Dabigatran versus warfarin anticoagulation before and after catheter ablation for the treatment of atrial fibrillation

Safety and efficacy of nonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants during catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with a transitory increase in the risk of both thromboembolic and bleeding events. Evidence on the use of nonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in patients undergoing AF ablation mostly comes from small observational studies, underpowered to detect differences in clinical outcomes between NOACs and vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) treated patients. This updated meta-analysis aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of periprocedural anticoagulation with NOACs compared with VKAs in AF patients undergoing catheter ablation.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane library, and web sources for randomized and observational studies comparing periprocedural treatment with NOACs and VKAs in patients undergoing AF ablation. The primary safety endpoint was major bleeding events, and the primary efficacy endpoint was thromboembolic events (a composite of systemic thromboembolism, transient ischemic attack, and stroke).

RESULTS

A total of 29 studies with 12 644 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, patients on NOACs had a significantly lower risk of major bleeding compared to VKAs either in observational studies (Peto OR 0.68; 95% CI: 0.48-0.95; P = 0.022; I²  = 20%) or in RCTs (Peto OR 0.30; 95% CI: 0.14-0.62; P = 0.001; I²  = 28%). Uninterrupted NOACs reduced the risk of major bleeding when compared to uninterrupted VKAs (Peto OR 0.66; 95% CI: 0.45-0.96; P = 0.028; I²  = 1%), similarly, interrupted NOACs lowered the risk of major bleeding compared to interrupted VKAs (Peto OR 0.29; 95% CI: 0.13-0.66; P = 0.003; I²  = 0%; P_interaction  = 0.076). The rate of thromboembolic complications was very low and did not significantly differ between the study groups either in observational studies (Peto OR 0.91; 95% CI: 0.49-1.67; P = 0.755; I²  = 0%) or in RCTs (Peto OR 0.14; 95% CI: 0.01-1.30; P = 0.083; I²  = 0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Use of NOACs compared to VKAs significantly reduced the risk of bleeding in patients with AF ablation. Similarly, the risk of bleeding was lower with uninterrupted NOACs than with uninterrupted VKAs, and with interrupted NOACs than with interrupted VKAs. The rate of thromboembolic complications was extremely low in both study groups without any differences.

Thromboembolic and bleeding risks in patients undergoing atrial fibrillation ablation: oral anticoagulation perspectives

INTRODUCTION

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a cause of significant morbidity and mortality. Catheter ablation for AF (CAAF) has emerged as an effective treatment option of rhythm control for patients with symptomatic AF. However, the risk of thromboembolism and bleeding in the periprocedural period represent a worrisome complication of this therapy. The reported incidence of thromboembolic and bleeding events associated with CAAF varies from 0.9% to 5% depending on the CAAF strategy and the anticoagulation regimen used in the periprocedural period. Areas covered: The different anticoagulation regimens used prior to, during, and after CAAF to minimize the risk of thromboembolic and bleeding events are reviewed. The use of uninterrupted oral anticoagulation and appropriate heparin dosing to achieve safe activated clotting time levels are also detailed. A comprehensive approach with assessment of individual risk for thromboembolic and bleeding complications, and understanding the pharmacokinetics of the anticoagulant agents available is also reviewed. Expert opinion: The key advances done in the periprocedural anticoagulation field include the use of uninterrupted anticoagulation strategies in patients undergoing AF ablation and efforts to simplify the selection of patients who need LAA thrombus screening prior to ablation.

Safety and efficacy of DOACs vs acenocoumarol in patients undergoing catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Thromboembolic complications can be life-threatening during atrial fibrillation (AF) catheter ablation. The aim of our study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of continuous treatment using direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) as an alternative to uninterrupted acenocoumarol for periprocedural anticoagulation.

HYPOTHESIS

Continuous treatment with DOACs has similar safety and efficacy compared to acenocoumarol.

METHODS

We enrolled 474 patients (mean age, 58 years; 68.4% male) undergoing AF catheter ablation between June 2013 and December 2016. All patients were equally assigned to take acenocoumarol (group 1, 136 patients) or DOACs (group 2, 338 patients) for ≥2 months before the procedure. We compared thromboembolic and bleeding complications between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

Our analysis showed no significant difference in major and minor complications between the 2 patient groups. Specifically, 3 of 136 patients (2.2%) using uninterrupted acenocoumarol had a major complication (1 patient [0.7%] had transient ischemic attack resolved 8 hours later, 1 [0.7%] had pericardial tamponade, and 1 [0.7%] had a subcapsular renal hematoma) and 2 patients (1.4%) had minor complications (1 [0.7%] pseudoaneurysm and 1 [0.7%] groin hematoma). In group 2, 1 of 338 patients (0.3%) had a major complication (transient ischemic attack). In the same group, 7 patients (2.1%) had a minor complication (1 patient [0.3%] presented with pseudoaneurysm, 4 [1.2%] with pericardial effusion <1 cm, 1 [0.3%] femoral arteriovenous fistula between the femoral artery and femoral vein, and 1 [0.7%] groin hematoma).

CONCLUSIONS

DOACs and acenocoumarol have similar safety and effectiveness regarding thromboembolic complications prevention without increasing bleeding complications.

Efficacy and Safety of Novel Oral Anticoagulants for Atrial Fibrillation Ablation: An Updated Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have been approved for prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). A large number of patients are on NOACs when they present for AF ablation. We intended to evaluate the safety and efficacy of NOACs for AF ablation during the periprocedural period by performing a meta-analysis of trials comparing NOACs with warfarin.

METHODS

Studies comparing NOACs (dabigatran and rivaroxaban) with warfarin as periprocedural anticoagulants for AF ablation were identified using an electronic search. Primary outcomes were: (1) a composite endpoint of stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), peripheral arterial embolism, or silent cerebral lesions on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and (2) major bleeding complications. A random effects model was used to pool the safety and efficacy data across all included trials.

RESULTS

When compared to warfarin, there was an increased risk of the composite endpoint of stroke, TIA, peripheral arterial embolism, or silent cerebral lesions on MRI with NOACs as periprocedural anticoagulants for AF ablation [odds ratio (OR): 1.69, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.06-2.68]. Sub-group analysis revealed a higher risk of composite endpoint with dabigatran as a periprocedural anticoagulant for AF ablation (OR: 2.01, 95% CI: 1.19-3.39) whereas the risk was similar with rivaroxaban (OR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.34-2.41). Sensitivity analysis after excluding silent cerebral lesions on MRI showed there was no increased risk of thromboembolic events with either dabigatran (OR: 1.69, 95% CI: 0.81-3.51) or rivaroxaban (OR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.12-4.04). Risk of bleeding with NOACs was similar to warfarin (OR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.62-1.34).

CONCLUSION

NOACs are comparable to warfarin in terms of bleeding complications. However, dabigatran therapy is potentially associated with a higher risk of silent cerebral lesions on MRI. The results of this study should be considered as hypothesis-generating and assessed further in prospective randomized clinical studies.

Are Some Anticoagulants More Equal Than Others? - Evaluating the Role of Novel Oral Anticoagulants in AF Ablation

Left atrial ablation strategies are being increasingly performed as a Class 1 therapeutic indication for drug refractory paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF). Traditionally AF ablation has been performed with patients on uninterrupted warfarin therapy, however over the last few years, novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have emerged as attractive alternatives to warfarin in order to reduce stroke risk due to AF. NOACs are therefore increasingly being used instead of warfarin in the management of AF. There is also mounting evidence mainly in the form of small randomised studies and meta-analysis that have demonstrated that the use of NOACs for AF ablation is efficacious, safe and convenient. However the peri-procedural dosing protocols used in various studies especially in terms of whether NOAC use is interrupted or uninterrupted during AF ablation, have significant inter-operator and inter-institution variability. Currently there is also a lack of randomised controlled trials to validate the data obtained from meta-analyses. There is also evidence that use of NOACs may increase the requirement of unfractionated heparin during the procedure. This review article shall examine the currently available evidence-base, appraise the gaps in the current evidence and also underscore the need for larger randomised clinical trials in this rapidly developing field.

Network meta-analysis of efficacy and safety of competitive oral anticoagulants in patients undergoing radiofrequency catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation

PURPOSE

The aim of this network meta-analysis was to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, interrupted vitamin K antagonist (I-VKA), and continuous VKA (C-VKA) in patients undergoing radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) of atrial fibrillation (AF).

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched to identify clinical trials comparing dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or apixaban with I-VKA or C-VKA, or against each other, in AF patients undergoing RFCA. A network meta-analysis was conducted to directly and indirectly compare the efficacy and safety of competitive anticoagulation regimens with a Bayesian random-effects model.

RESULTS

A total of 39 studies enrolling 27,766 patients were included. C-VKA demonstrated significant superiority over I-VKA in reducing thromboembolic events (risk difference [RD] -0.0068, 95 % confidence interval [CI] -0.0106 to -0.0032) and major bleeding complications (RD -0.0044, 95 % CI -0.0098 to -0.0006). Rivaroxaban compared with I-VKA was associated with a lower risk of thromboembolism (RD -0.0073, 95 % CI -0.0134 to -0.0012), being at the best ranking position among all of the compared anticoagulation regimens in terms of both the efficacy and safety. None of the remaining comparisons reached statistically significant difference in the rate of thromboembolism or major bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study suggests that C-VKA is superior to I-VKA for AF patients undergoing RFCA. Rivaroxaban is the highest probability to be the optimal alternative to C-VKA among the three non-VKA oral anticoagulants in AF ablation.

Bleeding risks with novel oral anticoagulants during catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Comprehensive comparisons of safety (measured by bleeding risk) between multiple novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs and warfarin) in the peri-procedural period of catheter ablation (CA) for atrial fibrillation (AF) are rare.

METHODS AND RESULTS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and COCHRANE LIBRARY were searched up to February 2015 by two reviewers independently. Predefined inclusion criteria identified 24 studies which were included in the analysis. Data were extracted by two researchers, and a network meta-analysis was conducted in R with R2WinBugS package, within Bayesian framework. Pooled odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were summarized to evaluate the bleeding risks of three novel anticoagulants (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban) in AF patients undergoing catheter ablation (CA). With respect to total bleeding risk, no significant difference was observed between dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) by mixed-treatment comparison. The similar results were seen in the direct comparison. While dabigatran was associated with a lower rate of minor bleeding in comparison to VKAs (OR = 0.67 with 95%CI 0.49-0.93).

CONCLUSIONS

Risks of bleeding with dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and VKAs were similar in peri-procedural period of CA for AF.

Low dose dabigatran versus uninterrupted acenocoumarol for peri-procedural anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation catheter ablation

BACKGROUND

Left atrial ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with a transiently increased risk of thromboembolic and hemorrhagic events. We tested the hypothesis that the low dose dabigatran [110mg twice a day (bid)] can be safely used as an alternative to uninterrupted acenocoumarol for periprocedural anticoagulation in left atrial ablation procedures.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 149 consecutive patients undergoing pulmonary vein antral isolation for AF were included; 64 patients were on low dose dabigatran (110mg bid) and 85 patients were on acenocoumarol with therapeutic international normalized ratios. Two doses of dabigatran were withheld before the procedure and the drug was restarted 4hours after vascular hemostasis. Overall, the two groups were well-matched. Hemorrhagic and thromboembolic complications were similar in both groups within 90days from the procedure (4.7% for the dabigatran group versus 9.4% for the acenocoumarol group; P=0.275). Major hemorrhage occurred in 1.6% in the dabigatran group versus 3.5% in the acenocoumarol group (P=0.462). A single thromboembolic event occurred in the dabigatran group (1.6%) versus 2 (2.4%) in the acenocoumarol group (P=0.734). Despite higher doses of intraprocedural heparin (P<0.01), the mean activated clotting time was significantly lower in patients who were on dabigatran than those on acenocoumarol (P<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The low dose dabigatran regimen provides safe and effective peri-procedural anticoagulation in patients undergoing left atrial ablation for AF compared with uninterrupted acenocoumarol therapy.

Efficacy and Safety of Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants versus Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants in Patients Undergoing Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Use of the non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) is endorsed by current guidelines for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). However efficacy and safety of NOACs in patients undergoing catheter ablation (RFCA) of AF has not been well established yet.

OBJECTIVES

To perform a meta-analysis of all studies comparing NOACs and vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (VKAs) in patients undergoing RFCA.

DATA SOURCES

Studies were searched for in PubMed and Google Scholar databases.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Studies were considered eligible if: they evaluated the clinical impact of NOACs versus VKAs; they specifically analyzed the use of anticoagulants during periprocedural phase of RFCA; they reported clinical outcome data.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

25 studies were selected, including 9881 cases. The summary measure used was the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). The random-effects or the fixed effect model were used to synthesize results from the selected studies.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in thromboembolic complications (RR 1.39; p=0.13). Bleeding complications were significantly lower in the NOACs-treated arm as compared to VKAs (RR=0.67, p<0.001). Interestingly, a larger number of thromboembolic events was found in the VKAs-treated arm in those studies where VKAs had been interrupted during the periprocedural phase (RR=0.68; p=ns). In this same subgroup a significantly higher incidence of both minor (RR=0.54; p=0.002) and major bleeding (RR=0.41; p=0.01) events was recorded. Conversely, the incidence of thromboembolic events in the VKAs-treated arm was significantly lower in those studies with uninterrupted periprocedural anticoagulation treatment (RR=1.89; p=0.02).

LIMITATIONS

As with every meta-analysis, no patients-level data were available.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

The use of NOACs in patients undergoing RFCA is safe, given the lower incidence of bleedings observed with NOACs. On the other side, periprocedural interruption of VKAs and bridging with heparin is associated with a higher bleeding rate with no significant benefit on onset of thromboembolic events.

Periprocedural Management of New Oral Anticoagulants in Atrial Fibrillation Ablation

BACKGROUND

Patients who undergo catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) are at increased risk of developing thromboembolic and bleeding complications periprocedurally. Many patients are now on newer oral anticoagulants (NOACs), but data regarding their safety and efficacy during AF ablation are limited.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This article reviews the literature in PubMed from 1998 to 2014 and includes clinical trials and meta-analysis that analyzed the safety and efficacy of NOACs during AF catheter ablation. Dabigatran seems to be as effective and safe as warfarin, although most data are from single-center studies, with small samples and very low overall bleeding and thromboembolic complications. Periprocedural anticoagulation protocols also vary greatly between studies. Some recent meta-analysis has shown that warfarin could still be a safer and more effective alternative. There are fewer studies with rivaroxaban in AF ablation, and there have been no meta-analysis yet comparing rivaroxaban to warfarin or dabigatran. There seems to be no significant differences in safety or efficacy of rivaroxaban compared to warfarin. Interestingly, there are no available data for apixaban in AF ablation yet.

DISCUSSION

There are no consensus guidelines regarding the use of NOACs during AF ablation. Dabigatran and rivaroxaban seem as safe and effective as warfarin, although larger studies with standardized protocols are needed, as available studies may be underpowered to detect small differences in bleeding and thromboembolic rates.

Practical issues in the management of novel oral anticoagulants-cardioversion and ablation

Recent research and publication of various landmark trials have led to the approval and subsequent use of novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in clinical practice. The use of these newer agents for anticoagulation offers several benefits such as greater specificity, relatively rapid onset and offset of action and a predictable pharmacological profile as compared to warfarin. With the increasing use of these agents, several key issues ranging from appropriate selection to management of complications and considerations for concurrent procedures (cardioversion and catheter ablation) have also emerged. The timing of interruption of anticoagulants prior to catheter ablation and re-initiation after the procedure to minimize the peri-procedural thromboembolism risk without increasing the bleeding risk is of key relevance in electrophysiology practice. The use of NOACs in patients undergoing catheter ablation and cardioversion also requires special considerations based on the pharmacological properties of the individual agent and the presence of comorbidities such as renal and or hepatic impairment. In this review we aim to discuss the practical considerations with the use of NOACs in the setting of cardioversion and catheter ablation based on the currently available data.

Safety of Novel Oral Anticoagulants Compared With Uninterrupted Warfarin for Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation

Background: The novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are used for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF), but their safety and efficacy in the periablation period are not well established. Additionally, no standard procedure for managing periprocedural and intraprocedural anticoagulation has been established. Objective: To evaluate the frequency of hemorrhagic and thrombotic events as well as periprocedural management strategies of NOACs compared with warfarin as anticoagulation therapy for AF ablation. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study from a prospective AF ablation registry maintained at a large, academic medical center. Results: A total of 374 cases (173 warfarin, 123 dabigatran, 61 rivaroxaban, and 17 apixaban) were included in the analysis. The overall hemorrhagic/thrombotic event rate was 14.2 % (major hemorrhage 2.7%, minor hemorrhage 11.2%, thrombotic stroke 0.5%). The frequency of minor hemorrhage was significantly higher with warfarin compared with dabigatran (15% vs 5.7%, P = 0.012). The average heparin dose required to reach the goal activated clotting time (ACT) was 5600 units for warfarin, 12 900 units for dabigatran ( P < 0.001), 15 100 units for rivaroxaban ( P < 0.001), and 14 700 units for apixaban ( P < 0.001). The average time in minutes to reach the goal ACT was significantly longer, compared with warfarin, for dabigatran (57 vs 28, P < 0.001), rivaroxaban (63 vs 28, P < 0.001), and apixaban (72 vs 28, P < 0.001). Conclusions: Compared with warfarin, periprocedural anticoagulation with dabigatran resulted in fewer minor hemorrhages and total adverse events after AF ablation. Patients anticoagulated with NOACs required larger doses of heparin and took longer to reach the goal ACT compared with patients anticoagulated with warfarin.

Warfarin versus dabigatran etexilate: an assessment of efficacy and safety in patients with atrial fibrillation

INTRODUCTION

Oral anticoagulation is the mainstay for stroke and thromboembolic event prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Given limitations of warfarin therapy, non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants have been developed including direct thrombin inhibitors (i.e., dabigatran etexilate). Dabigatran etexilate has been tested thoroughly in terms of efficacy and safety in clinical trials and studies, involving 'real-world' cohorts. In this review, currently available evidence in patients with non-valvular AF is discussed.

AREAS COVERED

The pharmacology, efficacy and safety, and current aspects of use of dabigatran etexilate in patients with non-valvular AF are reviewed in a comparative manner to warfarin both for chronic anticoagulation and in different clinical settings.

EXPERT OPINION

Dabigatran etexilate appeared to have several pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic advantages over warfarin, as well as a favorable efficacy and safety profile being at least noninferior and often superior to warfarin in patients with non-valvular AF. The latter was shown in the clinical trials, meta-analyses and studies with 'real-world' data. Currently ongoing trials will expand the body of evidence on warfarin and will aid decision making in currently controversial areas. Important limitations of dabigatran etexilate include contraindications for its use in patients with prosthetic heart valves and end-stage chronic kidney disease.

Perioperative management of oral anticoagulants: a focus on target-specific oral anticoagulants

Although warfarin has historically been the dominant oral anticoagulant, newer target-specific oral anticoagulants (TSOACs) have been introduced in the marketplace in the past few years. Dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban, collectively referred to as TSOACs, have undergone extensive testing in comparison with warfarin and other anticoagulants for a variety of conditions. Compared with warfarin, the shorter time to peak effect, shorter half-life, and fewer drug-drug interactions have helped make the TSOACs attractive alternatives to warfarin for the prevention and treatment of thromboembolic disease associated with orthopedic surgery and atrial fibrillation as well as for the treatment of venous thromboembolism. However, their unique properties pose a challenge for their management in the perioperative period. This article reviews the current guideline-based approach to perioperative management of anticoagulants, the clinical data, and the recommendations supporting use of the TSOACs in the perioperative period. The article also addresses common pitfalls in their perioperative management. By understanding a few key properties of the new oral anticoagulants and with careful perioperative planning, physicians can ensure that their patients will safely undergo most surgical procedures with minimal disruption of their chronic anticoagulation.

Comparative safety of periablation anticoagulation strategies for atrial fibrillation: data from a large multicenter study

BACKGROUND

There are a variety of periprocedural anticoagulation strategies for atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation, including the use of dabigatran. It is unclear which strategy is superior.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the safety and efficacy of anticoagulation with uninterrupted warfarin, dabigatran, and warfarin with heparin bridging in patients undergoing ablation of AF at four experienced centers.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In this retrospective analysis, 882 patients (mean age: 61 ± 11 years) underwent ablation of AF using uninterrupted warfarin (n = 276), dabigatran (n = 374), or warfarin with heparin bridging (n = 232) for periprocedural anticoagulation. The rate of total complications was 23/276 (8.3%) in the uninterrupted warfarin group, 30/374 (8.0%) in the dabigatran group, and 29/232 (12.5%) in the bridged group (P = 0.15). Major complications were more frequent in the uninterrupted warfarin group 12/276 (4.3%) compared with 3/374 (0.8%) in dabigatran and 6/232 (2.6%) in the bridged group (P = 0.01). The most common major complication was the need for transfusion or occurrence of major bleeding. Minor complications did not differ among the three groups. On multivariate analysis, female gender (odds ratio [OR] 1.93, confidence interval [CI] 1.16-3.19, P = 0.011), bridging heparin (OR 2.13, CI 1.100-3.941, P = 0.016), use of triple antithrombotic therapy (OR 1.77, CI 1.05-2.98, P = 0.033), and prior myocardial infarction (OR 2.40, CI 1.01-5.67, P = 0.046) independently predicted total complications.

CONCLUSIONS

When comparing the use of uninterrupted warfarin, dabigatran, and warfarin with heparin bridging in patients undergoing catheter ablation of AF, dabigatran was not associated with increased risk, major complications were more common in the uninterrupted warfarin group, and after adjustment, warfarin with bridging increased total complications.

Meta-analysis of risk of stroke or transient ischemic attack with dabigatran for atrial fibrillation ablation

Dabigatran is a novel oral anticoagulant and may be useful during atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation for prevention of thromboembolic events. However, the benefits and adverse effects of periprocedural dabigatran therapy have not been thoroughly evaluated. A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of dabigatran for anticoagulation in AF ablation. PubMed, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases were searched from January 01, 2001 through July 30, 2013. Two reviewers reviewed the studies for inclusion and extracted data from studies comparing dabigatran with warfarin for AF ablation. A total of 5,513 patients undergoing catheter ablation were included in 17 observational studies and 1 randomized trial. Fourteen events of stroke or transient ischemic attacks were reported in the dabigatran group and 4 in the warfarin group (Peto's odds ratio 3.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.54 to 10.08, number needed to harm=284 patients). The risk of all thromboembolic complications was also higher in the dabigatran group compared with the warfarin group (Peto's odds ratio 2.81, 95% CI 1.23 to 6.45). No major differences were observed for the risk of major bleeding (odds ratio 0.99, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.78), pericardial tamponade, and groin hematoma. A lower risk of minor bleeding was observed with dabigatran (odds ratio 0.60, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.87). In conclusion, periprocedural use of dabigatran for AF ablation was related to a higher risk of thromboembolic complications including stroke and transient ischemic attack.

The Safetyof Dabigatran Versus Warfarin in Patients Undergoing Atrial Fibrillation Ablation

The safety and optimal strategy of the use of dabigatran versus uninterrupted warfarin in atrial fibrillation ablation is currently unclear. We performed a retrospective analysis between July 2011-October 2012 of all patients undergoing an AF ablation who received uninterrupted warfarin therapy (199) and the routine cessation of Dabigatran therapy (126) 4 days pre-ablation. Major safety endpoints included: pericardial effusion (requiring pericardiocentesis), peripheral thromboembolism, CVA, and groin hematoma requiring blood transfusion. Minor endpoints included pericardial effusion and groin hematoma. Dabigatran was restarted the following day after ablation. The warfarin group was older, had a higher CHADS₂, CHA₂DS₂VASc and HASBLED scores and greater prevalence of aortic plaque. The major complication rate was 2.0% in the warfarin group and 2.4% in the dabigatran group (P= 0.83). The minor complication rate was 2.5% in the warfarin group and <1% in the dabigatran group (P= 0.27). In the dabigatran group, there was one renal thromboembolic event 4 days post-ablation. All patients in the warfarin group who suffered a major complication required a blood transfusion. Cessation of dabigatran therapy 4 days pre AF ablation has a comparable safety profile to uninterrupted warfarin therapy.

Small molecule inhibitors in the treatment of cerebral ischemia

INTRODUCTION

Stroke is the world's second leading cause of death. Although recombinant tissue plasminogen activator is an effective treatment for cerebral ischemia, its limitations and ischemic stroke's complex pathophysiology dictate an increased need for the development of new therapeutic interventions. Small molecule inhibitors (SMIs) have the potential to be used as novel therapeutic modalities for stroke, since many preclinical and clinical trials have established their neuroprotective capabilities.

AREAS COVERED

This paper provides a summary of the pathophysiology of stroke as well as clinical and preclinical evaluations of SMIs as therapeutic interventions for cerebral ischemia. Cerebral ischemia is broken down into four mechanisms in this article: thrombosis, ischemic insult, mitochondrial injury and immune response. Insight is provided into preclinical and current clinical assessments of SMIs targeting each mechanism as well as a summary of reported results.

EXPERT OPINION

Many studies demonstrated that pre- or post-treatment with certain SMIs significantly ameliorated adverse effects from stroke. Although some of these promising SMIs moved on to clinical trials, they generally failed, possibly due to the poor translation of preclinical to clinical experiments. Yet, there are many steps being taken to improve the quality of experimental research and translation to clinical trials.

Safety and efficacy of dabigatran versus warfarin in patients undergoing catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Dabigatran etexilate, a new thrombin inhibitor, has been shown to be comparable to warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). However, there is a limited body of evidence on the efficacy and safety of using dabigatran among patients undergoing AF catheter ablation.

OBJECTIVE

A random effects meta-analysis was performed of controlled trials comparing dabigatran and warfarin in paroxysmal/persistent AF patients undergoing catheter ablation.

METHODS

Data sources included Medline, Embase, and Cochrane (from inception to April 2013). Three independent reviewers selected studies comparing warfarin to dabigatran. Descriptive and quantitative information was extracted from each selected study, regarding periprocedural all cause mortality, thromboembolic events and major bleeding, as well as modalities of periprocedural anticoagulation bridging.

RESULTS

After a detailed screening of 228 search results, 14 studies were identified enrolling a total of 4782 patients (1823 treated with dabigatran and 2959 with warfarin). No deaths were reported. No significant differences were found between patients treated with dabigatran and warfarin as regards thromboembolic events (0.55% dabigatran vs 0.17% warfarin; risk ratios (RR)=1.78, 95% CI 0.66 to 4.80; p=0.26) and major bleeding (1.48% dabigatran vs 1.35% warfarin; RR=1.07, 95% CI 0.51 to 2.26; p=0.86). No difference was found between the 110 mg twice daily and 150 mg twice daily dabigatran dosages concerning major bleeding (0% vs 1.62%, respectively; RR=0.19, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.18; p=0.25) and thromboembolism (0% vs 0.40%, respectively; RR=0.72, 95% CI 0.04 to 12.98; p=0.82).

CONCLUSIONS

In the specific setting of AF catheter ablation, this first pooled analysis suggests that patients treated with dabigatran have a similar incidence of thromboembolic events and major bleeding compared to warfarin, with low event rates overall.

Dabigatran etexilate for thromboembolic prophylaxis in non-valvular atrial fibrillation: the RE-LY study and substudies with commentary

In 2010, dabigatran etexilate, a direct thrombin inhibitor, was the first new oral anticoagulant to be approved for thromboembolic prophylaxis in atrial fibrillation in over 50 years. Dabigatran, unlike warfarin, has a short half-life with a rapid onset of anticoagulant effect, does not require dose adjustment or monitoring, and does not interact with food. The RE-LY trial compared two doses of dabigatran (110 and 150 mg twice daily) with adjusted dose warfarin in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation and at least 1 stroke risk factor. Compared with warfarin, dabigatran 150 mg twice daily was superior in reducing the risk of stroke or systemic embolism and was associated with a similar rate of major bleeding, while dabigatran 110 mg twice daily was equally effective in reducing stroke or systemic embolism and was associated with less major bleeding. Despite these favorable results, there remains disagreement regarding the optimal dose and overall safety of dabigatran in certain patient populations including the elderly and those with renal dysfunction.

Dabigatran for periprocedural anticoagulation following radiofrequency ablation for atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis of observational studies

PURPOSE

Dabigatran is approved for prevention of stroke or systemic embolism in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF). The safety and effectiveness of periprocedural dabigatran in ablation for AF are unknown.

METHODS

We performed a meta-analysis of all studies comparing periprocedural dabigatran with warfarin for anticoagulation in AF ablation. Studies of >100 patients with post-procedure follow-up were included. Outcomes were compared by calculating maximum likelihood estimates with confidence intervals. The co-primary endpoints were neurological events and major bleeding.

RESULTS

Ten cohort studies were included, including a total of 1,501 patients receiving dabigatran and 2,356 receiving warfarin. The mean age was 59-64 years and inclusion of women varied (10-33 %). Intra-procedural unfractionated heparin and irrigated ablation catheters were used routinely. Adverse events were low overall; however, the dabigatran group demonstrated a numerical excess of neurological events (10/1,501 [0.7 %] versus 4/2,356 [0.2 %]), but equivalent major bleeding outcomes (24/1,501 [1.6 %] versus 40/2,356 [1.7 %]). In the meta-analysis, there was a nonsignificant trend towards higher rates of the composite primary endpoints (any neurological event or major bleeding) in the dabigatran group. Dabigatran demonstrated a significantly higher rate of neurological events (estimated absolute risk difference 0.0047, 95 % confidence interval 0.0007 to 0.0099).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with warfarin, dabigatran may be associated with a higher frequency of periprocedural neurological events following radiofrequency ablation of AF. Randomized clinical trials are needed to definitively assess the safety and efficacy of novel oral anticoagulant use for periprocedural anticoagulation for ablation of AF.