Elective coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention during uninterrupted warfarin therapy

Performing diagnostic radial access coronary angiography on uninterrupted direct oral anticoagulant therapy: a prospective analysis

Purpose

We sought to assess the safety of performing diagnostic radial access coronary angiography with uninterrupted anticoagulation on patients receiving direct oral anticoagulant therapy.

Background

Direct oral anticoagulants have become a popular choice for the prevention of thromboembolism. Risk factors for thromboembolism are common among cardiovascular conditions and indications for direct oral anticoagulant therapy as well as coronary angiography often overlap in patients. It has been hypothesised that uninterrupted direct oral anticoagulant therapy would increase haemorrhagic and access site complications, however data in this area is limited.

Methods

This was a prospective observational analysis of 49 patients undergoing elective diagnostic coronary angiography while receiving uninterrupted anticoagulation with direct oral anticoagulants. This population was compared with a control group of 49 unselected patients presenting to the cardiology service for elective diagnostic coronary angiography. Continuous variables were analysed using the independent samples t-test and categorical variables using Pearson’s χ² test.

Results

The mean duration of radial compression for the control group was 235.8±62.8 min and for the uninterrupted direct oral anticoagulant group was 258.4±56.5 min. There was no significant difference in mean duration of radial compression (p=0.07; 95% CI=-1.4 to 46.5). There was also no difference in the complication rate between the two groups (p=1).

Conclusions

We observed similar complication rates and radial artery compression time postangiography in both groups. This small prospective observational study suggests that uninterrupted continuation of direct oral anticoagulants during coronary angiography is safe. Larger randomised control studies in this area would be beneficial.

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction in a patient taking dabigatran for chronic anticoagulation

Interventional cardiologists have few data on which to base clinical decisions regarding optimal care for ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients who are taking therapeutic chronic oral anticoagulation. We present what we believe to be the first reported case of emergency coronary angiography and primary percutaneous coronary intervention in an ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patient who was on a dabigatran regimen for atrial fibrillation. The patient tolerated the procedures well and had no observable bleeding sequelae. In addition to the patient's case, we discuss the current evidence regarding the periprocedural management of oral anticoagulation in patients who need coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention.

Outcomes after arterial endovascular procedures performed in patients with an elevated international normalized ratio

BACKGROUND

Patients treated with anticoagulants frequently require urgent vascular procedures and elevated prothrombin time/international normalized ratio (INR) is traditionally thought to increase access site bleeding complications after sheath removal. We aimed to determine the safety of percutaneous arterial procedures on patients with a high INR in the era of modern ultrasound-guided access and closure device use.

METHODS

Patients undergoing arterial endovascular procedures at a single institution between October 2010 and November 2012 were reviewed (n = 1,333). We retrospectively analyzed all patients with an INR > 1.5. Venous procedures, lysis checks, and cases with no documented INR within 24 hr were excluded. Sixty-five patients with 91 punctures were identified. A comparison group was then generated from the last 91 patients intervened on with INR < 1.6. Demographics, intraoperative data, and postoperative complications were compared.

RESULTS

The demographics were similar. More Coumadin use and higher INR were found in the study group (71/91 and 0/91, P = 0.001; 2.3 and 1.1 sec, P = 0.001, respectively), but there was more antiplatelet use in the control group (68/91 and 51/91, P = 0.01). Intraoperatively, the sheath sizes, protamine use, closure device use, ultrasound guidance, brachial access, and procedure types were not statistically different. Sheath sizes ranged from 4 to 22F in the study group and 4 to 20F in the control group. Paradoxically, heparin was administered more frequently in the study group (64/91 and 50/91, P = 0.046). Bleeding complications occurred more commonly in the study group (3/91 and 1/91, P = 0.62), but this failed to reach significance and the overall complication rate in both groups was low.

CONCLUSIONS

Endovascular procedures may be performed safely with a low risk of bleeding complications in patients with an elevated INR. Ultrasound guidance and closure device use may allow these cases to be performed safely, but a larger series may be needed to confirm this.

Carotid revascularization in patients with ongoing oral anticoagulant therapy: the advantages of stent placement

PURPOSE

To assess the influence of oral anticoagulant therapy conversion to heparin (OAT-CH) on carotid endarterectomy (CEA) outcomes and the influence of unmodified oral anticoagulant therapy (OAT) on carotid artery stenting (CAS) and to compare the outcomes of CEA in OAT-CH with CAS in ongoing OAT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The 30-day results from all patients who underwent CEA and CAS in a 6-year period were analyzed for stroke, death, myocardial infarction (MI), and hematoma of the access site requiring surgical evacuation. We evaluated the influence of OAT-CH in CEA and the influence of OAT in CAS and compared CEA and CAS outcomes in patients receiving OAT-CH and OAT.

RESULTS

Among 1,222 carotid revascularizations, there were 711 CEAs (58.1%) and 511 CAS procedures (41.9%). In the CEA group, 31 (4.4%) patients were treated with OAT-CH, and these patients had a significantly higher complication rate compared with patients not receiving OAT, including death (1 [3.2%] vs 4 [0.6%]; P = .04), stroke (4 [12.9%] vs 10 [1.4%]; P = .001), and hematoma (3 [9.6%] vs 11 [1.6%]; P = .02). In CAS, the results were similar in patients receiving OAT (30 [5.8%]) and patients not receiving OAT. Patients receiving OAT who underwent CAS had better outcomes than patients receiving OAT-CH who underwent CEA, including stroke, death, MI, and hematoma combined (0 [0.0%] vs 7 [22.5%]; P =.01).

CONCLUSIONS

OAT management significantly influences the results of carotid revascularization. Because CAS with unmodified OAT had a significantly better outcome than CEA with OAT-CH, carotid revascularization strategies should favor CAS rather than CEA in this setting.

Triple antithrombotic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing coronary artery stenting: hovering among bleeding risk, thromboembolic events, and stent thrombosis

Dual antiplatelet treatment with aspirin and clopidogrel is the antithrombotic treatment recommended after an acute coronary syndrome and/or coronary artery stenting. The evidence for optimal antiplatelet therapy for patients, in whom long-term treatment oral anticoagulation is mandatory, is however scarce. To evaluate the safety and efficacy of the various antithrombotic strategies adopted in this population, we reviewed the available evidence on the management of patients receiving oral anticoagulation, such as a vitamin-k-antagonists, referred for coronary artery stenting.Atrial fibrillation is the most frequent indication for oral anticoagulation. The need of starting antiplatelet therapy in this clinical scenario raises concerns about the combination to choose: triple therapy with warfarin, aspirin, and a thienopyridine being the most frequent and advised. The safety of this regimen appeared suboptimal because of an increased risk in hemorrhagic complications. On the other hand, the combination of oral anticoagulation and an antiplatelet agent is suboptimal in preventing thromboembolic events and stent thrombosis; dual antiplatelet therapy may be considered only when a high hemorrhagic risk and low thromboembolic risk are perceived. Indeed, the need for prolonged multiple-drug antithrombotic therapy increases the bleeding risks when drug eluting stents are used.Since current evidence derives mainly from small, single-center and retrospective studies, large-scale prospective multicenter studies are urgently needed.

Admission International Normalized Ratio Levels, Early Treatment Strategies, and Major Bleeding Risk Among Non–ST-Segment–Elevation Myocardial Infarction Patients on Home Warfarin Therapy

Background—

Non–ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction patients on home warfarin pose treatment concerns because of their potential increased risk of bleeding. Expert opinion from the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines suggest holding anticoagulants and initiating antiplatelet therapy among therapeutically anticoagulated non–ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction patients. Yet, little is known about contemporary treatment patterns and bleeding risks in this population.

Methods and Results—

We stratified 5787 non–ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction patients on home warfarin therapy using data from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network Registry–Get With the Guidelines by admission international normalized ratio (INR) levels: subtherapeutic (INR <2), therapeutic (INR, 2–3), and supratherapeutic (INR >3). Multivariable logistic generalized estimating equations models were constructed to examine the associations between admission INR level, early antithrombotic treatment and invasive therapy, and risk of in-hospital major bleeding. Among these patients, 46%, 35%, and 19% had subtherapeutic, therapeutic, and supratherapeutic admission INR levels, respectively. Risk of major bleeding was higher among patients with therapeutic (15%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03–1.50) and supratherapeutic (22%; odds ratio, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.30–1.97) anticoagulation compared with the subtherapeutic group (12%). Among patients with admission INR ≥2, 45% were treated with early (within 24 hours) heparin, 35% with early clopidogrel, 14% with early glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor, and 36% with early invasive strategy. Early antithrombotic treatment was associated with increased bleeding risk (odds ratio, 1.40 [95% CI, 1.14–1.72] for heparin; 1.50 [95% CI, 1.22–1.84] for clopidogrel; and 1.82 [95% CI, 1.43–2.32] for glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor); however, an early invasive strategy was not (odds ratio, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.86–1.37). No significant interactions were observed between INR level and use of each early treatment in its association with bleeding.

Conclusions—

National patterns of early antithrombotic treatment for non–ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction patients on home warfarin diverge from expert opinion provided by current practice guidelines. Early antithrombotic treatment was associated with increased bleeding risk regardless of admission INR level.

Antithrombotic management of atrial fibrillation patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome and/or undergoing coronary stenting: executive summary--a Consensus Document of the European Society of Cardiology Working Group on Thrombosis, endorsed by the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) and the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI)

There remains uncertainty over optimal antithrombotic management strategy for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) presenting with an acute coronary syndrome and/or undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention/stenting. Clinicians need to balance the risk of stroke and thromboembolism against the risk of recurrent cardiac ischaemia and/or stent thrombosis and the risk of bleeding. The full consensus document comprehensively reviews the published evidence and presents a consensus statement on a 'best practice' antithrombotic therapy guideline for the management of antithrombotic therapy in such AF patients. This executive summary highlights the main recommendations from the consensus document.

Periprocedural antithrombotic management: a review of the literature and practical approach for the hospitalist physician

Many patients who are on long-term antithrombotic therapy (e.g. warfarin and/or antiplatelet agents) must be assessed for temporary discontinuation for a procedure or surgery, making this a salient topic for the hospitalist physician. Discontinuation of antithromhotic therapy can place patients at increased risk of thromboembolic complications while continuing antithrombotic therapy can increase procedure-related bleeding risk. Bridging anticoagulation with heparin or low molecular weight heparins is often used in the periprocedural period, but a great deal of uncertainty exists about how and when to use bridging anticoagulation. Because there is very little Level 1 evidence to define optimal care, both clinical practice and expert consensus guideline opinions vary. For the hospitalist, it is of critical importance to understand the available data, controversies, and management options in order to approach patient care rationally. This review provides a step-wise literature-based discussion addressing the following four questions: (1) What is the optimal management of antiplatelet therapy in the periprocedural period? (2) Are there very low bleeding risk procedures that do not require interruption of oral anticoagulation? (3) Are there low thromboembolic risk populations who do not require periprocedural bridging? (4) How do you manage patients who must discontinue anti-coagulants but are at an increased thrombotic risk?

Safety of diagnostic coronary angiography during uninterrupted therapeutic warfarin treatment

Long-term warfarin therapy is assumed to increase bleeding and access site complications after coronary angiography and it is often recommended to postpone invasive procedures to reach international normalized ratio (INR) levels <1.8. To assess the safety and feasibility of diagnostic coronary angiography during uninterrupted warfarin therapy, we retrospectively analyzed all consecutive patients (n = 258) on warfarin therapy referred for diagnostic coronary angiography in 2 centers with long experience in uninterrupted warfarin therapy during coronary angiography and in 1 center with a policy of preprocedural warfarin pause. An age- and gender-matched control group (n = 258) with similar disease presentation (unstable or stable symptoms) was collected from each center. Radial access was used in 56% of patients in the warfarin group and in 60% of controls (p = 0.21). There was no difference in access site and bleeding complications (1.9% vs 1.6%) or major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (0.4% vs 0.8%) between the warfarin group and their controls. Warfarin was interrupted in 80 patients (31%), and bridging therapy was used in 24 of these patients (30%). INR levels were higher in the uninterrupted warfarin group (2.3 vs 1.9, p <0.001), but the incidence of access site complications was not higher (1.7%) than in patients (n = 80) with a warfarin pause (2.5%) or in patients with pause and bridging therapy (8.3%). Need for blood transfusions (n = 2) occurred only in patients with bridging therapy. Access site complications were more common in the 22 patients with supratherapeutic anticoagulation (INR >3) than in patients with therapeutic periprocedural INR (9.1% vs 1.5%, p <0.05). In conclusion, a simple strategy of performing coronary angiography during uninterrupted therapeutic warfarin anticoagulation is a tempting alternative to bridging therapy and is likely to lead to considerable cost savings.

Periprocedural and medium-term antithrombotic strategies in patients with an indication for long-term anticoagulation undergoing coronary angiography and intervention

OBJECTIVES

The optimal antithrombotic treatment for patients on long-term anticoagulation undergoing invasive coronary procedures is currently undefined. The strategies adopted periprocedurally and medium-term after coronary stenting (percutaneous coronary intervention with stent implantation) at our Institution, were reviewed, and the safety and efficacy of the various regimens evaluated.

METHODS

All patients undergoing invasive coronary procedures between January 2002 and December 2004 were retrospectively identified.

RESULTS

Out of 3709 patients overall, 104 (2.8%; 95% confidence interval 2.3-3.4) were on warfarin (because of atrial fibrillation in >50% of cases), whereas this was the case for 49 (3.1%; 95% confidence interval 2.3-4.1) of 1584 undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with stent implantation. The antithrombotic strategies were highly variable, both periprocedurally (i.e. warfarin withdrawal or substitution by heparin, followed by aspirin with or without a thienopyridine) and medium-term after percutaneous coronary intervention with stent implantation (i.e. combination of warfarin and single or dual antiplatelet agents or pure dual antiplatelet treatment). Overall, periprocedural hemorrhages occurred in five patients (4.8%; 95% confidence interval 1.56-11.22). No thromboembolic events were observed, whereas one subacute stent thrombosis occurred (2%; 95% confidence interval 0.05-11) during warfarin and aspirin treatment. Among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with stent implantation, 1-month hemorrhagic rate was 10% (95% confidence interval, 3.3-23.8); most hemorrhages (major bleeds in three-quarters of cases) occurred during triple therapy with warfarin (or low-molecular-weight heparin), aspirin and a thienopyridine.

CONCLUSIONS

At our Institution (where standardized protocols are currently not in use), periprocedural and medium-term antithrombotic treatment in patients on long-term anticoagulation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with stent implantation showed substantial variability. As a result of the relevant 1-month complication rate, further properly sized and designed studies are warranted to identify the optimal strategies for this patient subset, which is foreseen to progressively increase over the next years.

A randomised controlled trial comparing the routine use of an Angio-Seal STS device strategy with conventional femoral haemostasis methods in a district general hospital

Femoral artery closure devices reduce the time to haemostasis and ambulation. Most district general hospitals (DGHs) now perform day case angiography on site. The purpose of this study was to assess the Angio-Seal self-tightening suture (STS) device in comparison with manual compression in this environment. A prospective randomised controlled trial was undertaken comparing the Angio-Seal STS device with manual pressure recording complications, time from end of procedure and patient satisfaction in a DGH setting. Angiography lists of 206 patients undergoing day case diagnostic cardiac catheterisation with a five French sheath at a DGH were randomised by intention to treat to receive either manual compression or a six French Angio-Seal STS device. Time from sheath removal to mobilisation, complication rate and patient satisfaction were compared. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of demographics (manual compression: Angio-Seal; male (%) 58 vs. 57, age (years) 65.4 vs. 66.3, body mass index (kg/m(2)) 27.7 vs. 27.5). Despite randomisation, only 74 of 107 patients in the Angio-Seal group actually had a device deployed. Angio-Seal use was associated with significantly shorter times to mobilisation (87.6 vs. 144.1 min; p < 0.001), significantly less bruising (bruise size at 1 week (28.5 vs. 82.5 cm(3); p < 0.01) and no increase in vascular complications. In addition, patients were more satisfied with Angio-Seal devices in terms of length of immobility. The routine use of Angio-Seal closure devices result in earlier mobilisation, less bruising, increased patient satisfaction with no increase in other complications in comparison to manual pressure.

Discontinuation of perioperative antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy in stroke patients

Growing evidence suggests that perioperative withdrawal of ASA for secondary stroke prevention increases thromboembolic risk without the associated benefit of decreased bleeding complications. ASA maintenance is acceptable in many procedures, including invasive ones. Many procedures, in particular ophthalmologic, dermatologic, and dental surgeries, also are safe while continuing oral AC. Warfarin has been continued successfully even in some surgeries that have high bleeding risk. When the risk is too high, temporary bridging therapy with LWMH is safe in many populations. Although the exact thromboembolic risks associated with temporary cessation of AP and AC are unknown and likely low, morbidity and mortality associated with thromboembolism are high. Further studies investigating the risks and benefits of maintaining AP and AC during procedures, particularly invasive ones, are needed. Meanwhile, it is critical that physicians understand the risks and benefits of perioperative AP and AC and the variety of procedures in which these agents can be safely continued.

Percutaneous Left and Right Heart Catheterization in Fully Anticoagulated Patients Utilizing the Radial Artery and Forearm Vein: A Two-Center Experience

BACKGROUND

Stopping oral anticoagulants prior to cardiac catheterization is associated with an increased risk of thromboembolism. Performing the procedures via the femoral artery and vein without interruption of anticoagulation is associated with a high rate of major access site complications. The transradial technique for left heart catheterization is safe in fully anticoagulated patients but few data are available on the percutaneous right and left heart catheterization utilizing a combination of the radial artery and antecubital vein in this group of patients.

METHODS

We report our experience in 28 consecutive patients that underwent left and right heart catheterizations via this percutaneous arm approach without interruption of anticoagulation. These were compared to 31 consecutive non-anticoagulated patients that underwent the procedure via a conventional femoral artery and vein approach.

RESULTS

Arterial and venous accesses were achieved and complete angiographic and hemodynamic data obtained in all patients. There were no access site complications in the anticoagulated patients despite an International normalized ratio (INR) of 2.5 +/- 0.5. Procedural duration was longer in the anticoagulated group of patients, but fluoroscopy time and patient radiation dose were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Our experience suggests that left and right heart catheterization can be safely performed in most fully anticoagulated patients using this technique with a low bleeding and thromboembolic risk and no increase in radiation exposure.

Effectiveness of manual pressure hemostasis following transfemoral coronary angiography in patients on therapeutic warfarin anticoagulation

We evaluated the effectiveness of manual pressure hemostasis after transfemoral coronary angiography in patients on therapeutic warfarin anticoagulation (international normalized ratio [INR] 2.0 to 3.0) compared with discontinuing warfarin > or =48 hours before the procedure (INR <2.0). There was a low incidence of small hematomas with either strategy (no significant difference) and no major vascular complications. No prolonged hospital stay due to an access site complication was observed, and no thromboembolic events occurred. In conclusion, transfemoral coronary angiography appears to be safe in patients on warfarin with an INR of 2.0 to 3.0).