Prospective analysis of risk for bleeding after endoscopic biopsy without cessation of antithrombotics in Japan

[IDEN Consensus on Management of Antithrombotic Agents in Patients Undergoing Gastrointestinal Endoscopy]

Antithrombotic agents, including antiplatelet agent and anticoagulants are widely used in Korea due to increasing incidence of cardio-cerebrovascular disease and aging population. The management of patients using antithrombotic agents during endoscopic procedures is an important clinical challenge. Clinical practice guideline regarding this issue which was developed by the Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy was published in 2020. However, since then, new evidence has emerged for the use of dual antiplatelet therapy and direct anticoagulant management, and revised guidelines were issued in the US and Europe. Accordingly, the previous guidelines were revised, cardiologists also participated in the development group, and the recommendations went through a consensus process among international experts. This guideline presents 14 recommendations made according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology, and was reviewed by multidisciplinary experts. This guideline provides useful information that can assist endoscopists in the management of patients on antithrombotic agents who require diagnostic and elective therapeutic endoscopy. It will be revised as necessary to cover changes in technology, evidence, or other aspects of clinical practice.

International Digestive Endoscopy Network consensus on the management of antithrombotic agents in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy

Antithrombotic agents, including antiplatelet agents and anticoagulants, are widely used in Korea because of the increasing incidence of cardiocerebrovascular disease and the aging population. The management of patients using antithrombotic agents during endoscopic procedures is an important clinical challenge. The clinical practice guidelines for this issue, developed by the Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, were published in 2020. However, new evidence on the use of dual antiplatelet therapy and direct anticoagulant management has emerged, and revised guidelines have been issued in the United States and Europe. Accordingly, the previous guidelines were revised. Cardiologists were part of the group that developed the guideline, and the recommendations went through a consensus-reaching process among international experts. This guideline presents 14 recommendations made based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology and was reviewed by multidisciplinary experts. These guidelines provide useful information that can assist endoscopists in the management of patients receiving antithrombotic agents who require diagnostic and elective therapeutic endoscopy. It will be revised as necessary to cover changes in technology, evidence, or other aspects of clinical practice.

Periprocedural Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Receiving a Direct Oral Anticoagulant Undergoing a Digestive Endoscopy

INTRODUCTION

The periprocedural management of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) using a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) undergoing elective gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedure remains uncertain. We investigated the safety of a standardized periprocedural DOAC management strategy.

METHODS

The Periprocedural Anticoagulation Use for Surgery Evaluation cohort study enrolled adult patients receiving a DOAC (apixaban, rivaroxaban, or dabigatran) for AF scheduled for an elective procedure or surgery. This analysis addresses patients undergoing digestive endoscopy. Standardized periprocedural management consisted of DOAC interruption 1 day preendoscopy with resumption 1 day after procedure at low-moderate risk of bleeding or 2 days in case of a high bleeding risk. Thirty-day outcomes included GI bleeding, thromboembolic events, and mortality.

RESULTS

Of 556 patients on a DOAC (mean [SD] age of 72.5 [8.6] years; 37.4% female; mean CHADS 2 score 1.7 [1.0]), 8.6% were also on American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) and 0.7% on clopidogrel. Most of the patients underwent colonoscopies (63.3%) or gastroscopies (14.0%), with 18.9% having both on the same procedural day. The mean total duration of DOAC interruption was 3.9 ± 1.6 days. Four patients experienced an arterial thromboembolic event (0.7%, 0.3%-1.8%) within 24.2 ± 5.9 days of DOAC interruption. GI bleeding events occurred in 2.5% (1.4%-4.2%) within 11.1 ± 8.1 days (range: 0.6; 25.5 days) of endoscopy, with major GI bleeding in 0.9% (0.4%-2.1%). Three patients died (0.5%; 0.2%-1.6%) 15.6-22.3 days after the endoscopy.

DISCUSSION

After a contemporary standardized periprocedural management strategy, patients with AF undergoing DOAC therapy interruption for elective digestive endoscopy experienced low rates of arterial thromboembolism and major bleeding.

A prospective, open-labeled, and randomized trial for assessing safety and clinical utility of gastric biopsies during emergency gastroscopy for patients with bleeding gastric ulcers

OBJECTIVE

There is no consensus on whether a gastroscopic biopsy is necessary during the emergency treatment of gastrointestinal (GI) diseases such as gastric ulcer bleeding. In this study, we examined the clinical utility and safety of an emergency gastroscopic biopsy for the assessment of gastric ulcer bleeding.

METHODS

We enrolled 150 patients with a single bleeding gastric ulcer after emergency gastroscopy (EG) from April 2020 to April 2022. The patients were randomly divided into the biopsy and no biopsy groups, and they were followed-up until June 2022 to examine whether recurrent gastric ulcer bleeding had occurred.

RESULTS

Re-bleeding occurred in 15 out of 150 (10%) patients. We diagnosed malignancies in 17 (11.3%) patients and validated 14 (9.3%) of them during the initial gastroscopy procedure. Factors that could predict the occurrence of gastric ulcer re-bleeding with biopsy during EG included an absence of ischemic heart disease (odds ratio [OR] = 0.395, confidence interval [CI]: 0.24-0.65, p ≤ .005), renal disease (OR = 1.74, CI: 0.77-1.59, p ≤ .005), and using warfarin or oral anticoagulants (OR = 11.953, CI: 3.494-39.460, p ≤ .005). No significant differences were observed in 60-day bleeding (p = .077) and the duration of hospitalization (p = .700) between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing biopsy during EG did not exhibit an increased risk of re-bleeding compared with those who did not undergo a biopsy. An early biopsy facilitates an early pathologic diagnosis, early clinical intervention, safe discharge of low-risk patients, and improved outcomes in high-risk patients.

American College of Gastroenterology-Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Clinical Practice Guideline: Management of Anticoagulants and Antiplatelets During Acute Gastrointestinal Bleeding and the Periendoscopic Period

We conducted systematic reviews of predefined clinical questions and used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach to develop recommendations for the periendoscopic management of anticoagulant and antiplatelet drugs during acute gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and the elective endoscopic setting. The following recommendations target patients presenting with acute GI bleeding: For patients on warfarin, we suggest against giving fresh frozen plasma or vitamin K; if needed, we suggest prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) compared with fresh frozen plasma administration; for patients on direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), we suggest against PCC administration; if on dabigatran, we suggest against the administration of idarucizumab, and if on rivaroxaban or apixaban, we suggest against andexanet alfa administration; for patients on antiplatelet agents, we suggest against platelet transfusions; and for patients on cardiac acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) for secondary prevention, we suggest against holding it, but if the ASA has been interrupted, we suggest resumption on the day hemostasis is endoscopically confirmed. The following recommendations target patients in the elective (planned) endoscopy setting: For patients on warfarin, we suggest continuation as opposed to temporary interruption (1-7 days), but if it is held for procedures with high risk of GI bleeding, we suggest against bridging anticoagulation unless the patient has a mechanical heart valve; for patients on DOACs, we suggest temporarily interrupting rather than continuing these; for patients on dual antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention, we suggest temporary interruption of the P2Y12 receptor inhibitor while continuing ASA; and if on cardiac ASA monotherapy for secondary prevention, we suggest against its interruption. Evidence was insufficient in the following settings to permit recommendations. With acute GI bleeding in patients on warfarin, we could not recommend for or against PCC administration when compared with placebo. In the elective periprocedural endoscopy setting, we could not recommend for or against temporary interruption of the P2Y12 receptor inhibitor for patients on a single P2Y12 inhibiting agent. We were also unable to make a recommendation regarding same-day resumption of the drug vs 1-7 days after the procedure among patients prescribed anticoagulants (warfarin or DOACs) or P2Y12 receptor inhibitor drugs because of insufficient evidence.

American College of Gastroenterology-Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Clinical Practice Guideline: Management of Anticoagulants and Antiplatelets During Acute Gastrointestinal Bleeding and the Periendoscopic Period

We conducted systematic reviews of predefined clinical questions and used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach to develop recommendations for the periendoscopic management of anticoagulant and antiplatelet drugs during acute gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and the elective endoscopic setting. The following recommendations target patients presenting with acute GI bleeding: For patients on warfarin, we suggest against giving fresh frozen plasma or vitamin K; if needed, we suggest prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) compared with fresh frozen plasma administration; for patients on direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), we suggest against PCC administration; if on dabigatran, we suggest against the administration of idarucizumab, and if on rivaroxaban or apixaban, we suggest against andexanet alfa administration; for patients on antiplatelet agents, we suggest against platelet transfusions; and for patients on cardiac acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) for secondary prevention, we suggest against holding it, but if the ASA has been interrupted, we suggest resumption on the day hemostasis is endoscopically confirmed. The following recommendations target patients in the elective (planned) endoscopy setting: For patients on warfarin, we suggest continuation as opposed to temporary interruption (1–7 days), but if it is held for procedures with high risk of GI bleeding, we suggest against bridging anticoagulation unless the patient has a mechanical heart valve; for patients on DOACs, we suggest temporarily interrupting rather than continuing these; for patients on dual antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention, we suggest temporary interruption of the P2Y12 receptor inhibitor while continuing ASA; and if on cardiac ASA monotherapy for secondary prevention, we suggest against its interruption. Evidence was insufficient in the following settings to permit recommendations. With acute GI bleeding in patients on warfarin, we could not recommend for or against PCC administration when compared with placebo. In the elective periprocedural endoscopy setting, we could not recommend for or against temporary interruption of the P2Y12 receptor inhibitor for patients on a single P2Y12 inhibiting agent. We were also unable to make a recommendation regarding same-day resumption of the drug vs 1–7 days after the procedure among patients prescribed anticoagulants (warfarin or DOACs) or P2Y12 receptor inhibitor drugs because of insufficient evidence.

Effects of anti-thrombotic drugs on all-cause mortality after upper gastrointestinal bleeding in Japan: A multicenter study with 2205 cases

OBJECTS

Although anti-thrombotic use is recognized as a risk factor for upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB), there has been no clear evidence that it worsens the outcomes after the bleeding. The aim of this study is to investigate the effects of anti-thrombotic agents on in-hospital mortality following UGIB.

METHODS

Information on clinical parameters, including usage of anti-thrombotic agents, was retrospectively collected from consecutive patients with UGIB at 12 high-volume centers in Japan between 2011 and 2018. The all-cause in-hospital mortality rate was evaluated according to the usage of anti-thrombotic agents.

RESULTS

Clinical data were collected from 2205 patients with endoscopically confirmed UGIB. Six hundred and forty-five (29.3%) patients used anti-thrombotic agents. The all-cause in-hospital mortality rate was 5.7% (125 deaths). After excluding 29 cases in which death occurred due to end-stage malignancy, 96 deaths (bleeding-related, n = 22 ; non-bleeding-related, n = 74) were considered "preventable." Overall, the "preventable" mortality rate in anti-thrombotic users was significantly higher than that in non-users (6.0% vs. 3.7%, P < 0.05). However, the "preventable" mortality of anti-thrombotic users showed a marked improvement over time; although the rate in users remained significantly higher than that in non-users until 2015 (7.3% vs. 4.2%, P < 0.05), after 2016, the difference was no longer statistically significant (4.8% vs. 3.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

Although the usage of anti-thrombotic agents worsened the outcomes after UGIB, the situation has recently been improving. We speculate that the recent revision of the Japanese guidelines on the management of anti-thrombotic treatment after UGIB may have partly contributed to improving the survival of users of anti-thrombotic agents.

Biopsy in emergency gastroscopy does not increase the risk of rebleeding in patients with Forrest I acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding combined with suspected malignant gastric ulcer: a multicenter retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Few studies have reported whether a biopsy in emergency gastroscopy (EG) increased the risk of rebleeding in patients with Forrest I acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (ANVUGIB) combined with suspected malignant gastric ulcer (SMGU). This study aims to conduct a multicenter retrospective cohort study using propensity score matching to verify whether a biopsy in EG increases the risk of rebleeding in patients diagnosed with Forrest I ANVUGIB combined with SMGU.

METHODS

Using the data for propensity-matched patients, logistic regression models were fitted using rebleeding as the dependent variable. Survival time was defined as the length of time the patient experienced from visiting the emergency department to rebleeding. We used the Kaplan-Meier (KM) method to analyze the 30-day survival of the patients with and without a biopsy after matching, and the log-rank test was performed to examine the differences in survival.

RESULTS

With the use of propensity score matching, 308 patients who underwent a biopsy in EG were matched with 308 patients who did not. In the five logistic regression models, there were no significant group differences in the risk of rebleeding in patients with Forrest I ANVUGIB combined with SMGU between the biopsy and no-biopsy groups. The probability of survival was not significantly different between the no-biopsy and biopsy groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this multicenter, retrospective propensity score matching cohort study, compared with patients without a biopsy, patients with a biopsy during EG had no increased risk of rebleeding, and there was no significant difference in the rate of rebleeding.

[Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Antithrombotic Agents in Patients Undergoing Gastrointestinal Endoscopy]

Antithrombotic agents, including antiplatelet agents and anticoagulants, are increasingly used in South Korea. The management of patients using antithrombotic agents and requiring gastrointestinal endoscopy is an important clinical challenge. Although clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the management of patients receiving antithrombotic agents and undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy have been developed in the Unites States, Europe, and Asia Pacific region, it is uncertain whether these guidelines can be adopted in South Korea. After reviewing current CPGs, we identified unmet needs and recognized significant discrepancies in the clinical practice among regions. This is the first CPG in Korea providing information that may assist endoscopists in the management of patients on antithrombotic agents who require diagnostic or elective therapeutic endoscopy. This guideline was developed through the adaptation process as an evidence-based method, with four guidelines retrieved by systematic review. Eligible guidelines were evaluated according to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II process, and 13 statements were established using a grading system. This guideline was reviewed by external experts before an official. It will be revised as necessary to cover changes in technology, evidence, or other aspects of clinical practice.

Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Antithrombotic Agents in Patients Undergoing Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Antithrombotic agents, including antiplatelet agents and anticoagulants, are increasingly used in South Korea. The management of patients using antithrombotic agents and requiring gastrointestinal endoscopy is an important clinical challenge. Although clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the management of patients receiving antithrombotic agents and undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy have been developed in the Unites States, Europe, and Asia Pacific region, it is uncertain whether these guidelines can be adopted in South Korea. After reviewing current CPGs, we identified unmet needs and recognized significant discrepancies in the clinical practice among regions. This is the first CPG in Korea providing information that may assist endoscopists in the management of patients on antithrombotic agents who require diagnostic or elective therapeutic endoscopy. This guideline was developed through the adaptation process as an evidence-based method, with four guidelines retrieved by systematic review. Eligible guidelines were evaluated according to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II process, and 13 statements were established using a grading system. This guideline was reviewed by external experts before an official. It will be revised as necessary to cover changes in technology, evidence, or other aspects of clinical practice.

Anticoagulation and antiplatelet management in gastrointestinal endoscopy: A review of current evidence

The role of endoscopic procedures, in both diagnostic and therapeutic purposes is continually expanding and evolving rapidly. In this context, endoscopists will encounter patients prescribed on anticoagulant and antiplatelet medications frequently. This poses an increased risk of intraprocedural and delayed gastrointestinal bleeding. Thus, there is now greater importance on optimal pre, peri and post-operative management of anticoagulant and/or antiplatelet therapy to minimise the risk of post-procedural bleeding, without increasing the risk of a thromboembolic event as a consequence of therapy interruption. Currently, there are position statements and guidelines from the major gastroenterology societies. These are available to assist endoscopists with an evidenced-based systematic approach to anticoagulant and/or antiplatelet management in endoscopic procedures, to ensure optimal patient safety. However, since the publication of these guidelines, there is emerging evidence not previously considered in the recommendations that may warrant changes to our current clinical practices. Most notably and divergent from current position statements, is a growing concern regarding the use of heparin bridging therapy during warfarin cessation and its associated risk of increased bleeding, suggestive that this practice should be avoided. In addition, there is emerging evidence that anticoagulant and/or antiplatelet therapy may be safe to be continued in cold snare polypectomy for small polyps (< 10 mm).

The safety of upper gastrointestinal endoscopic biopsy in patients receiving antithrombic drugs. A single-centre prospective observational study

Introduction

In July 2012, the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society updated their guidelines on gastroenterological endoscopy in patients undergoing antithrombotic therapy, although the safety of endoscopic procedures in patients receiving antithrombotic drugs has yet to be sufficiently studied.

Aim

This study evaluates the safety of upper gastroenterological endoscopic biopsy in patients receiving antithrombotic drugs. We evaluated the prospective observational safety of endoscopic biopsy performed in the endoscopy unit of our patients using antithrombotic drugs.

Material and methods

Oesophagogastroduodenoscopies (OGD) and biopsies performed at a single endoscopy unit between July 2018 and February 2019 were examined in this prospective observational study. Patients receiving antithrombotic drugs due to cardiovascular and neurological reasons, who underwent an endoscopic mucosal biopsy for diagnostic purposes, were included in the study.

Results

The study was completed with 166 patients who underwent an endoscopic biopsy, from whom a total of 327 biopsies taken. The patients were examined in two groups: those “receiving antithrombotic drugs” and those who had “stopped taking antithrombotic drugs”. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups with respect to bleeding.

Conclusions

This prospective observational study showed that performing an endoscopic biopsy without the cessation of antithrombotic drugs does not increase bleeding risk. Low-risk procedures, such as endoscopic mucosal biopsies, can be performed confidently by experienced endoscopists.

A Prospective Multicenter Study Evaluating Bleeding Risk after Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration in Patients Prescribed Antithrombotic Agents

Background/Aims

Although the risk of bleeding after endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is low, the safety of EUS-FNA in patients prescribed antithrombotic agents is unclear. Therefore, this study evaluated the incidence of bleeding after EUS-FNA in those patients.

Methods

Between September 2012 and September 2015, patients who were prescribed antithrombotic agents underwent EUS-FNA at 13 institutions in Japan were prospectively enrolled in the study. The antithrombotic agents were managed according to the guidelines of the Japanese Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Society. The rate of bleeding events, thromboembolic events and other complications within 2 weeks after EUS-FNA were analyzed.

Results

Of the 2,629 patients who underwent EUS-FNA during the study period, 85 (62 males; median age, 74 years) patients were included in this stduy. Two patients (2.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.6% to 8.3%) experienced bleeding events. One patient required surgical intervention for hemothorax 5 hours after EUS-FNA, and the other experienced melena 8 days after EUS-FNA and required red blood cell transfusions. No thromboembolic events occurred (0%; 95% CI, 0.0% to 4.4%). Three patients (3.5%; 95% CI, 1.2% to 10.0%) experienced peri-puncture abscess formation.

Conclusions

The rate of bleeding after EUS-FNA in patients prescribed antithrombotic agents might be considerable.

Guidelines for Gastroenterological Endoscopy in Patients Undergoing Antithrombotic Treatment: 2017 Appendix on Anticoagulants Including Direct Oral Anticoagulants

In 2012, the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society published "Guidelines for Gastroenterological Endoscopy in Patients Undergoing Antithrombotic Treatment" concerning thromboembolism associated with antithrombotic therapy withdrawal. Since then, physicians have started prescribing oral anticoagulants, creating a need for standards reflecting their use in clinical practice. Therefore, new findings regarding anticoagulants are included in this appendix. However, the evidence levels are low for many statements contained herein and these appended guidelines still need to be verified in clinical settings.

Factor X heterozygous mutation in a patient with potential risk of bleeding: A case report

RATIONALE

Factor X (FX) deficiency is a rare autosomal recessive bleeding disorder. The majority of patients carry a missense mutation in F10, and patients with bleeding disorders are either homozygous or compound heterozygous for F10. Nonsense mutations are exceptionally rare, and a heterozygous nonsense mutation is not considered to cause bleeding disorders.

PATIENT CONCERNS

A 35-year-old Japanese female with an incidental hemorrhage after gynecologic polypectomy was referred to our hospital.

DIAGNOSES

Following differential diagnostic workup, including cross-mixing test, congenital FX deficiency was strongly suspected.

INTERVENTION

Coagulation tests and mutation analyses were conducted for the patient and her parents.

OUTCOMES

Mutation analysis revealed that she carried a heterozygous nonsense mutation in F10. Pedigree analysis revealed that the mutation was inherited from her mother although there was no familial history of bleeding or hemostatic disturbance.

LESSONS

Hemostatic disturbance may occur even in a patient with heterozygous F10. Because heterozygous nonsense mutation in F10 is expected to be hidden in an apparently healthy population, as observed in our patient, unexpected hemostatic disturbance may occur, particularly during the use of direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC)-targeting factor Xa for thrombotic diseases. FX activity should be evaluated before prescribing DOACs to patients.

Colonic endoscopic mucosal resection in patients taking anticoagulants: Is heparin bridging therapy necessary?

OBJECTIVE

Heparin bridging therapy (HBT) reportedly increases the risk of post-procedural bleeding, and its safety during endoscopic interventions remains unclear. We aimed to evaluate the effects of peri-procedural HBT in patients taking anticoagulants who underwent colonic endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for polyps.

METHODS

Patients who underwent colonic EMR while taking a single anticoagulant agent were enrolled in this study. Anticoagulants were temporarily ceased in all patients either without (the non-HBT group, prospectively enrolled) or with HBT (the HBT group, retrospectively enrolled). The incidences of post-procedural bleeding and anemia exacerbation and their length of hospitalization were evaluated and compared.

RESULTS

There were altogether 43 consecutive adult patients (30 men; mean age 72.2 ± 7.4 years) in the non-HBT group and 41 sex- and age-matched adults (32 men; mean age 72.9 ± 8.3 years) in the HBT group. There were no significant differences in the location, number or size of resected polyps between the two groups. The percentage of patients with post-procedural bleeding within 2 weeks after colonic EMR in the non-HBT group was lower than that in the HBT group (2.3% vs 9.8%, P = 0.15), although the frequency of anemia exacerbation was not significantly different between the two groups. The total hospitalization length was shorter in the non-HBT compared with the HBT group (4.5 days vs 6.0 days, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

No patient in either group developed embolism during hospitalization. Colonic EMR with the temporary cessation of anticoagulants without HBT may be acceptable and beneficial for patients taking anticoagulants.

Bleeding Risk Related to Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Biopsy in Patients Receiving Antithrombotic Therapy: A Multicenter Prospective Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Although antithrombotic agents are widely used for cardiac and cerebrovascular disease prevention, they increase the risk of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding.

OBJECTIVE

To examine GI bleeding risk in association with an esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) biopsy performed in patients without cessation of antithrombotic therapy.

METHODS

This study was prospectively conducted at 14 centers. EGD biopsies were performed in patients receiving antithrombotic agents without cessation, as well as age- and sex-matched controls not receiving antithrombotic therapy. Patients treated with warfarin before the biopsy had a prothrombin time-international normalized ratio level <3.0. The proportion of GI bleeding events was compared between the groups.

RESULTS

The patient group (n = 277) underwent a total of 560 biopsies while continuing antithrombotic therapy, of whom 24 were receiving multiple antiplatelet drugs, and 9 were receiving both antiplatelet and anticoagulant agents. The control patients (n = 263) underwent 557 biopsies. The upper-GI bleeding rate within 30 days after the EGD biopsy did not increase in patients without cessation of antithrombotic treatment, regardless of receiving single or multiple antithrombotic agents.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no significant increase in upper-GI bleeding risk following an EGD biopsy in patients taking antithrombotic agents, suggesting its safety without the need for antithrombotic treatment interruption.

Current Practices in the Management of Antithrombotic Therapy During the Periendoscopic Period for Patients With Cardiovascular Disease

The management of antithrombotics during the periendoscopic period is traditionally represented as a doubleedged sword for cardiologists and endoscopists. Appropriate administration prevents thromboembolic events, whereas excessive administration provokes bleeding events. Therefore, cardiologists and endoscopists must consider the risks of bleeding and thromboembolism in individual cases, before deciding whether to continue antithrombotic use. Several guidelines exist concerning antithrombotic management in Asian and Western countries. These guidelines generally classify procedural bleeding risk and thromboembolic risk into high risk and low risk groups and recommend that the two risks be weighed when managing a given patient. Moreover, they generally do not recommend interrupting antithrombotics during the periendoscopic period unless absolutely necessary; however, the details surrounding this point differ among the guidelines after several revisions. In this review, we describe the present state, problems, and future perspectives concerning the management of antithrombotics in patients with cardiovascular disease undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Recent clinical management of antithrombotic agents for gastrointestinal endoscopy after revision of guidelines in Japan

In 2012, the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society (JGES) revised guidelines for the management of gastrointestinal endoscopy for patients using antithrombotic agents. The conventional guidelines emphasized reducing the bleeding risk that accompanies gastrointestinal endoscopy, but the present guidelines prioritize reduction of thromboembolism risk during discontinuation of antithrombotic agents, which is consistent with Western guidelines. When the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, the guidelines permit endoscopic biopsy and high-bleeding-risk procedures without discontinuation of selected antithrombotic agents. These guidelines created a paradigm shift that has slowly, but surely, changed clinical daily practice in Japan. As a result, endoscopic biopsy without discontinuation of antithrombotic agents has been widely accepted, although solid evidence for its support is still lacking. Additionally, feasibility of high-bleeding-risk procedures without discontinuation of selected antithrombotic agents is also controversial because evidence newly acquired after publication of the present guidelines is low in evidence level. Consequently, clinical studies with a high evidence level, including randomized controlled studies, are mandatory to establish reliable upcoming guidelines. At the same time, under the present guidelines, the accomplishment of such studies in Japan is expected.