Perioperative management of patients who are receiving a novel oral anticoagulant

Synthesis of the evidence on the impact of pre-operative direct oral anticoagulants on patient health outcomes after hip fracture surgery: rapid systematic review

Purpose

To synthesise the evidence on the impact of pre-operative direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) on health outcomes for patients who sustain a hip fracture.

Method

A rapid systematic review of three databases (MEDLINE, Embase and Scopus) for English-language articles from January 2000 to August 2021 was conducted. Abstracts and full text were screened by two reviewers and articles were critically appraised. Data synthesis was undertaken to summarise health outcomes examined for DOAC users versus a no anticoagulant group. Key information was extracted for study type, country and time frame, population and sample size, type of DOACs, comparator population(s), key definitions, health outcome(s), and summary study findings.

Results

There were 21 articles identified. Of the 18 studies that examined time to surgery, 12 (57.1%) found DOAC users had a longer time to surgery than individuals not using anticoagulants. Five (83.3%) of six studies identified that DOAC users had a lower proportion of surgery conducted within 48 h Four (40.0%) of ten studies reporting hospital length of stay (LOS) identified a higher LOS for DOAC users. Where reported, DOAC users did not have increased mortality, blood loss, transfusion rates, complication rates of stroke, re-operation or readmissions compared to individuals not using anticoagulants.

Conclusions

The effect of DOAC use on hip fracture patient health was mixed, although patients on DOACs had a longer time to surgery. The review highlights the need for consistent measurement of health outcomes in patients with a hip fracture to determine the most appropriate management of patients with a hip fracture taking DOACs.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00068-022-01937-8.

Proximal femur fractures in patients taking anticoagulants

Thirty per cent of patients presenting with proximal femoral fractures are receiving anticoagulant treatment for various other medical reasons. This pharmacological effect may necessitate reversal prior to surgical intervention to avoid interference with anaesthesia or excessive peri/post-operative bleeding. Consequently, delay to surgery usually occurs.

Platelet inhibitors (aspirin, clopidogrel) either alone or combined do not need to be discontinued to allow acute hip surgery. Platelet transfusions can be useful but are rarely needed.

Vitamin K antagonists (VKA, e.g. warfarin) should be reversed in a timely fashion and according to established readily accessible departmental protocols. Intravenous vitamin K on admission facilitates reliable reversal, and platelet complex concentrate (PCC) should be reserved for extreme scenarios.

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) must be discontinued prior to hip fracture surgery but the length of time depends on renal function ranging traditionally from two to four days.

Recent evidence suggests that early surgery (within 48 hours) can be safe. No bridging therapy is generally recommended.

There is an urgent need for development of new commonly available antidotes for every DOAC as well as high-level evidence exploring DOAC effects in the acute hip fracture surgical setting.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2020;5:699-706. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.190071

Periprocedural management of patients receiving novel oral anticoagulants

Background

Non-vitamin K oral antagonists are being increasingly used. However, broad clinical experience with them is lacking.

Objectives

To review guidelines and evidence for the use of non-vitamin K oral antagonists in the periprocedural environment.

Results

Despite the clear advantages of vitamin K oral antagonists, their use can entail risks owing to the scarcity of reversal agents. Consensus has been reached about postoperative resumption, which is recommended at 24 hours and 48-72 hours, respectively, after low-risk and high-risk bleeding surgery. Bridging with heparin is recommended in patients with a high risk of thrombosis. Urgent interventions should ideally take place 24 hours after the last dose intake. Major discrepancies exist between the American and the European recommendations for neuraxial procedures. The American proposals recommend suspending the drug for five half-lives, whereas the European approaches suggest suspension of just two half-lives. Suggestions for perioperative discontinuation vary widely. Some authors recommend a longer time of resumption for patients with renal impairment. All agree that there should be an increase in the number of days of interruption in high-risk bleeding procedures versus low-risk bleeding procedures.

Conclusions

A diverse number of approaches have been suggested for perioperative management of novel oral antagonists. American recommendations tend to be more rigorous than those of Europe. A need for more studies that measure health outcomes after the use of these drugs would be indispensable.

Surgical Delay Is Not Warranted for Patients With Hip Fractures Receiving Non-Warfarin Anticoagulants

The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether patients with hip fractures receiving antiplatelet and direct oral anticoagulants treated within 48 hours of admission had worse surgical and clinical outcomes than those whose surgery was delayed more than 48 hours. Consecutive patients 55 years and older with an operatively treated hip fracture were analyzed. Patients receiving the following anticoagulants were included: antiplatelet drugs, factor Xa inhibitors, and direct thrombin inhibitors. Outcomes included surgical blood loss, procedure time, transfusion requirement, length of stay, complication rate, and need for intensive care unit or step-down unit level care. Patients who underwent surgery within 48 hours of presentation were compared with patients whose surgery was delayed more than 48 hours. Of 551 consecutive operative hip fracture patients, 78 (14.2%) were receiving the anticoagulant medications included in this study. Of these 78 patients, 58 had surgery within 48 hours and 20 had surgery after 48 hours. When comparing the early and delayed fixation cohorts, there was no difference in transfusion requirement, length of surgery, or blood loss. Type of anticoagulant made no difference in transfusion requirement, blood loss, or length of surgery. There was also no difference in the mean number of complications or in the need for intensive care unit or step-down unit level care. In this study, patients receiving antiplatelet therapy, factor Xa inhibitors, or direct thrombin inhibitors who underwent surgical fixation of their hip fracture within 48 hours of admission were at no higher risk for transfusion, increased surgical blood loss, longer operative time, or inpatient mortality. [Orthopedics. 2019; 42(3):e331-e335.].

Gastrointestinal endoscopy in patients receiving novel direct oral anticoagulants: results from the prospective Dresden NOAC registry

BACKGROUND

Patients receiving direct-acting, non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOAC) frequently undergo gastrointestinal endoscopies (GIE) but little is known on the management and outcome of these interventions.

METHODS

With use of data from an ongoing, prospective, noninterventional registry of NOAC patients, the management and outcome of GIE were evaluated with use of standard event definitions. Patients undergoing GIE were categorized into two subgroups: (1) scheduled GIE (scheduled appointment, no acute bleeding) and (2) unscheduled GIE (unscheduled including management of acute gastrointestinal bleeding). The rates of major bleeding complications, cardiovascular complications, and all-cause death within 30 days after the procedure were evaluated.

RESULTS

Between October 1, 2011, and March 31, 2015, 492 patients underwent a total of 713 GIE (44.5% gastroscopies, 53.0% colonoscopies, 2.5% endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography procedures), with 70.0% being scheduled procedures and 30.0% being unscheduled procedures. Endoscopies were performed within 24 h after the last NOAC intake in 45 of 713 cases (6.3%), between 24 and 48 h after the last intake in 336 cases (47.1%), and after NOAC therapy interruption for more than 48 h in 213 cases (29.9%). Heparin bridging therapy was used in 180 of 713 procedures (25.3%) and predominantly (170/180; 94.4%) in cases of NOAC therapy interruption for longer than 72 h. Until day 30 after the procedure, the event rates were 1.4% for cardiovascular events and 0.7% for major bleeding events.

CONCLUSION

Continuation or short-term interruption of NOAC therapy seems to be a safe strategy for GIE. Heparin bridging therapy is predominantly used in cases of prolonged NOAC therapy interruption.

Lumbar puncture in patients using anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents

The use of anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents has largely increased. Diagnostic lumbar puncture in patients taking these drugs represents a challenge considering the opposing risks of bleeding and thrombotic complications. To date there are no controlled trials, specific guidelines, nor clear recommendations in this area. In the present review we make some recommendations about lumbar puncture in patients using these drugs. Our recommendations take into consideration the pharmacology of these drugs, the thrombotic risk according to the underlying disease, and the urgency in cerebrospinal fluid analysis. Evaluating such information and a rigorous monitoring of neurological symptoms after lumbar puncture are crucial to minimize the risk of hemorrhage associated neurological deficits. An individualized patient decision-making and an effective communication between the assistant physician and the responsible for conducting the lumbar puncture are essential to minimize potential risks.

Measuring non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant levels: When is it appropriate and which methods should be used?

Background

Although the need for an emergency intervention may merit laboratory measurement of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC) concentration or anticoagulant activity, NOACs are not supposed to require routine monitoring due to their stable pharmacological profiles compared with warfarin.

Aims

To examine situations where NOAC measurement may be useful and to provide information about methodologies available to measure NOAC-related anticoagulation activity.

Summary of review

The routine coagulation tests, including prothrombin time, thrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time, and international normalized ratio, have variable sensitivities to NOACs. Tests have been developed for use with specific NOACs, e.g. diluted thrombin time or chromogenic factor Xa assays. In emergency situations, such as severe bleeding, stroke, or a requirement for urgent surgery or procedures, there may be a need to assess anticoagulant activity to guide clinical decision making. In cases where neutralization of the anticoagulant effect is warranted, specific reversal agents are likely to become invaluable medical tools. Evidence to date suggests that dosing decisions for NOACs based on clinical features (e.g. age or renal function) can help optimize the benefit–risk balance without assessment of anticoagulant activity in non-emergency routine situations.

Conclusions

Regular monitoring of NOAC levels does not provide benefits and cannot be recommended at present. In some specific circumstances, e.g. severe bleeding, before urgent surgery, or before thrombolysis, measurement may be beneficial to assess whether a patient is actively anticoagulated. The availability of NOAC-specific reversal agents may change management practices in emergencies.

Use of direct oral anticoagulants with regional anesthesia in orthopedic patients

The use of direct oral anticoagulants including apixaban, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran, which are approved for several therapeutic indications, can simplify perioperative and postoperative management of anticoagulation. Utilization of regional neuraxial anesthesia in patients receiving anticoagulants carries a relatively small risk of hematoma, the serious complications of which must be acknowledged. Given the extensive use of regional anesthesia in surgery and the increasing number of patients receiving direct oral anticoagulants, it is crucial to understand the current clinical data on the risk of hemorrhagic complications in this setting, particularly for anesthesiologists. We discuss current data, guideline recommendations, and best practice advice on effective management of the direct oral anticoagulants and regional anesthesia, including in specific clinical situations, such as patients undergoing major orthopedic surgery at high risk of a thromboembolic event, or patients with renal impairment at an increased risk of bleeding.

Why switch from warfarin to NOACs?

Several patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation treated with warfarin or other vitamin-K antagonists (VKA) might benefit from switching to an oral non vitamin-K antagonist anticoagulant (NOAC). In the absence of randomised comparative trials of switching to NOACs versus maintaining VKA treatment, several considerations argue in favour of a switching strategy. First, there is conclusive evidence that haemorrhagic strokes and intracranial bleedings are much fewer in number with NOACs than with warfarin. The risk of intracranial bleeding is 52 % lower with NOACS than with warfarin, with extremes ranging from 33 to 70 %. Such benefit is applicable to different NOACs, and independent of the time-in-therapeutic range under warfarin. Patients at increased risk for intra-cranial bleeding (renal dysfunction, or prior stroke or intra-cranial bleeding) should benefit most from switching to NOACs. Patients with labile International Normalized Ratio are also considered good candidates for switching because of their increased risk of stroke, and the lack of interactions between the effects of NOACs versus warfarin and the time-in-therapeutic range. Furthermore, some NOACs proved to be superior to warfarin in reducing the risk of thromboembolic complications even in intention-to-treat analyses. As further advantage, NOACs show fewer drug-drug and drug-food interactions when compared with warfarin. Last, but not least, NOACs do not need frequent blood drawings except in patients with moderate renal dysfunction, in whom periodic controls of serum creatinine are generally advised. The higher cost remains a barrier to a wider use of NOACs, especially in low-income settings.

Novel oral anticoagulants in plastic surgery

Novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have emerged as a good alternative to warfarin in the prevention of stroke for patients with atrial fibrillation. NOAC use is increasing rapidly; therefore, greater understanding of their use in the perioperative period is important for optimal care. Studies and reviews that reported on the use of NOACs were identified, with particular focus on the perioperative period. PubMed was searched for relevant articles published between January 2000 and August 2015. The inevitable rise in the use of NOACs such as rivaroxaban (Xarelto™), apixaban (Eliquis™), edoxaban (Lixiana™) and dabigatran (Pradaxa™) may present a simplified approach to perioperative anticoagulant management due to fewer drug interactions, rapidity of onset of action and relatively short half-lives. Coagulation status, however, cannot reliably be monitored and no antidotes are currently available. When planning for discontinuation of NOACs, special consideration of renal function is required. Advice regarding the management of bleeding complications is provided for consideration in emergency surgery. In extreme circumstances, haemodialysis may be considered for bleeding with the use of dabigatran. NOACs will increasingly affect operative planning in plastic surgery. In order to reduce the incidence of complications associated with anticoagulation, the management of NOACs in the perioperative period requires knowledge of the time of last dose, renal function and the bleeding risk of the planned procedure. Consideration of these factors will allow appropriate interpretation of the current guidelines.

Direct oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation: can data from randomized clinical trials be safely transferred to the general population? No

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) represent an innovative and relevant treatment for the prevention of cardiac embolism in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Their introduction has been followed by an ample debate on their appropriate use, considering that they can offer an effective treatment for the many patients with AF, which are not taking any effective anticoagulant treatment, even though they have a substantial thromboembolic risk (1). On the other hand, DOAC are much less tested in everyday clinical practice and much more expensive than anti-vitamin k anticoagulants (AVKs). Starting from the quite favorable results of the available randomized controlled trials (RCTs)--showing that DOAC are at least non-inferior to AVK and that may be even better for some outcomes--this article discusses their transferability to the majority of AF patients. In summary, the body of evidence supports the efficacy and safety of DOAC in patients carrying demographic and clinical characteristics similar to subjects included in RCT, but their use in less well-characterized subpopulations requires particular caution, while waiting for more reliable data from the real world.

Direct oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation: can data from randomized clinical trials be safely transferred to the general population? Yes

Atrial fibrillation is the most common arrhythmia and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The current therapeutic options for patients at high thromboembolic risk include the vitamin K antagonists and the direct oral anticoagulants. These novel agents have been evaluated in more than 40,000 patients enrolled in four large randomized controlled trials for stroke prevention in non-valvular atrial fibrillation. When these results were pooled together, a greater efficacy profile, as well as a consistent reduction in life-threatening bleeding was shown in comparison to vitamin K antagonists. Randomized controlled trials offer the highest level of evidence on the efficacy and safety of an intervention; however, their results may not be directly applicable to the general population. The results of a number of post-marketing observational studies from the United States and Europe have been published. The results of these studies substantially confirm the findings of the randomized trials and show a favorable safety profile with the use of the direct oral anticoagulants even in unselected populations.

The criteria of the Italian Federation of Thrombosis Centres on DOACs: a "real world" application in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients already on vitamin K antagonist

The aim of this study was to evaluate the number of patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), anticoagulated with vitamin K antagonists (VKA), and monitored in our Thrombosis Centre, who could replace VKA with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) based on the Italian Federation of Thrombosis Centres (FCSA) consensus criteria. A total of 525 NVAF patients treated with VKA were studied. Therapeutic range (TTR) assessment and a capillary test for serum creatinine measure were carried out. The patients' preference was evaluated through the administration of a dedicated questionnaire. A history of intracranial bleeding was also taken into account. DOACs would cover 29 % of the patients considering a TTR <70 %; the percentage falls to 10 % if a TTR <55 % is considered. Only 20 % of the patients would move from VKA to DOACs because of the lack of an antidote and laboratory checks during DOACs therapy. Thirty-three percent of patients were worried that they would forget to take the tablets twice a day. About 2 % of patients could not use DOACs since their glomerular filtration rate was less than 30 ml/min, while in 23.6 %, a reduction in the daily dose of DOACs would have been required due to renal failure. TTR assessment, renal function and a previous history of intracranial bleeding would reduce the percentage of patients who could switch from VKA to DOACs, but it is the patients' preference that strongly influences the percentage of those who would benefit from DOACs treatment. However, if laboratory controls were available, it would rise considerably.

Perioperative bridging anticoagulation during dabigatran or warfarin interruption among patients who had an elective surgery or procedure. Substudy of the RE-LY trial

In patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who require interruption of dabigatran or warfarin for an elective surgery/procedure, the risks and benefits of perioperative bridging anticoagulation is uncertain.We accessed the database from RE-LY, a randomised trial comparing dabigatran with warfarin for stroke prevention in AF, to assess the potential benefits and risks of bridging. In patients who had a first interruption of dabigatran or warfarin for an elective surgery/procedure, we compared the risk for major bleeding (MB), stroke or systemic embolism (SSE) and any thromboembolism (TE) in patients who were bridged or not bridged during the period of seven days before until 30 days after surgery/procedure. We used multivariable Cox regression to adjust for potential confounders.Bridging was used more during warfarin interruption than dabigatran interruption (27.5 % vs 15.4 %; p< 0.001). With dabigatran interruption, bridged patients had more MB (6.5 % vs 1.8 %, p< 0.001) than those not bridged but bridged and not bridged groups did not differ for any TE (1.2 % vs 0.6 %, p=0.16) and SSE (0.5 % vs 0.3 %, p=0.46). With warfarin interruption, bridged patients had more MB (6.8 % vs 1.6 %, p< 0.001) and any TE (1.8 % vs 0.3 %, p=0.007) than those not bridged but bridged and not bridged groups did not differ for SSE (0.5 % vs 0.2 %, p=0.321). In conclusion, in patients who interrupted dabigatran or warfarin for a surgery/ procedure in the RE-LY trial, use of bridging anticoagulation appeared to increase the risk for major bleeding irrespective of dabigatran or warfarin interruption.

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.

Management of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants in the perioperative setting

The field of oral anticoagulation has evolved with the arrival of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) including an anti-IIa agent (dabigatran etexilate) and anti-Xa agents (rivaroxaban and apixaban). The main specificities of these drugs are predictable pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics but special attention should be paid in the elderly, in case of renal dysfunction and in case of emergency. In addition, their perioperative management is challenging, especially with the absence of specific antidotes. Effectively, periods of interruption before surgery or invasive procedures depend on half-life and keeping a permanent balance between bleeding and thromboembolic risks. In addition, few data regarding the link between plasma concentrations and their effects are provided. Routine laboratory tests are altered by NOACs and quantitative measurements are not widely performed. This paper provides a review on the management of NOACs in the perioperative setting, including the estimation of the bleeding and thrombotic risk, the periods of interruption, the indication of heparin bridging, the usefulness of laboratory tests before surgery or invasive procedure, and the time of resuming. Most data are based on expert's opinions.

Peri-interventional management of novel oral anticoagulants in daily care: results from the prospective Dresden NOAC registry

AIMS

Patients receiving novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) frequently undergo interventional procedures. Short half-lives and rapid onset of action allow for short periods of NOAC interruption without heparin bridging. However, outcome data for this approach are lacking. We evaluated the peri-interventional NOAC management in unselected patients from daily care.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Effectiveness and safety data were collected from an ongoing, prospective, non-interventional registry of >2100 NOAC patients. Outcome events were adjudicated using standard event definitions. Of 2179 registered patients, 595 (27.3%) underwent 863 procedures (15.6% minimal, 74.3% minor, and 10.1% major procedures). Until Day 30 ± 5 post-procedure, major cardiovascular events occurred in 1.0% of patients [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.5-2.0] and major bleeding complications in 1.2% (95% CI 0.6-2.1). Cardiovascular and major bleeding complications were highest after major procedures (4.6 and 8.0%, respectively). Heparin bridging did not reduce cardiovascular events, but led to significantly higher rates of major bleeding complications (2.7%; 95% CI 1.1-5.5) compared with no bridging (0.5%; 0.1-1.4; P = 0.010). Multivariate analysis demonstrated diabetes [odds ratio (OR) 13.2] and major procedures (OR 7.3) as independent risk factors for cardiovascular events. Major procedures (OR 16.8) were an independent risk factor for major bleeding complications. However, if major and non-major procedures were separately assessed, heparin bridging was not an independent risk factor for major bleeding.

CONCLUSION

Continuation or short-term interruption of NOAC is safe strategies for most invasive procedures. Patients at cardiovascular risk undergoing major procedures may benefit from heparin bridging, but bleeding risks need to be considered.

Preventive strategies against bleeding due to nonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants

Dabigatran etexilate (DE), rivaroxaban, and apixaban are nonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) that have been compared in clinical trials with existing anticoagulants (warfarin and enoxaparin) in several indications for the prevention and treatment of thrombotic events. All NOACs presented bleeding events despite a careful selection and control of patients. Compared with warfarin, NOACs had a decreased risk of intracranial hemorrhage, and apixaban and DE (110 mg BID) had a decreased risk of major bleeding from any site. Rivaroxaban and DE showed an increased risk of major gastrointestinal bleeding compared with warfarin. Developing strategies to minimize the risk of bleeding is essential, as major bleedings are reported in clinical practice and specific antidotes are currently not available. In this paper, the following preventive approaches are reviewed: improvement of appropriate prescription, identification of modifiable bleeding risk factors, tailoring NOAC's dose, dealing with a missed dose as well as adhesion to switching, bridging and anesthetic procedures.

[Rivaroxaban, dabigatran and apixaban: new anticoagulants in operative urology]

The periprocedural management of patients receiving long-term oral anticoagulant therapy is a common but complex clinical problem. It is well established that maintaining oral anticoagulation is associated with an increased risk of bleeding in the periprocedural period while discontinuing anticoagulant therapy postoperatively leads to an elevated risk for thromboembolic events, especially in high risk patients. Nowadays there is growing evidence to maintain antiplatelet therapy with acetylsalicylic acid (ASS, Aspirin®) perioperatively in a setting of secondary prophylaxis. Beyond that the increasing routine clinical use of novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs), such as the direct factor IIa inhibitor dabigatran and the direct factor Xa inhibitors rivaroxaban and apixaban, presents a challenge for urological surgeons. These agents are approved in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (rivaroxaban, dabigatran and apixaban) and in patients after deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism (rivaroxaban). Due to their relatively short elimination half-lives and rapid onset of action, these new drugs have the potential to simplify periprocedural anticoagulant management making heparin bridging therapy redundant. Critical consideration is necessary regarding potential pitfalls, such as impaired renal function, insufficient possibility of laboratory monitoring and lack of antidotes in cases of postoperative hemorrhage. Although periprocedural protocols for the use of NOACs are emerging, robust clinical data are still scarce. This article provides a practical, clinician-focused approach to periprocedural management of NOACs.