Changes in primary hemostasis have been described in patients with chronic liver disease (CLD) and cirrhosis and are still subject to ongoing debate. Thrombocytopenia is common and multifactorial. Numerous studies also reported platelet dysfunction. In spite of these changes, primary hemostasis seems to be balanced. Patients with CLD and cirrhosis can suffer from both hemorrhagic and thrombotic complications. Variceal bleeding is the major hemorrhagic complication and is mainly determined by high portal pressure. Non portal hypertension-related bleeding due to hemostatic failure is uncommon. Thrombocytopenia can complicate management of invasive procedures in CLD patients. Recently, oral thrombopoietin agonists have been approved to raise platelets before invasive procedures. In this review we aim to bundle literature, published over the past decade, discussing primary hemostasis in CLD and cirrhosis including (1) platelet count and the role of thrombopoietin (TPO) agonists, (2) platelet function tests and markers of platelet activation, (3) von Willebrand factor and (4) global hemostasis tests.

Heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is associated with high burden of comorbidities known to increase the mean platelet volume (MPV). This parameter has been associated with morbidity and mortality in HF. However, the role of platelets and the prognostic relevance of MPV in HFpEF remain largely unexplored. We aimed to evaluate the clinical usefulness of MPV as a prognostic marker in HFpEF. We prospectively enrolled 228 patients with HFpEF (79 ± 9 years; 66% females) and 38 controls of similar age and gender (78 ± 5 years; 63% females). All subjects underwent two-dimensional echocardiography and MPV measurements. Patients were followed-up for a primary end point of all-cause mortality or first HF hospitalization. The prognostic impact of MPV was determined using Cox proportional hazard models. Mean MPV was significantly higher in HFpEF patients compared with controls (MPV: 10.7 ± 1.1fL vs. 10.1 ± 1.1fL, p = .005). HFpEF patients (n = 56) with MPV >75th percentile (11.3 fL) displayed more commonly a history of ischemic cardiomyopathy. Over a median follow-up of 26 months, 136 HFpEF patients reached the composite endpoint. MPV >75th percentile was a significant predictor of the primary endpoint (HR: 1.70 [1.08; 2.67], p = .023) adjusted for NYHA class, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, loop diuretics, renal function, and hemoglobin. We demonstrated that MPV was significantly higher in HFpEF patients compared with controls of similar age and gender. Elevated MPV was a strong and independent predictor of poor outcome in HFpEF patients and may be relevant for clinical use. What is the context? What is new? What is the impact?

Introduction: Andexanet alfa is a recombinant modified factor Xa protein that has been developed to reverse factor Xa inhibitors. Since May 2018, the FDA has approved its utilization in patients treated with apixaban and rivaroxaban in case of life-threatening or uncontrolled bleeding. On 28 of February 2019, the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use adopted a positive opinion, recommending the granting of a conditional marketing authorization for andexanet alfa in Europe. Area covered: The authors provide an overview of andexanet alfa development and its pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties. The results of the clinical phase III trial ANNEXA as well as current limitations related to andexanet alfa are also discussed. Expert opinion: Although phase I and II studies have proven that andexanet alfa can be effective in reversing the effect of factor Xa inhibitors, its efficacy in major bleeding patients has only been shown for apixaban and rivaroxaban, without any comparator group. Well-designed studies comparing the efficacy and safety of andexanet alfa to other reversal strategies are required to confirm preliminary data. The benefit of andexanet alfa in specific settings needs to be investigated and its use in clinical practice needs to be facilitated by the implementation of international guidelines.

Severe forms of coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) disease are caused by an exaggerated systemic inflammatory response and subsequent inflammation-related coagulopathy. Anti-inflammatory treatment with low dose dexamethasone has been shown to reduce mortality in COVID-19 patients requiring oxygen therapy. However, the mechanisms of action of corticosteroids have not been extensively studied in critically ill patients in the context of COVID-19. Plasma biomarkers of inflammatory and immune responses, endothelial and platelet activation, neutrophil extracellular trap formation, and coagulopathy were compared between patients treated or not by systemic dexamethasone for severe forms of COVID-19. Dexamethasone treatment significantly reduced the inflammatory and lymphoid immune response in critical COVID-19 patients but had little effect on the myeloid immune response and no effect on endothelial activation, platelet activation, neutrophil extracellular trap formation, and coagulopathy. The benefits of low dose dexamethasone on outcome in critical COVID-19 can be partially explained by a modulation of the inflammatory response but not by reduction of coagulopathy. Future studies should explore the impact of combining dexamethasone with other immunomodulatory or anticoagulant drugs in severe COVID-19.