) were included in the primary analysis. Compared with other patients, OAC users were more likely to be older and female. (Table 2) Whites and non-Hispanics were more likely to use OACs. Patient OAC use history was more likely for calls in nursing rehabilitation and long-term care facilities, and less likely for calls in public locations. Compared with medical patients, patients with trauma-associated conditions were less likely to report OAC use. However, OAC use was more common among patients with mixed medical/trauma conditions. OAC use was twice as likely among patients presenting with cardiac arrest. OAC use was least likely among EMS events in the Midwest census region. View this table: [TABLE 2](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/09/29/2023.09.27.23296256/T2) TABLE 2 Characteristics of EMS patients stratified by history of oral anticoagulant (OAC) use. OAC use defined as use of warfarin (coumadin), dabigatran (Pradaxa), rivaroxaban (Xarelto), and apixaban (Eliquis). Odds ratios determined using univariate logistic regression. OAC use history was most common among patients with a reported clinical impression involving cardiovascular, infectious or respiratory conditions. (Table 3) Specific primary clinical impressions strongly associated with OAC use history included acute coronary syndromes, arrhythmias, heart failure, gastrointestinal bleeding, hemorrhaging, urinary tract infection, ear, nose and throat problems, pulmonary embolism, and pulmonary hypertension. (Appendix 1) Of note, neurologic conditions including intracranial hemorrhage, vertigo, strokes and transient ischemic attacks and visual disturbances were associated with OAC use. (Appendix 1) View this table: [TABLE 3](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/09/29/2023.09.27.23296256/T3) TABLE 3 EMS primary clinical impression, stratified by history of oral anticoagulant (OAC) use. Includes 906,575 OAC and 15,337,975 non-OAC patients. Detailed clinical impression subcategories presented in Appendix 1. Among the 16.2 million adult 911 events, linkage to hospital data was available for 621,158 patients (3.8%). (Table 4) Hospital discharge diagnosis categories most strongly associated with patient OAC use history included D50-D89 (Diseases of the blood and blood-forming organs and certain disorders involving the immune mechanism), I00-I99 (diseases of the circulatory system), and L00-L99 (diseases of the skin and subcutaneous tissue). View this table: [TABLE 4](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/09/29/2023.09.27.23296256/T4) TABLE 4 Primary hospital ICD-10 discharge diagnoses of EMS patients with a history of oral anticoagulant (OAC) use. Includes 621,158 of 16,244,550 (3.8%) EMS encounters successfully linked with hospital records. ## LIMITATIONS OAC use may have been underestimated. EMS providers likely recorded OAC use based upon clinical data sources such as patient and family reports. It is unclear if reports may have been based upon medication administration or pharmacy records. Medication records may also not be available for patients who were unconscious or exhibited altered mentation. We identified OAC use but not the reasons for their use. We also could not identify the dosages of OACs used by patients. We identified patterns of OAC use and their associations with select conditions; we did not evaluate associations between OAC use and patient outcomes. The latter varies by underlying disease process and requires risk adjustment, which is not standardized for linked EMS-hospital data. While we were able to identify hospital conditions through discharge diagnoses, we were not able to identify the specific pathologic conditions experienced by OAC patients. We did not apply multivariate regression to identify predictors of OAC given the large number of variables and uncertain statistical power. We did not study parenteral anticoagulants nor other agents that may potentiate bleeding such as such as antiplatelet agents. ## DISCUSSION The history of OAC use is a critical risk factor in life-threatening hemorrhagic and neurologic emergencies. Our study offers important information on the incidence and characteristics of OAC users receiving EMS care. In this national series, 1 of every 18 adult EMS responses involved a patient with history of OAC use. In some EMS agencies the prevalence of OAC use was even higher. As expected, OAC use was common in certain patients with high-risk conditions such as cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, and central neurologic emergencies. OAC use was also strongly associated with EMS responses at nursing, rehabilitation and long-term facilities. These observations highlight the prevalence of OAC use among EMS patients and are particularly important given the increasing prevalence of OAC use internationally.6–8,10,11 The knowledge of a patient’s history of OAC use has extremely important implications for EMS care. OAC use may directly amplify the severity and risk of critical conditions, such as hemorrhagic stroke, traumatic brain injury, or gastrointestinal or extremity bleeding.6,18 In the setting of acute life-threatening bleeding, knowledge of a patient’s OAC use history may prompt the hospital use of rescue therapies such as blood products (-eg, plasma or red cells), procoagulants (-eg, tranexamic acid, vitamin K, prothrombin complex concentrate) or direct OAC-specific reversal agents (-eg, andexanet, idarucizumab).6,19 Because of the potential for rapid deterioration of patients with life-threatening hemorrhage, even the early accurate identification of OAC use history can have important downstream benefits.20 The identification of OAC use history may prompt earlier notification to receiving hospitals or transportation to specialty care centers; for example, direct transportation to a trauma center.20 Nishijima, et al. found that the addition of OAC use to trauma triaging criteria improved the sensitivity for detection of intracranial hemorrhage and death.2 Novel technologies such as mobile stroke units may also be leveraged to accelerate identification or exclusion of intracranial hemorrhage in high-risk OAC users.21,22 In certain settings, prehospital administration of procoagulants or OAC-reversal agents may be feasible and appropriate. Our observations extend upon prior studies. In a retrospective analysis of 2,110 EMS responses for older (age ≥55) persons with head injury, 28% were identified with a history of OAC use.2 We found that while many EMS calls for OAC users involved a primary condition of trauma, the majority of events involved non-traumatic emergencies. Prior studies highlight the increasing prevalence of OAC use among older adults and nursing home patients.9,23,24 Our study affirms these observations, finding that OAC use was more likely among EMS responses at nursing, rehabilitation and long-term care facilities. Our study spotlights the broader systemwide prevalence of OAC use. The latter approach is important for several reasons. First, we were able to identify OAC use in an EMS population with diverse emergency conditions. Secondly, we able to identify individuals with baseline OAC use - not just those with confirmed hemorrhage. We were also able to glean insights from the small proportion of patients linked to hospital data. The formation of inferences from linked prehospital/hospital data can be challenging due to the structure of discharge diagnosis coding taxonomies (the International Classification of Diseases) and the myriad medical conditions. We found that focus on key disease subsets was important in identifying hospital conditions associated with patient OAC use. For example, OAC use was not associated with the broad category of neurologic conditions. However, key subset conditions such as intracranial hemorrhage and stroke revealed strong associations with OAC use. The use of linked EMS/hospital data to assess OAC use with hospital outcomes will need careful analytic strategies and taxonomies to identify high OAC-risk conditions. Our study highlights several important areas for future investigation. Nishijima, et al. found that EMS clinicians often do not accurately identify direct OAC use.1 In this context, clinical decision rules may aid in identifying patient and call characteristics at higher risk for OAC use. Our observations highlight several plausible candidate variables such as older age, white race, cardiac arrest, or call locations. Given the wide range of OAC use, additional study is needed to distinguish EMS presentations at high risk for sequelae from hemorrhage. Lastly, geographic mapping of OAC users could be very insightful for system level preparation, identifying hotspots for deploying and positioning resources such as mobile stroke units, procoagulant medications, and novel OAC reversal agents. We observed that EMS calls with OAC users were more common in the Northeast census region, highlight the potential importance of national regional variations in OAC use. In conclusion, in this national series 1 in 18 adult EMS encounters involved OAC users. While OAC use was common in high-risk populations, presentation with injury was less common. These results offer perspectives on the population of OAC patients receiving EMS care. ## Data Availability Data are not available from the authors. ## Acknowledgements The content derived from this Data Set remains the property of ESO Solutions, Inc. ESO is not responsible for any claims arising from works based on the original data, text, tables, or figures. The authors wish to express their appreciation to ESO for its assistance with the data. ## APPENDIX 1 Detailed EMS primary clinical impression, stratified by history of oral anticoagulant (OAC) use. Includes 906, 575 OAC and 15, 337, 975 non-OAC. View this table: [Table5](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/09/29/2023.09.27.23296256/T5) ## Footnotes * **Contact:** Henry E. Wang, MD, MS, Professor and Vice Chair for Research, Department of Emergency Medicine, The Ohio State University, 376 W. 10th Ave, 789 Prior Hall, Columbus, OH 43210, Henry.wang{at}osumc.edu, 205-410-1267 * **Presented at:** National Association of EMS Physicians Annual Meeting, Tampa, Florida, January 2023. * Received September 27, 2023. * Revision received September 27, 2023. * Accepted September 29, 2023. * © 2023, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory The copyright holder for this pre-print is the author. All rights reserved. The material may not be redistributed, re-used or adapted without the author's permission. ## REFERENCES 1. 1.Nishijima DK, Gaona S, Waechter T, et al. Do EMS Providers Accurately Ascertain Anticoagulant and Antiplatelet Use in Older Adults with Head Trauma? Prehospital emergency care : official journal of the National Association of EMS Physicians and the National Association of State EMS Directors 2017;21:209–15. 2. 2.Nishijima DK, Gaona SD, Waechter T, et al. Out-of-Hospital Triage of Older Adults With Head Injury: A Retrospective Study of the Effect of Adding “Anticoagulation or Antiplatelet Medication Use” as a Criterion. Annals of emergency medicine 2017;70:127–38 e6. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F09%2F29%2F2023.09.27.23296256.atom) 3. 3.Sperry JL, Guyette FX, Brown JB, et al. Prehospital Plasma during Air Medical Transport in Trauma Patients at Risk for Hemorrhagic Shock. New England Journal of Medicine 2018;379:315–26. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F09%2F29%2F2023.09.27.23296256.atom) 4. 4.Braverman MA, Smith A, Pokorny D, et al. Prehospital whole blood reduces early mortality in patients with hemorrhagic shock. Transfusion 2021;61 Suppl 1:S15–s21. 5. 5.Crombie N, Doughty HA, Bishop JRB, et al. Resuscitation with blood products in patients with trauma-related haemorrhagic shock receiving prehospital care (RePHILL): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial. The Lancet Haematology 2022;9:e250–e61. 6. 6.Chen A, Stecker E, B AW. Direct Oral Anticoagulant Use: A Practical Guide to Common Clinical Challenges. J Am Heart Assoc 2020;9:e017559. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1161/JAHA.120.017559&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F09%2F29%2F2023.09.27.23296256.atom) 7. 7.Barnes GD, Lucas E, Alexander GC, Goldberger ZD. National Trends in Ambulatory Oral Anticoagulant Use. The American journal of medicine 2015;128:1300–5 e2. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.amjmed.2015.05.044&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26144101&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F09%2F29%2F2023.09.27.23296256.atom) 8. 8.Lutsey PL, Walker RF, MacLehose RF, Alonso A, Adam TJ, Zakai NA. Direct oral anticoagulants and warfarin for venous thromboembolism treatment: Trends from 2012 to 2017. Res Pract Thromb Haemost 2019;3:668–73. 9. 9.Chen Q, Lapane K, Nunes AP, Tjia J, Hugunin J, Alcusky M. Prevalence and the factors associated with oral anticoagulant use among nursing home residents. J Clin Pharm Ther 2021;46:1714–28. 10. 10.Colacci M, Tseng EK, Sacks CA, Fralick M. Oral Anticoagulant Utilization in the United States and United Kingdom. J Gen Intern Med 2020;35:2505–7. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s11606-020-05904-0&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=32514896&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F09%2F29%2F2023.09.27.23296256.atom) 11. 11.Zapata-Wainberg G, Quintas S, Ximenez-Carrillo Rico A, et al. Epidemiology of Intracranial Hemorrhage Associated with Oral Anticoagulants in Spain: Trends in Anticoagulation Complications Registry - The TAC 2 Study. Interv Neurol 2018;7:284–95. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F09%2F29%2F2023.09.27.23296256.atom) 12. 12.NEMSIS. (Accessed November 28, 2021, at [https://nemsis.org/](https://nemsis.org/).) 13. 13.Nwanne T, Jarvis J, Barton D, Donnelly JP, Wang HE. Advanced airway management success rates in a national cohort of emergency medical services agencies. Resuscitation 2020;146:43–9. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F09%2F29%2F2023.09.27.23296256.atom) 14. 14.Wang HE, Donnelly JP, Barton D, Jarvis JL. Assessing Advanced Airway Management Performance in a National Cohort of Emergency Medical Services Agencies. Annals of emergency medicine 2018;71:597–607 e3. 15. 15.Walter DC, Chan HK, Crowe RP, Osborn L, Jarvis J, Wang HE. Out-of-hospital, non-invasive, positive-pressure ventilation for acute dyspnea. J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open 2021;2:e12542. 16. 16.George TP, Chan HK, Crowe RP, et al. Clinical characteristics and course of out-of-hospital shock in a national emergency medical services cohort. J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open 2020;1:432–9. 17. 17.NEMSIS Techncial Advisory Center. The Development of Defined Lists for Specific NEMSIS Elements 18. 18.Probst MA, Gupta M, Hendey GW, et al. Prevalence of Intracranial Injury in Adult Patients With Blunt Head Trauma With and Without Anticoagulant or Antiplatelet Use. Annals of emergency medicine 2020;75:354–64. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F09%2F29%2F2023.09.27.23296256.atom) 19. 19.Tomaselli GF, Mahaffey KW, Cuker A, et al. 2020 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on Management of Bleeding in Patients on Oral Anticoagulants. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2020;76:594–622. [FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6MzoiUERGIjtzOjExOiJqb3VybmFsQ29kZSI7czo0OiJhY2NqIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjg6Ijc2LzUvNTk0IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjMvMDkvMjkvMjAyMy4wOS4yNy4yMzI5NjI1Ni5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 20. 20.Ashton C, Sammut-Powell C, Birleson E, Mayoh D, Sperrin M, Parry-Jones AR. Implementation of a prealert to improve in-hospital treatment of anticoagulant-associated strokes: analysis of a prehospital pathway change in a large UK centralised acute stroke system. BMJ Open Qual 2020;9. 21. 21.Turc G, Hadziahmetovic M, Walter S, et al. Comparison of Mobile Stroke Unit With Usual Care for Acute Ischemic Stroke Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Neurol 2022;79:281–90. 22. 22.Lees KR. Does My District Need a Mobile Stroke Unit? The New England journal of medicine 2021;385:1043–4. 23. 23.Alcusky M, Baek J, Tjia J, McManus DD, Lapane KL. Geographic Variation in Anticoagulant Use and Resident, Nursing Home, and County Characteristics Associated With Treatment Among US Nursing Home Residents. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2021;22:164–72 e9. 24. 24.Alcusky M, McManus DD, Hume AL, Fisher M, Tjia J, Lapane KL. Changes in Anticoagulant Utilization Among United States Nursing Home Residents With Atrial Fibrillation From 2011 to 2016. J Am Heart Assoc 2019;8:e012023. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F09%2F29%2F2023.09.27.23296256.atom)