Postoperative low molecular weight heparin bridging treatment for patients at high risk of arterial thromboembolism (PERIOP2): double blind randomised controlled trial

Perioperative Management of Antithrombotic Therapy

This JAMA Clinical Guidelines Synopsis summarizes the American College of Chest Physicians’ 2022 guideline on perioperative management of patients taking oral anticoagulation or antiplatelet therapy who are undergoing an elective surgery or procedure.

Optimizing anticoagulation therapy for in-hospital patients on direct oral anticoagulants: a single-centre modified Delphi study

AIMS

The management of patients treated with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) during hospitalization is a common challenge in clinical practice. Although bridging is generally not recommended, too often DOACs are switched to parenteral therapy with low molecular weight heparins. Our objectives were to update a local guideline for perioperative DOAC management and to develop a guideline for the anticoagulation management in non-surgical patients regarding temporary DOAC discontinuation.

METHODS

We executed a two-step modified Delphi study in a 1000-bed university hospital in Belgium. The Delphi questionnaires were developed based on a literature review and a telephone survey of prescribers. Two expert panels were established: one dedicated to perioperative DOAC management and the other to DOAC management in non-surgical patients. Both panels completed two rounds, commencing with an individual and online round, followed by a face-to-face group session.

RESULTS

After the two-round Delphi process, the updated perioperative guideline on DOAC management included reasons for delaying the resumption of DOACs following surgery, such as oral intake not possible, the probability of re-intervention within 3 days, and insufficient haemostasis (e.g. active clinically significant haematoma, haemorrhagic drains or wounds). Furthermore, a guideline for non-surgical hospitalized patients was developed, outlining possible reasons for interrupting DOAC therapy. Both guidelines offer clear anticoagulation therapy strategies corresponding to the identified scenarios.

CONCLUSIONS

We have updated and developed guidelines for DOAC management in surgical and non-surgical patients during hospitalization, which aim to support prescribers and to enhance targeted prescription review by hospital pharmacists.

Arterial Thrombosis in Patients with Cancer

Patients with cancer are at increased risk of arterial thromboembolic disease due to the presence of risk factors common to both the development of cancer and arterial thrombosis, the cancer itself, and the treatments provided to treat cancer. We review here the epidemiology and pathophysiology of arterial thromboembolic disease in cancer, along with its prevention and treatment strategies. We also propose a generalized approach for the management of arterial thromboembolic disease in this patient population.

Periprocedural Bridging Therapy in Patients With Mechanical Heart Valves

Mechanical heart valves (MHVs) are thrombogenic and require lifelong anticoagulation with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) such as warfarin. Periprocedural bridging with unfractionated heparin (UFH) and low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) aims to reduce the risk of thromboembolic events in patients. Currently, there are no definitive class I recommendations for anticoagulation management in patients with MHVs. In this report, we present the case of a 77-year-old female who was perioperatively bridged with enoxaparin and subsequently developed an acute thrombus.

2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 12, 2022, to November 3, 2022, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through November 2022, during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee and added to the evidence tables, where appropriate.

STRUCTURE

Atrial fibrillation is the most sustained common arrhythmia, and its incidence and prevalence are increasing in the United States and globally. Recommendations from the "2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" and the "2019 AHA/ACC/HRS Focused Update of the 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing atrial fibrillation and thromboembolic risk assessment, anticoagulation, left atrial appendage occlusion, atrial fibrillation catheter or surgical ablation, and risk factor modification and atrial fibrillation prevention have been developed.

2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 12, 2022, to November 3, 2022, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through November 2022, during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee and added to the evidence tables, where appropriate.

STRUCTURE

Atrial fibrillation is the most sustained common arrhythmia, and its incidence and prevalence are increasing in the United States and globally. Recommendations from the "2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" and the "2019 AHA/ACC/HRS Focused Update of the 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing atrial fibrillation and thromboembolic risk assessment, anticoagulation, left atrial appendage occlusion, atrial fibrillation catheter or surgical ablation, and risk factor modification and atrial fibrillation prevention have been developed.

Update of Anticoagulation Use in Cardioembolic Stroke With a Special Reference to Endovascular Treatment

Cardioembolic stroke is a major cause of morbidity, with a high risk of recurrence, and anticoagulation represents the mainstay of secondary stroke prevention in most patients. The implementation of endovascular treatment in routine clinical practice complicates the decision to initiate anticoagulation, especially in patients with early hemorrhagic transformation who are considered at higher risk of hematoma expansion. Late hemorrhagic transformation in the days and weeks following stroke remains a potentially serious complication for which we still do not have any established clinical or radiological prediction tools. The optimal time to initiate therapy is challenging to define since delaying effective secondary prevention treatment exposes patients to the risk of recurrent embolism. Consequently, there is clinical equipoise to define and individualize the optimal timepoint to initiate anticoagulation combining the lowest risk of hemorrhagic transformation and ischemic recurrence in cardioembolic stroke patients. In this narrative review, we will highlight and critically outline recent observational and randomized relevant evidence in different subtypes of cardioembolic stroke with a special focus on anticoagulation initiation following endovascular treatment. We will refer mainly to the commonest cause of cardioembolism, non-valvular atrial fibrillation, and examine the possible risk and benefit of anticoagulation before, during, and shortly after the acute phase of stroke. Other indications of anticoagulation after ischemic stroke will be briefly discussed. We provide a synthesis of available data to help clinicians individualize the timing of initiation of oral anticoagulation based on the presence and extent of hemorrhagic transformation as well as stroke severity.

Rational peri-operative management of antithrombotic therapy in patients undergoing radical cystectomy: A 30-day morbidity analysis based on the updated European Association of Urology guidelines for standardized complication reporting

BACKGROUND

Radical cystectomy (RC) in bladder cancer patients with cardiovascular comorbidity poses challenges due to the need for antithrombotic therapy and high perioperative risk. We aimed to assess 30-day complications after RC in patients receiving antithrombotic therapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Retrospective study of 416 bladder cancer patients (2009-2017) undergoing open RC with pelvic lymph node dissection, with or without antithrombotic therapy. Antithrombotic therapy and complication reporting followed European guidelines. Procedure-specific 30-day complications were cataloged, graded (Clavien-Dindo), and quantified using the 30-day Comprehensive Complication Index. Multivariable regressions evaluated antithrombotic therapy's independent effect on key morbidity outcomes.

RESULTS

Median age was 70 years, 78% were male. Patients on antithrombotic therapy were mostly male, had higher comorbidity burden, worse kidney function, more frequent incontinent diversion, and shorter operative time (all p ≤ 0.027). Bleeding complications occurred in 135 patients (32%; 95%CI = 28-37%), more prevalent with antithrombotic therapy (46% vs. 29%; p = 0.004). Thromboembolic complications occurred in 18 patients (4.3%; 95%CI = 2.6-6.8%), no difference between patients with and without antithrombotic therapy (8.4% vs. 3.3%; p = 0.063). Prevalence of myocardial infarction, new-onset hypertension, acute congestive heart failure, and angina pectoris showed no difference (all p ≥ 0.3). Multivariable analyses indicated no association between antithrombotic therapy and cardiac complications, 30-day major complications, or cumulative morbidity (all p ≥ 0.2). Antithrombotic therapy was associated with bleeding complications (OR = 1.92; 95%CI = 1.07-3.45; p = 0.028), predominantly transfusion-related (75% of 152 bleeding complications). Limitations include retrospective data assessment with biases.

CONCLUSIONS

RC in patients on antithrombotic therapy exhibits a higher incidence of adverse events due to underlying comorbidities. Adherence to thromboprophylaxis guidelines enables safe RC in patients with significant comorbidities, without substantial increase in major bleeding or severe thromboembolic events.

Effectiveness of perioperative anticoagulation interruption without heparin bridging on thromboembolic events in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing elective invasive procedures: a systematic review protocol

OBJECTIVE

This review will determine whether withholding heparin bridging is superior to bridging in patients with atrial fibrillation requiring temporary interruption of anticoagulation therapy in the perioperative period of an elective invasive procedure.

INTRODUCTION

Atrial fibrillation is the most commonly diagnosed clinical arrhythmia. It is an important cause of cardioembolic events, requiring the use of oral anticoagulation in most patients. It is unclear whether heparin bridging during temporary interruption of anticoagulants has superior outcomes compared with no bridging in the perioperative setting.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

This review will consider studies that compare adults aged 18 years or older; diagnosed with atrial fibrillation; undergoing elective invasive procedures; and who have had oral anticoagulants temporarily withheld with heparin bridging with patients without heparin bridging. Participants will be excluded if they had an alternative reason for anticoagulation or were admitted for emergency surgery. Outcomes will include arterial or venous thromboembolism (including stroke, transient ischemic attack, systemic embolism), major bleeding events, non-major bleeding events, length of hospital stay, and all-cause mortality.

METHODS

The review will follow the JBI methodology for systematic reviews of effectiveness. Databases including MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and CENTRAL will be searched for randomized and non-randomized trials from inception until the present. Two independent reviewers will screen citations by title and abstract, and again at full text. Risk of bias will be assessed using the JBI critical appraisal instrument, and data will be extracted using a modified extraction tool. Results will be synthesized using a random effects meta-analysis and presented in a forest plot. Heterogeneity will be tested for using the standard χ 2 and I2 tests. Overall certainty of evidence will be evaluated using the GRADE approach.

REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42022348538.

Anticoagulation for the Prevention of Arterial Thrombosis in Ambulatory Cancer Patients: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

The risk of arterial thrombotic events (ATEs) is high among patients on systemic anticancer therapies. Despite the efficacy of anticoagulants in the prevention of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism, it is unknown whether anticoagulation is effective to prevent ATEs.

Objectives

This study sought to examine the efficacy and safety of anticoagulants in ATE prevention among ambulatory cancer patients.

Methods

We performed a systematic review using Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from inception to May 21, 2022, and included studies comparing oral or parenteral anticoagulation with no anticoagulation among ambulatory patients receiving systemic anticancer therapy with no other indication for anticoagulation. The primary outcome was ATE (myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, intra-abdominal arterial embolism, or peripheral artery occlusion). The secondary outcomes were major and nonmajor bleeding and all-cause mortality.

Results

Fourteen randomized trials involving low-molecular-weight heparins, direct oral anticoagulants, and warfarin were included. ATEs were captured as coefficacy endpoints or adverse events. Anticoagulant use was not associated with a reduction in ATEs compared with placebo or standard treatment (RR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.50-1.04; P = 0.08; I2 = 0%). RRs of major and minor bleeding were 1.56 (95% CI: 1.12-2.17) and 2.25 (95% CI: 1.45-3.48) with anticoagulant use. In 13 trials that reported all-cause mortality, risk of death was not reduced with anticoagulants (RR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.95-1.02; P = 0.38; I2 = 0%).

Conclusions

Anticoagulants did not reduce ATE risk among ambulatory patients on systemic anticancer therapy and were associated with increased bleeding. Based on the current data, anticoagulants have a limited role in ATE prevention in this population as a whole.

Potential for a Virtual Care Model in the Perioperative Management of Anticoagulant Therapy: A 5-Year Retrospective Clinic Review

Background  With a trend toward greater virtual care in selected clinical settings, perioperative anticoagulant management appears well suited for this care delivery model. We explored the potential for virtual care among patients who are receiving anticoagulant therapy and require perioperative management around the time of an elective surgery/procedure. Methods  We undertook a retrospective review of patients who were receiving anticoagulant therapy, either a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) or warfarin, assessed in a perioperative anticoagulation-bridging clinic over a 5-year period from 2016 to 2020. Using prespecified criteria, we determined the proportion of patients who likely would be suitable for virtual care (receiving a DOAC or warfarin and having a minimal- or low-/moderate-bleed-risk surgery/procedure), those who likely would be suitable for in-person care (receiving warfarin and requiring heparin bridging for a mechanical heart valve), and patients who would be suitable for either care delivery model (receiving a DOAC or warfarin, but not with a mechanical heart valve, and requiring a high-bleed-risk surgery/procedure). Results  During the 5-year study period, there were 4,609 patients assessed for perioperative anticoagulant management in whom the most widely used anticoagulants were warfarin (37%), apixaban (30%), and rivaroxaban (24%). Within each year assessed, 4 to 20% of all patients were undergoing a minimal-bleed-risk procedure, 76 to 82% were undergoing a low-/moderate-bleed-risk surgery/procedure, and 10 to 39% were undergoing a high-bleed-risk surgery/procedure. The proportion of patients considered suitable for virtual, in-person, or either virtual or in-person management was 79.6, 7.1, and 13.3%, respectively. Conclusion  In patients who were assessed in a perioperative anticoagulation clinic, there was a high proportion of patients in whom a virtual care model might be suitable.

Perioperative Management of Anticoagulant and Antiplatelet Therapy

Anticoagulant and Antiplatelet Drug ManagementManagement of patients on an anticoagulant or antiplatelet drug who require surgery or an invasive procedure is a common clinical problem. Douketis and Spyropoulos provide an evidence-based but practical approach to managing anticoagulants and antiplatelet drugs in the perioperative setting.

Periprocedural Anticoagulation

Management of patients taking anticoagulants around the time of a procedure is a common and complex clinical scenario. Providing evidence-based care requires estimation of risk for thrombosis and bleeding, knowledge of commonly used medications, multidisciplinary communication and collaboration, and patient engagement and education. This review provides a standardized, evidence-based approach to periprocedural management of anticoagulation, based on current evidence and expert clinical guidelines.

Management of severe peri-operative bleeding: Guidelines from the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care: Second update 2022

BACKGROUND

Management of peri-operative bleeding is complex and involves multiple assessment tools and strategies to ensure optimal patient care with the goal of reducing morbidity and mortality. These updated guidelines from the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care (ESAIC) aim to provide an evidence-based set of recommendations for healthcare professionals to help ensure improved clinical management.

DESIGN

A systematic literature search from 2015 to 2021 of several electronic databases was performed without language restrictions. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies and to formulate recommendations. A Delphi methodology was used to prepare a clinical practice guideline.

RESULTS

These searches identified 137 999 articles. All articles were assessed, and the existing 2017 guidelines were revised to incorporate new evidence. Sixteen recommendations derived from the systematic literature search, and four clinical guidances retained from previous ESAIC guidelines were formulated. Using the Delphi process on 253 sentences of guidance, strong consensus (>90% agreement) was achieved in 97% and consensus (75 to 90% agreement) in 3%.

DISCUSSION

Peri-operative bleeding management encompasses the patient's journey from the pre-operative state through the postoperative period. Along this journey, many features of the patient's pre-operative coagulation status, underlying comorbidities, general health and the procedures that they are undergoing need to be taken into account. Due to the many important aspects in peri-operative nontrauma bleeding management, guidance as to how best approach and treat each individual patient are key. Understanding which therapeutic approaches are most valuable at each timepoint can only enhance patient care, ensuring the best outcomes by reducing blood loss and, therefore, overall morbidity and mortality.

CONCLUSION

All healthcare professionals involved in the management of patients at risk for surgical bleeding should be aware of the current therapeutic options and approaches that are available to them. These guidelines aim to provide specific guidance for bleeding management in a variety of clinical situations.

The bridging conundrum: perioperative management of direct oral anticoagulants for venous thromboembolism

Most patients diagnosed with venous thromboembolism (VTE) are currently treated with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Before an invasive procedure or surgery, clinicians face the challenging decision of how to best manage DOACs. Should the DOAC be held, for how long, and are there instances where bridging with other anticoagulants should be considered? Although clinical trials indicate that most patients taking DOACs for atrial fibrillation do not require bridging anticoagulation, the optimal strategy for patients with a history of VTE is undefined. In this review, we present a case-based discussion for DOAC interruption perioperatively in patients receiving anticoagulation for management of VTE.

Perioperative Anticoagulation in Patients with Cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

There is a paucity of evidence for managing perioperative anticoagulation in patients with cancer. This review aims to provide clinicians who provide care for patients with cancer an overview of the available information and strategies needed to provide optimal care in a perioperative setting.

RECENT FINDINGS

There is new evidence available around the management of perioperative anticoagulation in patients with cancer. The new literature and guidance were analyzed and summarized in this review. Management of perioperative anticoagulation in individuals with cancer is a challenging clinical dilemma. The approach to managing anticoagulation requires clinicians to review both disease and treatment specific patient factors that can contribute to both thrombotic and bleed risks. A thorough patient-specific assessment is essential in ensuring patients with cancer receive appropriate care in the perioperative setting.

Risk-adjusted perioperative bridging anticoagulation reduces bleeding complications without increasing thromboembolic events in general and visceral surgery

BACKGROUND

Perioperative bridging of oral anticoagulation increases the risk of bleeding complications after elective general and visceral surgery. The aim of this study was to explore, whether an individual risk-adjusted bridging regimen can reduce bleeding events, while still protecting against thromboembolic events.

METHODS

We performed a quality improvement study comparing bridging parameters and postoperative outcomes before (period 1) and after implementation (period 2) of a new risk-adjusted bridging regimen. The primary endpoint of the study was overall incidence of postoperative bleeding complications during 30 days postoperatively. Secondary endpoints were major postoperative bleeding, minor bleeding, thromboembolic events, postoperative red blood cell transfusion, perioperative length-of-stay (LOS) and in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 263 patients during period 1 and 271 patients during period 2 were compared. The included elective operations covered the entire field of general and visceral surgery. The overall incidence of bleeding complications declined from 22.1% during period 1 to 10.3% in period 2 (p < 0.001). This reduction affected both major as well as minor bleeding events (8.4% vs. 4.1%; p = 0.039; 13.7% vs. 6.3%; p = 0.004). The incidence of thromboembolic events remained low (0.8% vs. 1.1%). No changes in mortality or length-of-stay were observed.

CONCLUSION

It is important to balance the individual thromboembolic and bleeding risks in perioperative bridging management. The risk adjusted bridging regimen reduces bleeding events in general and visceral surgery while the risk of thromboembolism remains comparably low.

Perioperative Management of Patients Receiving Antithrombotic Therapy in Schemes and Algorithms

Currently, antithrombotic therapy is the basis of the pathogenetic treatment of many cardiovascular diseases, such as coronary heart disease, stroke, peripheral vascular disease, as well as mechanical heart valves, heart rhythm disturbances, venous thromboembolism. At the same time, chronic use of antiplatelet and/or anticoagulant drugs is a complicating factor in invasive and surgical procedures, as it increases the risk of bleeding. In this regard, a fundamentally important and complex question arises: how to minimize the risk of periprocedural bleeding without exposing the patient to an increased risk of ischemic and thromboembolic complications? Perioperative management of patients who take antithrombotic drugs for a long time is a complex problem that depends on many factors - the risk of surgery, anesthesia, cardiovascular risks, and the urgency of surgery. Each clinical situation should be assessed individually, collegially, with the participation of surgeons, anesthesiologists, and therapists. The introduction of a checklist into clinical practice for each planned surgical patient will allow us to calculate the individual risk of bleeding and thromboembolic complications, and provide an optimal preventive strategy for perioperative management of the patient. The algorithms and schemes presented in the article for the perioperative management of patients with non-cardiac interventions are aimed at standardizing the management of patients before non-cardiac surgical interventions, which will reduce hemorrhagic risks in the presence of the necessary antithrombotic therapy.

Predictive Factors and Clinical Events Associated with Edoxaban Interruption and Heparin Bridging Strategy: EMIT-AF/VTE

Patients treated with edoxaban may require diagnostic and therapeutic procedures that involve edoxaban interruption. Although heparin bridging strategies are not recommended, heparin is frequently used in clinical practice. However, whether heparin use decreases thromboembolic risk remains unclear, and the potential for increased periprocedural bleeding remains a concern. Here, we report factors predicting edoxaban interruption and the use of heparin bridging strategies and associated clinical events from Global EMIT-AF/VTE, a multicenter, prospective, noninterventional study (Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02950168). Eligible patients are adults with atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism treated with edoxaban who underwent a diagnostic or therapeutic procedure. Edoxaban interruption, heparin bridging strategies, and clinical event data were collected from 5 days before procedure through 29 days afterwards. Edoxaban was interrupted in 1222/2089 procedures (58.5%); a heparin bridging strategy was used during 178 (14.6%) of these interruptions. Patients who received periprocedural heparin had higher baseline HAS-BLED (2.4±1.0 vs 1.9±1.1, P <0.0001) scores and similar CHA2DS2-VASc (3.6±1.6 vs 3.4±1.6, P = 0.09) scores versus patients who did not. HAS-BLED score >3 and high EHRA procedural risk predicted both edoxaban interruption and the use of a heparin bridging strategy, whereas CHA2DS2-VASc scores did not predict either. Bleeding and ischemic event rates were low; the all-bleeding rate was higher with the use of a heparin bridging strategy versus without (6.2% vs 3.1%, P = 0.04). Periprocedural heparin use was associated with higher bleeding rates, but not with lower thromboembolic risk. Individual patient and procedural bleeding risks appear to contribute more than stroke risk to clinicians' consideration of a heparin bridging strategy.

Bridging therapy according to new clinical guidelines: A review

In modern world it is really important to know how to manage patients taking anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy. There is an increasing number of patients, who have gone through PCI or any other cardiac intervention and who also need another surgery which cannot be postponed till the end of dual antiplatelet therapy. The number of patients who take oral anticoagulant has also increased last years. Algorithms of perioperative bridging therapy and antiplatelet therapy discontinuation can help to decrease both ischemic and hemorrhagic complications. Multidisciplinary risk assessment remains a critical component of perioperative care.

Perioperative Management of Vitamin K Antagonists and Direct Oral Anticoagulants: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The management of patients who are receiving chronic oral anticoagulation therapy and require an elective surgery or an invasive procedure is a common clinical scenario.

RESAERCH QUESTION

What is the best available evidence to support the development of American College of Chest Physicians guidelines on the perioperative management of patients who are receiving long-term vitamin K agonist (VKA) or direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) and require elective surgery or procedures?

STUDY DESIGH AND METHODS

A literature search including multiple databases from database inception through July 16, 2020, was performed. Meta-analyses were conducted when appropriate.

RESULTS

In patients receiving VKA (warfarin) undergoing elective noncardiac surgery, shorter (< 5 days) VKA interruption is associated with an increased risk of major bleeding. In patients who required VKA interruption, heparin bridging (mostly with low-molecular-weight heparin [LMWH]) was associated with a statistically significant increased risk of major bleed (relative risk [RR], 9.1; 95% CI, 1.62-51.3), representing a very low certainty of evidence (COE). Compared with DOAC interruption 1 to 4 days before surgery, continuing DOACs was not associated with a statistically significant difference in the risk of bleeding, representing a very low COE. Continuing dabigatran was associated with a statistically significant increased risk of thromboembolism (RR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.3-3.8), representing a low COE. In patients who needed DOAC interruption, bridging with LMWH was associated a with statistically significant increased risk of minor bleeding compared with no bridging (RR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.13-2.7), representing a low COE.

INTERPRETATION

The certainty in the evidence supporting the perioperative management of anticoagulants remains limited. No high-quality evidence exists to support the practice of heparin bridging during the interruption of VKA or DOAC therapy for an elective surgery or procedure or for the practice of interrupting VKA therapy for minor procedures, including cardiac device implantation, or continuation of a DOAC vs short-term interruption of a DOAC (1-4 days) in the perioperative period.

Preoperative Evaluation for Noncardiac Surgery

The previous In the Clinic that addressed preoperative evaluation for noncardiac surgery was published in December 2016. This update reaffirms much of the information in the previous version and provides new information that has accumulated since then. The goal of preoperative assessment is to identify the risk for postoperative complications so health care teams can more fully understand how to implement strategies to mitigate risks before and after the operation.

Practice-Changing Updates in Perioperative Medicine Literature 2020-2021: A Systematic Review

Recent literature published in a variety of multidisciplinary journals has significantly influenced perioperative patient care. Distilling and synthesizing the clinically important literature can be challenging. This review summarizes practice-changing articles in perioperative medicine from the years 2020 and 2021. Embase, Ovid, and EBM reviews databases were queried from January 2020 to December 2021. Inclusion criteria were original research, systematic review, meta-analysis, and important guidelines. Exclusion criteria were conference abstracts, case reports, letters, protocols, pediatric and obstetric articles, and cardiac surgery literature. Two authors reviewed each reference using the Distiller SR systematic review software (Evidence Partners Inc., Ottawa, Ont., Canada). A modified Delphi technique was used to identify 9 practice-changing articles. We identified another 13 articles for tabular summaries, as they were relevant to an internist's perioperative evaluation of a patient. Articles were selected to highlight the clinical implications of new evidence in each field. We have also pointed out limitations of each study and clinical populations where they are not applicable.

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.

Perioperative continuation of aspirin, oral anticoagulants or bridging with therapeutic low-molecular-weight heparin does not increase intraoperative blood loss and blood transfusion rate in cystectomy patients: an observational cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To assess if uninterrupted anticoagulant agents' administration affects blood loss and blood transfusion during open radical cystectomy (RC) and urinary diversion.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted an observational single-centre cohort study of a consecutive series of 1430 RC patients, between 2000 and 2020. Blood loss was depicted according to body weight and duration of surgery (mL/kg/h), and blood transfusion. The group 'with anticoagulant agents' was considered if surgery was performed with uninterrupted low-dose aspirin (ASS), oral anticoagulants (OAC) with an international normalised ratio (INR) goal of 2-2.5 or bridging with therapeutic low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). Outcomes were intraoperative blood loss, blood transfusion rate (separately analysed if administered within 24 h perioperatively or >24 h after surgery) and the 90-day major adverse cardiac events (MACE) rate. We used propensity score (PS)-matching analysis to adjust for imbalances between groups with or without anticoagulant agents.

RESULTS

The PS-matched median (interquartile range [IQR]) blood loss was 2.10 (1.50-2.94) mL/kg/h in patients with anticoagulant agents vs 2.11 (1.47-2.94) mL/kg/h without anticoagulant agents (Padj  > 0.99). The PS-matched blood transfusion rates were 26.2% vs 35.1% (Padj  = 0.875) within 24 h perioperatively and 57.0% vs 55.0% (Padj  = 0.680) if administered >24 h postoperatively. A sub-analysis of the three different anticoagulant agents could not detect any significance between ASS, OAC, or LMWH. The PS-matched incidence of MACE was 9.1% in the group with anticoagulant agents and 8.1% in those without anticoagulant agents (Padj  > 0.99). Limitations include selection bias and retrospective analysis from prospectively assessed data.

CONCLUSIONS

Perioperative continuation of ASS, uninterrupted OAC with low INR goal or bridging with LMWH had no impact on blood loss and transfusion rate in RC patients. Therefore, there might be no compulsory need for discontinuation of anticoagulant agents.

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.

Perioperative Guidelines on Antiplatelet and Anticoagulant Agents: 2022 Update

Purpose of Review

Multiple guidelines and recommendations have been written to address the perioperative management of antiplatelet and anticoagulant drugs. In this review, we evaluated the recent guidelines in non-cardiac, cardiac, and regional anesthesia. Furthermore, we focused on unresolved problems and novel approaches for optimized perioperative management.

Recent Findings

Vitamin K antagonists should be stopped 3 to 5 days before surgery. Preoperative laboratory testing is recommended. Bridging therapy does not decrease the perioperative thromboembolic risk and might increase perioperative bleeding risk. In patients on direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOAC), a discontinuation interval of 24 and 48 h in those scheduled for surgery with low and high bleeding risk, respectively, has been shown to be saved. Several guidelines for regional anesthesia recommend a conservative interruption interval of 72 h for DOACs before neuraxial anesthesia. Finally, aspirin is commonly continued in the perioperative period, whereas potent P2Y12 receptor inhibitors should be stopped, drug-specifically, 3 to 7 days before surgery.

Summary

Many guidelines have been published from various societies. Their applicability is limited in emergent or urgent surgery, where novel approaches might be helpful. However, their evidence is commonly based on small series, case reports, or expert opinions.

Perioperative management of antithrombotic therapy: a case-based narrative review

The periprocedural management of patients who are receiving vitamin K antagonists, direct oral anticoagulants and antiplatelet therapy is a common and challenging clinical scenario as the decision to interrupt or continue these medications is anchored on patient and procedure-related risks for bleeding and thrombosis. Adding to the complexity of clinical management is the fact that anticoagulants have varied pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties and indications for clinical use. In many minimal-bleed-risk procedures, anticoagulants can be safely continued, without interruption, whereas in cases where anticoagulants cannot be safely continued, the timing of interruption and resumption, as well as the need for heparin bridging requires consideration. Perioperative antithrombotic management scenarios occur most often in patients with atrial fibrillation, mechanical heart valves, coronary stents, and cerebrovascular disease as such patients are likely to be prescribed anticoagulant and/or antiplatelet therapy. The objective of this case-based narrative review is to provide a practical evidence-based approach to the perioperative management of patients on anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy. Four clinical scenarios will be provided: (1) managing patients in whom anticoagulants can be continued; (2) perioperative management of direct oral anticoagulants; (3) management of patients on dual antiplatelet therapy; and (4) anticoagulant management for emergency or urgent surgery.

Perioperative consultative hematology: can you clear my patient for a procedure?

Periprocedural management of antithrombotics is a common but challenging clinical scenario that renders patients vulnerable to potential adverse events such as bleeding and thrombosis. Over the past decade, periprocedural antithrombotic approaches have changed considerably with the advent of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), as well as a paradigm shift away from bridging in many warfarin patients. Successfully navigating this high-risk period relies on a number of individualized patient assessments conducted within a framework of standardized, systematic approaches. It also requires a thorough understanding of antithrombotic pharmacokinetics, multidisciplinary coordination of care, and comprehensive patient education and empowerment. In this article, we provide clinicians with a practical, stepwise approach to periprocedural management of antithrombotic agents through case-based examples of relevant clinical scenarios.