Management of Periprocedural Anticoagulation

Perioperative management and outcomes in patients receiving low-dose rivaroxaban and/or aspirin: a subanalysis of the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) trial

BACKGROUND

No study has investigated the perioperative management and clinical outcomes in patients who are receiving rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice a day and acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) 81 to 100 mg daily.

OBJECTIVE

To assess perioperative management and outcomes in patients who are receiving low-dose rivaroxaban, 2.5 mg twice-daily, and low-dose ASA, 81 to 100 mg daily. To assess perioperative management and outcomes in patients who are receiving low-dose rivaroxaban, 2.5 mg twice-daily, and low-dose ASA, 81 to 100 mg daily.

METHODS

Subanalysis of the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) trial was performed to assess perioperative management and clinical outcomes in patients with stable coronary or peripheral artery disease who were randomized to receive rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice a day plus ASA 100 mg daily, rivaroxaban 5 mg twice a day, or ASA 100 mg daily. Patients studied required a surgery/procedure during the trial. The study outcomes, which included myocardial infarction, angina, stroke, acute limb ischemia, bleeding, and death, were assessed according to treatment allocation.

RESULTS

There were 2632 patients studied (mean age, 68 years; 80% male) who had a surgery/procedure, comprising percutaneous coronary interventions (∼43%), carotid or other arterial angioplasty (∼15%), pacemaker or internal cardiac defibrillator implantation (∼9%), and coronary artery bypass graft surgery (∼7%). Perioperative study drug management varied, with about one-third of patients not interrupting study drug and the remainder interrupting it between 1 and ≥10 days preprocedure. The incidences of adverse outcomes across treatment groups were 12.7% to 15.3% for myocardial ischemia, 0.8% to 1.2% for stroke, 0.1% to 0.2% for venous thromboembolism, and 3.1% to 4.2% for any bleeding. There was no statistically significant difference in outcome rates across treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

In patients in the COMPASS trial who required a surgery/procedure, there was no significant difference in perioperative adverse outcomes whether patients were receiving rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice a day and ASA 100 mg daily, rivaroxaban 5 mg twice a day, or ASA alone.

Thromboembolism prophylaxis practices of pediatric and congenital electrophysiologists during invasive electrophysiology studies: A PACES survey

BACKGROUND

Thromboembolic events related to invasive electrophysiology studies, while rare, can have devastating consequences. Use of systemic anticoagulation for a pediatric or adult-congenital invasive electrophysiology study is recommended, however there is no established standard of practice in this population.

OBJECTIVE

To report on procedural practices for thromboembolism prophylaxis during invasive electrophysiology studies for pediatric patients and adults with congenital heart disease.

METHODS

An anonymous web-based survey was sent to the members of the Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society. The survey focused on pre-procedural, intra-procedural, and post-procedural thromboembolism prophylaxis practices during invasive electrophysiology studies. Significant practice variation was defined as <90% concordance among respondents.

RESULTS

Survey was completed by 73 members; 52 (71%) practicing in the United States, 65 (89%) practicing in an academic institution, and 14 (19%) in an institution that performs more than 200 invasive electrophysiology procedures annually. Responses showed significant variation in practice. Prior to an invasive electrophysiology procedure, 25% discontinue aspirin while 47% discontinue anticoagulants. Heparin is given for all procedures by 32%. When heparin is administered, the first dose is given by 32% after sheaths are placed, 42% after crossing into the systemic atrium, and 26% just prior to systemic-side ablation. Most target an activated clotting time between 200-300 seconds. Post systemic-side ablation, 58% do not initiate a heparin infusion. Post-procedural oral agents were initiated on day of procedure by 34% of respondents and on post-procedure day 1 by 53%. If treating with aspirin, 74% use low-dose (3-5 mg/kg or 81 mg daily), and 68% treat for 4-6 weeks.

CONCLUSION

There is significant variation in thromboembolism prophylaxis for invasive EP studies among pediatric and congenital electrophysiologists. Further studies are needed to optimize the management of thromboembolism prophylaxis in this population.

Adherence to Anticoagulation Interruption Guidelines in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation

INTRODUCTION

Annually, 15% of patients who receive oral anticoagulation require interruption for surgery or an invasive procedure. This study evaluates the adherence of patients with atrial fibrillation with a history of stroke or transient ischemic attack to the Thrombosis Canada Perioperative guidelines for the discontinuation and reinitiation of anticoagulation treatment.

METHODS

We collected data from a prospective patient survey at the Stroke Prevention Clinic in the University of Alberta hospital. Patients' charts were reviewed from the electronic medical records, and adherence was looked at according to the Thrombosis Canada Perioperative guidelines for the interruption of anticoagulants.

RESULTS

During the study period (2016-2019), there were 509 patients surveyed. Anticoagulation treatment was interrupted in 150 patients with 98 interrupted for surgical or invasive procedures. The interruption was adherent to guidelines in only 29 (29.6%) of patients and inappropriate or nonadherent in 69 (70.4%) patients. There were seven ischemic strokes recorded during the period of interruption. The proportion of strokes was higher in patients whose anticoagulation interruption was longer than what the guidelines recommended (6/61 or 9.8%) when compared to those who adhered to recommended perioperative anticoagulation guidelines (1/29 or 3.4%).

CONCLUSION

Our results indicate that significant discrepancy with following the recommended perioperative anticoagulation guidelines is common in real-life practice. Delay in re-anticoagulation may increase the risk of complications.

Improving documentation of anticoagulation and antiplatelet recommendations after outpatientendoscopy

Clear documentation of instructions for resuming anticoagulant and antiplatelet (AC/AP) medications after gastrointestinal endoscopy is essential for high-quality postprocedure care. Yet, these recommendations are frequently absent, which may impact patient safety. We aimed to improve documentation of postprocedural AC/AP instructions through targeted interventions during outpatient endoscopy at a Veterans Affairs Medical Center using validated Quality Improvement methodology. We identified patients on AC/AP agents presenting for outpatient oesophagogastroduodenoscopy or colonoscopy and found restart recommendations were documented in only 59.4% of procedures at baseline. After two intervention cycles, which included provider education, nursing prompts and alterations to endoscopic documentation software, postprocedure documentation increased by 26.7%-86.1% when compared with baseline (p<0.001). These interventions, which require low-resource utilisation, could be part of standardised processes readily implemented at other institutions to help potentially reduce postprocedure patient confusion, medication errors and complications.

The association of pre-transplant atrial fibrillation with in-hospital outcomes in patients undergoing orthotopic liver transplantation: A propensity score matching analysis

INTRODUCTION

In this study, we sought to evaluate the prevalence and association of pre-transplant atrial fibrillation (AF) on 30-day postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing orthotopic liver transplant (OLT).

METHOD

The National Inpatient Sample Database was queried from 2011 to 2017 for relevant ICD-9 and ICD-10 procedural and diagnostic codes. Baseline characteristics and in-hospital outcomes were compared in patients who underwent OLT with AF and those without.

RESULTS

Among 45,357 patients who underwent OLT, women made up 35.8% of the overall population. The prevalence of AF before transplant was 2932 (6.5%) with a trend toward increasing prevalence, with an average annual change rate of 4.19%. Applying propensity score matching to control for potential confounding factors, there was no association between pre-transplant AF and in-hospital mortality in patients undergoing OLT, however there was a higher incidence of perioperative complications including: acute kidney injury, ventricular tachycardia, major bleeding, blood product transfusion, and septic shock.

CONCLUSION

In patients undergoing OLT, pre-transplant AF is increasing in prevalence and appears to be associated with similar in-hospital mortality but worse perioperative outcomes. Greater emphasis should be placed on AF in the preoperative cardiovascular risk stratification of patients undergoing OLT.

Perioperative Management of Antithrombotic Therapy: An American College of Chest Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline

BACKGROUND

The American College of Chest Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline on the Perioperative Management of Antithrombotic Therapy addresses 43 Patients-Interventions-Comparators-Outcomes (PICO) questions related to the perioperative management of patients who are receiving long-term oral anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy and require an elective surgery/procedure. This guideline is separated into four broad categories, encompassing the management of patients who are receiving: (1) a vitamin K antagonist (VKA), mainly warfarin; (2) if receiving a VKA, the use of perioperative heparin bridging, typically with a low-molecular-weight heparin; (3) a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC); and (4) an antiplatelet drug.

METHODS

Strong or conditional practice recommendations are generated based on high, moderate, low, and very low certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology for clinical practice guidelines.

RESULTS

A multidisciplinary panel generated 44 guideline recommendations for the perioperative management of VKAs, heparin bridging, DOACs, and antiplatelet drugs, of which two are strong recommendations: (1) against the use of heparin bridging in patients with atrial fibrillation; and (2) continuation of VKA therapy in patients having a pacemaker or internal cardiac defibrillator implantation. There are separate recommendations on the perioperative management of patients who are undergoing minor procedures, comprising dental, dermatologic, ophthalmologic, pacemaker/internal cardiac defibrillator implantation, and GI (endoscopic) procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Substantial new evidence has emerged since the 2012 iteration of these guidelines, especially to inform best practices for the perioperative management of patients who are receiving a VKA and may require heparin bridging, for the perioperative management of patients who are receiving a DOAC, and for patients who are receiving one or more antiplatelet drugs. Despite this new knowledge, uncertainty remains as to best practices for the majority of perioperative management questions.

Effect of a Novel Pocket Compression Device on Hematomas Following Cardiac Electronic Device Implantation in Patients Receiving Direct Oral Anticoagulants

Background

A pocket hematoma is a well-recognized complication that occurs after pacemaker or defibrillator implantation. It is associated with increased pocket infection and hospital stay. Patients suffering from atrial fibrillation and undergoing cardiovascular electronic implantable device (CIED) surgery are widely prescribed and treated with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). In this study, the use of a novel compression device was evaluated to examine its ability to decrease the incidence of pocket hematomas following device implantation with uninterrupted DOACs.

Methods

A total of 204 participants who received DOACs and underwent CIED implantation were randomized into an experimental group (novel compression device) and a control group (elastic adhesive tape with a sandbag). The primary outcome was pocket hematoma, and the secondary outcomes were skin erosions and patient comfort score. Grade 3 hematoma was defined as a hematoma that required anticoagulation therapy interruption, re-operation, or prolonged hospital stay.

Results

The baseline characteristics of both groups had no significant differences. The incidence of grades 1 and 2 hematomas was significantly lower in the compression device group than in the conventional pressure dressing group (7.8 vs. 23.5 and 2.0 vs. 5.9%, respectively; P &lt; 0.01). Grade 3 hematoma occurred in 2 of 102 patients in the experimental group and 7 of 102 patients in the control group (2.0 vs. 6.9%; P = 0.03). The incidence rates of skin erosion were significantly lower, and the patient comfort score was much higher in the compression device group than in the control group (P &lt; 0.01). Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that the use of novel compression device was a significant protective factor for pocket hematoma (OR = 0.42; 95% CI, 0.29–0.69, P = 0.01).

Conclusions

The incidence of pocket hematomas and skin erosions significantly decreases when the proposed compression device is used for patients undergoing device implantation with uninterrupted DOACs. Thus, the length of hospital stay and re-operation rate can be reduced, and patient comfort can be improved.

Clinical Trial Registration

http://www.chictr.org.cn, identifier: ChiCTR2100049430.

Barriers and facilitators of following perioperative internal medicine recommendations by surgical teams: a sequential, explanatory mixed-methods study

Background

Preoperative medical consultations add expense and burden for patients and the impact of these consults on patient outcomes is conflicting. Previous work suggests that 10–40% of preoperative medical consult recommendations are not followed. This limits measurement of the effect of perioperative medical consultation on patient outcomes and represents a quality gap, given the patient time and healthcare cost associated with consultation. We aimed to measure, characterize, and understand reasons for missed recommendations from preoperative medical consultation.

Methods

This explanatory, sequential mixed-methods study used chart audits followed by semi-structured interviews. Chart audit of consecutive patients seen in preoperative medical clinic were reviewed to measure the proportion and characterize the type of recommendations that were not completed (“missed”). This phase informed the interview participants and questions. The interview guide was developed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and the Theoretical Domains Framework. Template analysis was used to understand drivers and barriers of missed recommendations

Results

Chart audit included 255 patients (n=161, 63.1% female) seen in preadmission clinic between April 1 and April 30, 2019. 55.7% of patients had all recommendations followed (n=142). Postoperative anticoagulation management and postoperative cardiac biomarker surveillance recommendations were least commonly followed (50.0%, n=28, and 68.9%, n=82, respectively).

Eighteen surgical team members were interviewed. Missed recommendations were both unintentional and intentional, and the key drivers differed by these categories. Unintentionally missed recommendations occurred due to individual-level factors (drivers: knowledge of the consultation note, lack of routine for reviewing the consultation note, and competing demands on time) and systems-level factors (driver: lack of role clarity). Intentionally missed recommendations occurred due to user error due (drivers: lack of knowledge of guidelines or evidence) and appropriate modifications (driver: need to adapt a preoperative plan for a complicated postoperative course).

Conclusions

Only 55.7% of consult notes had all recommendations followed, suggesting a quality gap in perioperative medical care. Qualitative data suggests multiple drivers of missed recommendations that should be targeted to improve the efficiency of care for these patients.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13741-021-00236-x.

The Dilemma of Peri-Procedural Warfarin Management: A Narrative Review

Periprocedural vitamin K antagonist management is a complex process and inherently entails multiple clinical issues. Marked variations have been reported in different aspects of this process. These differences were noted at the clinician and institutional levels owing to the lack of evidence-based data leading to many discrepancies in decision-making. This review aims to address the gap of vitamin K antagonist periprocedural management acknowledged by previously published prescribers’ questionnaires. One of the components of this process is “bridging,” which aims to provide minimal interruption of the anticoagulation period through the use of heparin products. Recent studies showed that bridging is increasing bleeding risk. Secondly, interruption decision relies on the classification of thromboembolism risk which depends on trials that did not include patients with atrial fibrillation. Thirdly, the interruption duration is different among different International normalization ratio levels, which strengthens the difference in the clinical practice of preoperative vitamin K antagonist management. Lastly, the resumption of a vitamin-K antagonist after surgery has many scenarios according to the procedure and patient risk of bleeding. Vitamin-K antagonist periprocedural management is complicated due to individual practice and the lack of strictly implemented institutional standardized protocols to guide, manage and evaluate the process.

Reversal of direct oral anticoagulants in adult hip fracture patients. A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Increasing numbers of patients are taking Direct Oral Anticoagulants at the time of hip fracture. Evidence is limited on how and if the effects of DOAC's should be reversed before surgical fixation. Wide variations in practice exist. We conducted a systematic review to investigate outcomes for three reversal strategies. These were: "watch and wait" (also referred to as "time-reversal"), plasma product reversal and reversal with specific antidotes.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted using multiple databases. Results were obtained for studies directly comparing different DOAC reversal strategies in hip fracture patients and for studies comparing DOAC-taking hip fracture patients (including patients "reversed" using any method and "non-reversed" patients) against matched controls taking either a vitamin-K antagonist or not receiving anticoagulation therapy. This allowed construction of a network meta-analysis to indirectly compare outcomes between "reversed" and "non-reversed" DOAC patients. With respect to "watch and wait"/"time-reversal", a cut-off time to surgery of 36 hours was used to distinguish between "time-reversed" and "non time-reversed" DOAC patients. The primary outcome was early/inpatient mortality, reported as Odds Ratios (OR).

RESULTS

No studies investigating plasma products or reversal agents specifically in hip fracture patients were obtained. Fourteen studies were suitable for analysis of "watch and wait"/"time- reversal". Two studies directly compared "time-reversed" and "non time-reversed" DOAC-taking hip fracture patients (58 "time-reversed", 62 "non time-reversed"). From 12 other studies we used indirect comparisons between "time-reversed" and "non time-reversed" DOAC patients (total, 357 "time-reversed", 282 "non time-reversed"). We found no statistically significant differences in mortality outcomes between "time-reversal" and "non time-reversal" (OR 1.48 [95%CI: 0.29-7.53]). We also did not find a statistically significant difference between "time reversal" and "non time-reversal" in terms of blood transfusion requirements (OR 1.16 [95% CI 0.42-3.23]). However, several authors described that surgical delay is associated with worse outcomes related to prolonged hospitalisation, and that operating within 36 hours is safe.

CONCLUSIONS

We suggested against "watch and wait" to reverse the DOAC effect in hip fractures. Further work is required to assess the optimal timing for surgery as well as the use of plasma products or specific antidotes in DOAC-taking hip fracture patients.

Assessment of the attitude, awareness and practice of periprocedural warfarin management among health care professional in Qatar. A cross sectional survey

It is estimated that 10-15% of oral anticoagulant (OAC) patients, would need to hold their OAC for scheduled surgery. Especially for warfarin, this process is complex and requires multi-layer risk assessment and decisions across different specialties. Clinical guidelines deliver broad recommendations in the area of warfarin management before surgery which can lead to different trends and practices among practitioners. To evaluate the current attitude, awareness, and practice among health care providers (HCPs) on warfarin periprocedural management. A multiple-choice questionnaire was developed, containing questions on demographics and professional information and was completed by187 HCPs involved in warfarin periprocedural management. The awareness median (IQR) score was moderate [64.28% (21.43)]. The level of awareness was associated with the practitioner's specialty and degree of education (P = 0.009, 0.011 respectively). Practice leans to overestimate the need for warfarin discontinuation as well as the need for bridging. Participants expressed interest in using genetic tests to guide periprocedural warfarin management [median (IQR) score (out of 10) = 7 (5)]. In conclusion, the survey presented a wide variation in the clinical practice of warfarin periprocedural management. This study highlights that HCPs in Qatar have moderate awareness. We suggest tailoring an educational campaign or courses towards the identified gaps.

Postimplantation pocket hematoma increases risk of cardiac implantable electronic device infection: A meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

 Several studies have shown an inconsistent relationship between postimplantation pocket hematoma and cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection. In this study, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the effect of postimplantation hematoma and the risk of CIED infection.

METHODS

 We searched the databases of MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to March 2020. Included studies were cohort studies, case-control studies, cross-sectional studies, and randomized controlled trials that reported incidence of postimplantation pocket hematoma and CIED infection during the follow-up period. CIED infection was defined as either a device-related local or systemic infection. Data from each study were combined using the random effects, generic inverse variance method of Der Simonian and Laird to calculate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were included in final analysis, involving a total of 28 319 participants. In random-effect model, we found that postimplantation pocket hematoma significantly increases the risk of overall CIED infection (OR = 6.30, 95% CI: 3.87-10.24, I 2 = 49.3%). There was no publication bias observed in the funnel plot as well as no small-study effect observed in Egger's test.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis demonstrated that postimplantation pocket hematoma significantly increases the risk of CIED infection. Precaution should be taken during device implantation to reduce postimplantation hematoma and subsequent CIED infection.

Preoperative Anticoagulation Management in Everyday Clinical Practice: An International Comparative Analysis of Work-as-Done Using the Functional Resonance Analysis Method

OBJECTIVES

Preoperative anticoagulation management (PAM) is a complex, multidisciplinary process important to patient safety. The Functional Resonance Analysis Method (FRAM) is a novel method to study how complex processes usually go right at the frontline (labeled Safety-II) and how this relates to predefined procedures. This study aimed to assess PAM in everyday practice and explore the usability and utility of FRAM.

METHODS

The study was conducted at an Australian and European Cardiothoracic Surgery Department. A FRAM model of work-as-imagined was developed using (inter)national guidelines. Semistructured interviews with 18 involved professionals were used to develop models reflecting work-as-done at both sites, which were presented to staff for validation. Workload in hours was estimated per process step.

RESULTS

In both centers, work-as-done differed from work-as-imagined, such as in the division of tasks among disciplines (e.g., nurses/registrars rather than medical specialists), but control mechanisms had been developed locally to ensure safe care (e.g., crosschecking with other clinicians). Centers had organized the process differently, revealing opportunities for improvement regarding patient information and clustering of clinic visits. Presenting FRAM models to staff initiated discussion on improvement of functions in the model that are vital for success. Overall workload was estimated at 47 hours per site.

CONCLUSIONS

This FRAM analysis provided insight into PAM from the perspective of frontline clinicians, revealing essential functions, interdependencies and variability, and the relation with guidelines. Future studies are warranted to study the potential of FRAM, such as for guiding improvements in complex systems.

A physician survey of perioperative neuraxial anesthesia management in patients on a direct oral anticoagulant

BACKGROUND

The perioperative management of patients taking a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) who require a high-bleed-risk surgery and/or neuraxial anesthesia is uncertain. We surveyed clinician practices relating to DOAC interruption and related perioperative management in patients having high-bleed-risk surgery with neuraxial anesthesia, and assess the suitability of a randomized trial of different perioperative DOAC management strategies.

METHODS

We surveyed members of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, the Canadian Anesthesia Society and Thrombosis Canada. We developed four clinical scenarios involving DOAC-treated patients who required anticoagulant interruption for elective high-bleed-risk surgery. In three scenarios, patients were to receive neuraxial anesthesia, and in one scenario they were to receive general anesthesia. We also asked about the merit of a randomized trial to compare a 2-day versus longer (3- to 5-day) duration of DOAC interruption.

RESULTS

There were 399 survey respondents of whom 356 (89%) were anesthetists and 43 (11%) were medical specialists. The responses indicate uncertainty about the DOAC interruption interval for high-bleed-risk surgery and/or neuraxial anesthesia; anesthetists favor 3- to 5-day interruption whereas medical specialists favor 2-day interruption. Anesthetists were unwilling to proceed with neuraxial anesthesia in patients with a 2-day DOAC interruption interval, preferring to cancel the surgery or switch to general anesthesia. There is general agreement on the need for a randomized trial in this field to compare a 2-day and a 3- to 5-day DOAC interruption management strategy.

CONCLUSIONS

There is variability in practices relating to the perioperative management of DOAC-treated patients who require a high-bleed-risk surgery with neuraxial anesthesia; this variability relates to the duration of DOAC interruption in such patients.

A prospective comparison of four methods for preventing pacemaker pocket infections

This study aims to evaluate four pacemaker pocket cleaning methods for preventing implantation-related infections. This single-center trial prospectively randomized 910 patients undergoing first-time pacemaker implantation or replacement into four pocket cleaning methods: hemocoagulase (group A, n = 228), gentamicin (group B, n = 228), hemocoagulase plus gentamicin (group C, n = 227), and normal saline (group D, n = 227). Before implanting the pacemaker battery, the pockets were cleaned with gauze presoaked in the respective cleaning solutions. Then, these patients were followed up to monitor the occurrence of infections for 1 month after implantation. Twelve implantation-related infections occurred in 910 patients (1.32%): four patients from group A (1.75%), three patients from group B (1.32%), two patients from group C (0.88%), and three patients from group D (1.32%) (P > .05). Furthermore, two patients developed bloodstream infections (0.22%), and both of these patients were associated with pocket infection (one patient was from group A, while the other patient was from group C, respectively). No cases of infective endocarditis occurred. The differences in the number of infections in these study groups were not statistically significant. The application of hemocoagulase, gentamicin, hemocoagulase plus gentamicin, or normal saline on the presoaked gauze before implantation was equally effective in preventing pocket-associated infections.

Impact of direct-acting oral anticoagulants and warfarin on postendoscopic GI bleeding and thromboembolic events in patients undergoing elective endoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

An increasing number of patients are undergoing GI endoscopic procedures with active prescriptions for direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). DOACs have been associated with a higher risk of GI bleeding (GIB) compared with warfarin. Our aims were to compare the risk of postendoscopic GIB and thromboembolic (TE) events among patients on DOACs versus warfarin.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients aged 18 years or older in a large integrated health care system in Southern California, who had undergone an outpatient GI endoscopic procedure and were taking a DOAC or warfarin between January 1, 2013, and October 1, 2019. We compared bleeding and thrombosis risk in the 30 days after the endoscopic procedure between the warfarin and DOAC groups using multivariate logistic regression analysis adjusted for covariates.

RESULTS

Between January 1, 2013, and October 1, 2019, we identified 6765 outpatient GI endoscopic procedures in which patients received preprocedure prescriptions for either a DOAC (1587) or warfarin (5178). Overall, there was no significant difference in postprocedure GIB (odds ratio [OR], 1.165; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.88-1.55; P = .291) or TE (OR, 0.929; 95% CI, 0.64-1.35; P = .703) between the DOAC and warfarin groups). Subgroup analysis revealed a higher risk of GIB associated with DOAC specifically with EGD procedures (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.15-2.83; P = .011).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant difference in the overall postendoscopic risk of GIB and TE events among patients with preprocedure use of DOACs compared with patients on warfarin. There may be a higher risk of GIB in patients taking DOACs and undergoing EGD.

Periprocedural Outcomes in Patients on Chronic Anticoagulation Undergoing Fistulograms

BACKGROUND

Management of antithrombotic therapy with warfarin in patients undergoing fistulograms and possible interventions is controversial and difficult because of lack of adequate outpatient bridging options. Our goal was to assess periprocedural outcomes in patients managed using different anticoagulation strategies.

METHODS

A retrospective, single-institution analysis of all patients on chronic anticoagulation with warfarin undergoing fistulograms from 2011 to 2017 was performed. Anticoagulation management strategies were classified as suspended warfarin (SW), continued warfarin (CW), and a heparin bridge with suspended warfarin (HB). Periprocedural outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

There were 87 patients on chronic anticoagulation with warfarin who underwent 175 fistulograms. Median age was 63 years, and 43.4% were women. Indications for warfarin included atrial fibrillation (53%), prior pulmonary embolism/deep vein thrombosis (29%), and hypercoagulable state (14%). Distribution was SW (60%), CW (26%), and HB (14%). Approximately half (53%) were same-day procedures, 30% occurred during access-related admissions, and 14% were performed during nonaccess-related admissions. Common indications for a fistulogram included difficulty with dialysis (63.4%), access thrombosis (20.6%), and poor maturation (10.3%). Interventions included angioplasty (82.9%), thrombectomy/embolectomy (20.6%), and stenting (8.6%). Thirty-day outcomes for SW versus CW versus HB were similar for bleeding complications (5.7%, 6.5%, 8.3%; P = 0.89), systemic thrombotic complications (3.8%, 2.2%, 0%; P = 0.569), access rethrombosis (7.6%, 13%, 12.5%; P = 0.517), and tunneled dialysis catheter placement (11.4%, 13%, 12.5%; P = 0.958). After excluding procedures performed during a nonaccess-related admission, length of stay (LOS) was highest among HB (9.6 ± 7.8 days) compared with SW (2.6 ± 5.9 days) and CW (1 ± 2.8 days), (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

CW therapy in patients undergoing fistulograms was not associated with increased morbidity and was associated with shorter LOS. Bridging with heparin is not associated with improved outcomes, warranting a thorough consideration of continuing warfarin is safe and may streamline preservation of dialysis accesses without significantly increasing resource utilization.

Assessment of low plasma concentrations of apixaban in the periprocedural setting

INTRODUCTION

Estimation of residual apixaban plasma concentrations may be requested in the management of emergencies. This study aims at assessing the performance of specific anti-Xa assays calibrated with apixaban on real-life samples with low apixaban plasma concentrations (<30 ng/mL) and on-treatment ranges, with and without interference of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH).

METHODS

The performance of the STA^® -Liquid Anti-Xa assay (STA^® LAX) and the low and normal procedures of the Biophen^® Direct Factor Xa Inhibitors (DiXaI) assay was tested on 134 blood samples, collected from patients on apixaban, wherefrom 74 patients received LMWH after apixaban cessation. The results were compared with the liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) measurements.

RESULTS

The Biophen^® DiXaI, Biophen^® DiXaI LOW, and STA^® LAX showed very good correlation with LC-MS/MS measurements in patients without LMWH administration (Spearman r .95, .99, and .98, respectively). Their limits of quantitation were defined at 48, 24, and 12 ng/mL, respectively. The Bland-Altman test measured mean bias (SD) at 5.6 (13.1), -2.5 (5.0), and -0.8 (6.1) ng/ml, respectively. The Spearman r of the Biophen^® DiXaI decreased to 0.64 in presence of low apixaban concentrations. The Spearman r of the Biophen^® DiXaI LOW and STA^® LAX decreased to 0.39 and 0.26, respectively, in presence of LMWH.

CONCLUSIONS

The accuracy of the low methodologies (Biophen^® DiXaI LOW and STA^® LAX) is slightly improved for low apixaban plasma concentrations, compared with the normal procedure of Biophen^® DiXaI. The interference of LMWH on the low methodologies is measurable, however, less important than the previously reported interference of LMWH on rivaroxaban calibrated specific anti-Xa assays.

Severe Enoral Bleeding with a Direct Oral Anticoagulant after Tooth Extraction and Heparin Bridging Treatment

Background

The number of patients receiving direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) is increasing, however, this treatment is associated with the risk of bleeding. More than 10 percent of patients on DOACs have to interrupt their anticoagulation for an invasive procedure every year. For this reason, the correct management of DOACs in the perioperative setting is mandatory.

Case Presentation

An 81-year-old male patient, with known impaired renal function, presented to our emergency department with a severe enoral bleeding after tooth extraction. The DOAC therapy—indicated by known atrial fibrillation—was interrupted perioperatively and bridged with Low Molecular Weight Heparin (LMWH). The acute bleeding was stopped by local surgery. The factors contributing to the bleeding complication were bridging of DOAC treatment, together with prolonged drug action in chronic kidney disease.

Conclusion

In order to decide whether it is necessary to stop DOAC medication for tooth extraction, it is important to carefully weigh up the individual risks of bleeding and thrombosis. If DOAC therapy is interrupted, bridging should be reserved for thromboembolic high-risk situations. Particular caution is required in patients with impaired kidney function, due to the risk of accumulation and prolonged anticoagulant effect of both DOACs and LMWH.

Atrial Fibrillation and Stroke. A Review on the Use of Vitamin K Antagonists and Novel Oral Anticoagulants

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia, ranging from 0.1% in patients <55 years to >9% in octogenarian patients. One important issue is represented by the 5-fold increased ischemic stroke risk in AF patients. Hence, the role of anticoagulation is central. Until a few years ago, vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) and low molecular weight heparin represented the only option to prevent thromboembolisms, though with risks. Novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have radically changed the management of AF patients, improving both life expectancy and life quality. This review aims to summarize the most recent literature on the use of VKAs and NOACs in AF, in light of the new findings.

Intravenous cangrelor as a peri-procedural bridge with applied uses in ischemic events

Cangrelor is a relatively new antiplatelet drug that has been approved for use as an adjunct therapy to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to decrease peri-procedural myocardial infarction (MI), coronary revascularization, and stent thrombosis. Cangrelor is an adenosine triphosphate analogue with a pharmacokinetic mechanism based on a reversible, dose-dependent inhibition adenosine diphosphate (ADP)-induced platelet aggregation. This drug has lately been in the spotlight as a possible bridge therapy for anti-platelet medication prior to cardiac and non-cardiac surgeries. Platelet function is usually restored within sixty minutes of cessation of therapy, thereby decreasing the risk of bleeding while providing adequate pre-procedural coverage to reduce ischemic events. This manuscript reviews the literature on cangrelor and summarizes its role as a peri-procedural bridge.

Guideline compliance for bridging anticoagulation use in vitamin-K antagonist patients; practice variation and factors associated with non-compliance

Background

Bridging anticoagulation is used in vitamin-K antagonist (VKA) patients undergoing invasive procedures and involves complex risk assessment in order to prevent thromboembolic and bleeding outcomes.

Objectives

Our aim was to assess guideline compliance and identify factors associated with bridging and especially, non-compliant bridging.

Methods

A retrospective review of 256 patient records in 13 Dutch hospitals was performed. Demographic, clinical, surgical and care delivery characteristics were collected. Compliance to the American College of Chest Physicians ninth edition guideline (AT9) was assessed. Multilevel regression models were built to explain bridging use and predict non-compliance.

Results

Bridging use varied from 15.0 to 83.3% (mean = 41.8%) of patients per hospital, whereas guideline compliance varied from 20.0 to 88.2% (mean = 68.5%) per hospital. Both established thromboembolic risk factors and characteristics outside thromboembolic risk assessment were associated with bridging use. Predictors for overuse were gastrointestinal surgery (OR 14.85, 95% CI 2.69-81.99), vascular surgery (OR 13.01, 95% CI 1.83-92.30), non-elective surgery (OR 8.67, 95% CI 1.67-45.14), lowest 25th percentile socioeconomic status (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.11-1.02) and use of VKA reversal agents (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.04-1.16).

Conclusion

Bridging anticoagulation practice was not compliant with the AT9 in 31.5% of patients. The aggregated AT9 thromboembolic risk was inferior to individual thromboembolic risk factors and other characteristics in explaining bridging use. Therefor the AT9 risk seems less important for the decision making in everyday practice. Additionally, a heterogeneous implementation of the guideline between hospitals was found. Further research and interventions are needed to improve bridging anticoagulation practice in VKA patients.

How reliable is perioperative anticoagulant management? Determining guideline compliance and practice variation by a retrospective patient record review

OBJECTIVES

Surgery in patients on anticoagulants requires careful monitoring and risk assessment to prevent harm. Required interruptions of anticoagulants and deciding whether to use bridging anticoagulation add further complexity. This process, known as perioperative anticoagulant management (PAM), is optimised by using guidelines. Optimal PAM prevents thromboembolic and bleeding complications. The purpose of this study was to assess the reliability of PAM practice in Dutch hospitals. Additionally, the variations between hospitals and different bridging dosages were studied.

DESIGN

A multicentre retrospective patient record review.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Records from 268 patients using vitamin-K antagonist (VKA) anticoagulants who underwent surgery in a representative random sample of 13 Dutch hospitals were reviewed, 259 were analysed.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Our primary outcome measure was the reliability of PAM expressed as the percentage of patients receiving guideline compliant care. Seven PAM steps were included. Secondary outcome measures included different bridging dosages used and an analysis of practice variation on the hospital level.

RESULTS

Preoperative compliance was lowest for timely VKA interruptions: 58.8% (95% CI 50.0% to 67.7%) and highest for timely preoperative assessments: 81% (95% CI 75.0% to 86.5%). Postoperative compliance was lowest for timely VKA restarts: 39.9% (95% CI 33.1% to 46.7%) and highest for the decision to apply bridging: 68.5% (95% CI 62.3% to 74.8%). Variation in compliance between hospitals was present for the timely preoperative assessment (range 41%-100%), international normalised ratio testing (range 21%-94%) and postoperative bridging (range 20%-88%). Subtherapeutic bridging was used in 50.5% of patients and increased with patients' weight.

CONCLUSIONS

Unsatisfying compliance for most PAM steps, reflect suboptimal reliability of PAM. Furthermore, the hospital performance varied. This increases the risk for adverse events, warranting quality improvement. The development of process measures can help but will be complicated by the availability of a strong supporting evidence base and integrated care delivery regarding PAM.

[What would you do with a patient with non-valvular atrial fibrillation treated with direct-acting oral anticoagulants who had to undergo gastroscopy or colonoscopy?]

In Spain, approximately 25% of patients anticoagulated due to non-valvular atrial fibrillation use a direct-acting anticoagulant (DOAC). It is foreseeable that most of them at some point in their lives should undergo invasive procedures or surgical treatments. This makes the management of DOAC in these situations essential in order to perform the procedure with maximum safety and minimise the risk to the maximum of haemorrhage and thrombosis. The management of this situation is based on the evaluation of the haemorrhagic risk of the patient, and the procedure to be performed, the risk of thromboembolism, and renal function. The pharmacokinetic characteristics of the DOAC also should be taken into account, especially its half-life, the degree of renal elimination and its peak action.

A Survey on the Awareness and Attitude of Physicians on Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Qatar

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are more commonly prescribed since their introduction. Reports on inappropriate prescribing have been observed which may indicate poor awareness on these agents. In this study, we aim to evaluate the extent of the physicians' knowledge on DOACs and its possible impact on physicians' confidence to prescribe these medications. A prospective cross-sectional survey was developed based on the literature review. Eligible participants were physicians and surgeons currently practicing at Hamad General Hospital in Qatar. The survey included questions on demographic and professional characteristics. It also evaluated the awareness and attitudes regarding safety, efficacy, and prescribing of DOACs. Over 6-month period, 175 practitioners responded to the survey. Overall awareness score was moderate (61% ± 18%). These scores were in alignment with participants' self-satisfaction with knowledge on DOACs (66% were not satisfied) and participants' confidence toward prescribing DOACs (48% were not confident). Age, degree of education, and years of experience had significant positive influence on awareness score. This survey indicates that practitioners have moderate awareness on DOACs. Future work should focus on reassessing practitioners' knowledge after providing well-designed education campaigns.

Periprocedural Considerations for Anticoagulated Atrial Fibrillation Patients

Periprocedural patient instruction and coordination is an important piece in achieving safe outcomes for patients needing procedures and receiving anticoagulants for atrial fibrillation. Balancing the needs for anticoagulation versus bleeding during the procedure requires clinical reasoning and preparation. In this article, the current guidelines for use of anticoagulants with atrial fibrillation, the relevant pharmacology, and the use of standardized tools to quantify the risks of thrombus or bleeding in the procedures will be discussed. In addition, resources for examining the optimal practice for these case types will be provided. Perianesthesia health care providers are pivotal to lead relevant stakeholders in the perianesthesia setting work together to create protocols and individual plans of care for this patient population.

Mind the gap: results of a multispecialty survey on coordination of care for peri-procedural anticoagulation

To understand how physicians from various specialties perceive coordination of care when managing peri-procedural anticoagulation. Cross-sectional survey of cardiologists, gastroenterologists, and primary care physicians (PCPs) in an integrated health system (N = 251). The survey began with a vignette of a patient with atrial fibrillation co-managed by his PCP, cardiologist, and an anticoagulation clinic who must hold warfarin for a colonoscopy. Respondents' experiences and opinions around responsibilities and institutional support for managing peri-procedural anticoagulation were elicited using multiple choice questions. We examined differences in responses across specialties using Chi square analysis. The response rate was 51% (n = 127). 52% were PCPs, 28% cardiologists, and 21% gastroenterologists. Nearly half (47.2%) of respondents believed that the cardiologist should be primarily responsible for managing peri-procedural anticoagulation, while fewer identified the PCP (25.2%), anticoagulation clinic (21.3%), or gastroenterologist (6.3%; p = 0.09). Respondents across specialties had significantly different approaches to deciding how to manage the clinical case presented (p < 0.001). Most cardiologists (60.0%) would decide whether to offer bridging without consulting with other providers or clinical resources, while most PCPs would decide after consulting clinical resources (57.6%). Gastroenterologists would most often (46.2%) defer the decision to another provider. A majority of all three specialties agreed that their institution could do more to help manage peri-procedural anticoagulation, and there was broad support (88.1%) for anticoagulation clinics' managing all aspects of peri-procedural anticoagulation. Providers across specialties agree that their institution could do more to help manage peri-procedural anticoagulation, and overwhelmingly support anticoagulation clinics' taking responsibility.

Safety of Spinal Cord Stimulation in Patients Who Routinely Use Anticoagulants

Objective

We assess the safety of performing the epidural placement or revision of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in patients whose anticoagulation has been held (termed "anticoagulant-suspended" patients) in accordance with the 2017 Neurostimulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC) guidelines.

Subjects

Patients undergoing SCS were included in this institutional review board-approved study.

Design

A retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database was performed. Any adverse event occurring within 90 days after SCS lead placement/revision was included.

Results

A total of 225 patients who had a total of 239 surgeries including lead placement or lead revision were included; 182 patients were not on anticoagulants, 37 patients used one anticoagulant, and six patients used two or more anticoagulants. There were 13 adverse events. Anticoagulant use as a whole had no significant relationship to operative or postoperative adverse effects (χ2(1) = 1.613, P > 0.05). No anticoagulant on its own contributed significantly to adverse events; however, a small set of surgical cases showed a significantly greater incidence of adverse events for patients on enoxaparin used in combination with other anticoagulants (P < 0.05, N = 4).

Conclusions

This study is the first to demonstrate that anticoagulant-suspended patients have no increased risk of perioperative hemorrhagic or thromboembolic adverse effects following SCS surgery compared with nonanticoagulated patients. The findings of this study validate the safety of neuromodulation in anticoagulation-suspended patients, concurring with the findings of previously described case studies, which anecdotally described neuromodulation outcomes in patients whose anticoagulation regimen had been temporarily held.

Current Trends in Anticoagulation Bridging for Patients With Chronic Atrial Fibrillation on Warfarin Undergoing Endoscopy

For warfarin-treated patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) at low thromboembolic risk, recent studies have shown harm associated with periprocedural bridging using low-molecular-weight heparin. Clinician surveys have indicated a preference toward excessive bridging, especially among noncardiologists; however, little is known about actual practice patterns in these patients. We performed a retrospective evaluation of bridging in the setting of gastrointestinal endoscopy. We identified 938 patients with AF on warfarin who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy or colonoscopy between 2012 and 2016 at a tertiary health center. Urgent, inpatient, or advanced endoscopic procedures were excluded. Clinical variables were abstracted using a predefined data dictionary. Values were expressed as means and compared using a t test or a chi-squared test as appropriate. Three hundred seventy-four patients met criteria for analysis. Twenty-five percent of these patients received bridging therapy, including 11% of patients with CHADS₂ scores of 0 to 2 without valvular AF or previous venous thromboembolism. Of the clinical variables assessed, CHADS₂, CHA₂DS₂-VASc, and a history of stroke were the strongest predictors of bridging. Cardiologists were also significantly less likely to prescribe bridging than noncardiology providers (18% vs 30%, p = 0.011); this effect was significant when controlling for CHADS₂, CHA₂DS₂-VASc, or stroke history. In conclusion, patients with AF on warfarin receive excessive low-molecular-weight heparin bridging in the setting of endoscopy; the lower rates of bridging observed among cardiologists suggests a need for their increased involvement in this decision making.

Evaluating the role of clinical pharmacists in pre-procedural anticoagulation management

OBJECTIVES

While physicians are typically responsible for managing perioperative warfarin, clinic pharmacists may improve pre-procedural decision-making. We assessed the impact of pharmacist-driven care for chronic warfarin-treated patients undergoing outpatient right heart catheterization (RHC).

METHODS

200 warfarin patients who underwent RHC between January 2012 and September 2015 were analyzed. Pharmacist-care (n = 79) was compared to the usual care model (n = 121). The primary outcome was a composite of (1) documentation of anticoagulation plan, (2) holding warfarin at least 5 days prior to procedure, (3) guideline-congruent low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) bridging, and (4) correct LMWH dosing if bridging deemed necessary. Chi-squared test performed to assess the role of pharmacist. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to the composite endpoint, adjusted for the month of procedure.

RESULTS

Compared to the usual care model, pharmacist-driven care (OR 4.69, 95% CI 1.73-12.71, p = 0.002) and date of the procedure (OR 1.06/month, 95% CI 1.01-1.10, p = 0.011) were independently associated with the primary composite outcome. Of the individual outcome components, pharmacist-driven care was only associated with documentation (96.2% vs. 67.8%, OR 9.19, 95% CI 2.19-38.62, p = 0.002). Remaining components including hold warfarin for at least 5 days, appropriate bridging and correct LMWH dosing were not significantly associated with pharmacist-care.

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmacist-care is associated with better guideline-based anticoagulation management, but this was primarily driven by improved documentation. The impact of pharmacist managed peri-procedural anticoagulation on clinical outcomes remains unknown.

Perioperative management of new oral anticoagulants in patients undergoing elective surgery at a tertiary hospital

BACKGROUND

Increasing numbers of patients receiving new oral anticoagulants (NOAC) are undergoing elective surgery. The extent to which perioperative interruption of NOAC therapy and use of bridging heparin are concordant with best evidence is uncertain.

AIMS

To determine: (i) concordance of NOAC and bridging heparin use with guidelines; and (ii) associations between guideline concordance and patient characteristics, surgical factors and perioperative adverse events.

METHODS

Retrospective study of consecutive adult patients undergoing elective surgery at a tertiary hospital between 1 January 2014 and 30 June 2015 and were receiving NOAC for at least 3 months prior to surgery. Concordance of perioperative anticoagulation management with hospital guidelines was rated by two independent researchers according to explicit thrombosis and bleeding risk tables.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty patients of mean (±SD) age 72.0 (±11.6) years were studied; 75% had atrial fibrillation as NOAC indication. Decision to interrupt anticoagulation in 142 patients was rated guideline-concordant in 59 (41.5%) based on low bleeding risk in all cases and high thrombotic risk in one-third. Concordant decisions were associated with past myocardial infarction (P = 0.009), chronic kidney disease (P = 0.05), use of dabigatran (P = 0.06) and major surgery (P < 0.001). Bridging heparin was prescribed in 51 (35.9%) patients and not prescribed in 91 (64.1%), with 64 (45.1%) decisions rated guideline-discordant comprising 27 decisions to prescribe and 37 not to prescribe. Guideline concordant bridging was associated with chronic kidney disease (P = 0.02); discordant bridging with use of dabigatran (P = 0.04), high thrombotic risk (P = 0.004), past ischaemic stroke (P = 0.07). At 30 days, only one adverse event (major bleed) was noted.

CONCLUSION

Considerable discordance exists between guideline recommendations and perioperative NOAC management. Assistive tools are required that better align decision-making with current best practice.

Perioperative management of patients on direct oral anticoagulants

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been licensed worldwide for several years for various indications. Each year, 10-15% of patients on oral anticoagulants will undergo an invasive procedure and expert groups have issued several guidelines on perioperative management in such situations. The perioperative guidelines have undergone numerous updates as clinical experience of emergency management has increased and perioperative studies including measurement of residual anticoagulant levels have been published. The high inter-patient variability of DOAC plasma levels has challenged the traditional recommendation that perioperative DOAC interruption should be based only on the elimination half-life of DOACs, especially before invasive procedures carrying a high risk of bleeding. Furthermore, recent publications have highlighted the potential danger of heparin bridging use when DOACs are stopped before an invasive procedure. As antidotes are progressively becoming available to manage severe bleeding or urgent procedures in patients on DOACs, accurate laboratory tests have become the standard to guide their administration and their actions need to be well understood by clinicians. This review aims to provide a systematic approach to managing patients on DOACs, based on recent updates of various perioperative guidance, and highlighting the advantages and limits of recommendations based on pharmacokinetic properties and laboratory tests.