Clinical Characteristics and Risk Factors of Tigecycline-Associated Hypofibrinogenaemia in Critically Ill Patients

Juan Hu,Yong-hong Xiao,Yi Zheng,Yang-xiao Lai,Xue-ling Fang,Qiang Fang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-020-02860-w
2020-01-01
European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
Abstract:To analyze the clinical features and risk factors of tigecycline-associated hypofibrinogenaemia and study whether cefoperazone/sulbactam combined with tigecycline aggravates coagulopathy or hypofibrinogenaemia. A retrospective case–control study of patients with severe infection who were treated with tigecycline was conducted. Patients were assigned to the hypofibrinogenaemia group (< 2.0 g/L) and normal fibrinogen (normal) group (≥ 2.0 g/L) to assess the clinical features of patients with tigecycline-associated hypofibrinogenaemia. The traits of patients treated with cefoperazone/sulbactam in the hypofibrinogenaemia group were also analyzed. In total, 127 patients were enrolled in the study, including 71 patients with hypofibrinogenaemia and 56 patients with normal fibrinogen levels. Hypofibrinogenaemia developed at a median of 6 (4–8) days after tigecycline treatment, and the fibrinogen level returned to normal at a median of 3 (3–5) days after tigecycline discontinuation. In the multivariate analysis, intra-abdominal infection (p = 0.005), fibrinogen level at tigecycline initiation (p < 0.001), maintenance dose (p = 0.039), and treatment duration (p = 0.002) were found to be related to hypofibrinogenaemia. Treatment with cefoperazone/sulbactam was not associated with hypofibrinogenaemia (p = 0.681), but patients treated with cefoperazone/sulbactam had a higher incidence of coagulopathy (p = 0.009) and needed more blood products (p = 0.003) than those treated without cefoperazone/sulbactam. Tigecycline-associated hypofibrinogenaemia often developed on the 6th (4th–8th) day of tigecycline use and was associated with intra-abdominal infection, fibrinogen level at tigecycline initiation, maintenance dose, and treatment duration of tigecycline but not cefoperazone/sulbactam.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?