Optimal timing of vitamin K antagonist resumption after upper gastrointestinal bleeding. A risk modelling analysis

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.

Thromboembolic and bleeding complications during interruptions and after discontinuation of anticoagulant treatment in patients with atrial fibrillation and active cancer: A daily practice evaluation

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Cancer provides challenges to the continuity of anticoagulant treatment in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), e.g. through cancer-related surgery or complications. We aimed to provide data on the incidence and reasons for interrupting and discontinuing anticoagulant treatment in AF patients with cancer and to assess its contribution to the risk of thromboembolism (TE) and major bleeding (MB).

METHODS

This retrospective study identified AF patients with cancer in two hospitals between 2012 and 2017. Data on anticoagulant treatment, TE and MB were collected during two-year follow-up. Incidence rates (IR) per 100 patient-years and adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) were obtained for TE and MB occurring during on- and off-anticoagulant treatment, during interruption and after resumption, and after permanent discontinuation.

RESULTS

1213 AF patients with cancer were identified, of which 140 patients permanently discontinued anticoagulants and 426 patients experienced one or more interruptions. Anticoagulation was most often interrupted or discontinued due to cancer-related treatment (n = 441, 62 %), bleeding (n = 129, 18 %) or end of life (n = 36, 5 %). The risk of TE was highest off-anticoagulation and during interruptions, with IRs of 19 (14-25)) and 105 (64-13), and aHRs of 3.1 (1.9-5.0) and 4.6 (2.4-9.0), respectively. Major bleeding risk were not only increased during an interruption, but also in the first 30 days after resumption, with IRs of 33 (12-72) and 30 (17-48), and aHRs of 3.3 (1.1-9.8) and 2.4 (1.2-4.6), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Interruption of anticoagulation therapy harbors high TE and MB risk in AF patients with cancer. The high incidence rates call for better (periprocedural) anticoagulant management strategies tailored to the cancer setting.

Management of Gastrointestinal Bleeding and Resumption of Oral Anticoagulant Therapy in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: A Multidisciplinary Discussion

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are recommended for the prevention of thromboembolism in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), and are now preferred over vitamin K antagonists due to their beneficial efficacy and safety profile. However, all oral anticoagulants carry a risk of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. Although the risk is well documented and acute bleeding well codified, there is limited high-quality evidence and no guidelines to guide physicians on the optimal management of anticoagulation after a GI bleeding event. The aim of this review is to provide a multidisciplinary critical discussion of the optimal management of GI bleeding in patients with AF receiving oral anticoagulants to help physicians provide individualized treatment for each patient and optimize outcomes. It is important to perform endoscopy when a patient presents with bleeding manifestations or hemodynamic instability to determine the bleed location and severity of bleeding and then perform initial resuscitation. Administration of all anticoagulants and antiplatelets should be stopped and bleeding allowed to resolve with time; however, anticoagulant reversal should be considered for patients who have life-threatening bleeding or when the bleeding is not controlled by the initial resuscitation. Anticoagulation needs to be timely resumed considering that bleeding risk outweighs thrombotic risk when anticoagulation is resumed early after the bleeding event. To prevent further bleeding, physicians should prescribe anticoagulant therapy with the lowest risk of GI bleeding, avoid medications with GI toxicity, and consider the effect of concomitant medications on potentiating the bleeding risk.

No Association between Gastrointestinal Rebleeding and DOAC Therapy Resumption: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

There are recommendations for anticoagulation resumption after gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB), although data addressing this topic by direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs)-treated patients is lacking. We aim to determine the safety and efficacy of restarting DOACs after GIB.

METHODS

Studies that reported rebleeding, thromboembolic events, and mortality after restarting or withholding DOACs were selected. The systematic research was conducted in five databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Scopus). The random effect model was implemented to calculate the pooled odds ratio (OR). The ROBINS-I tool was used for risk of bias assessment, and the certainty of the evidence was evaluated with the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

Four retrospective cohort studies (1722 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. We did not find a significant increase in the risk of rebleeding in patients restarting DOACs after index GIB (OR = 1.12; 95% CI: 0.74-1.68). The outcomes of thromboembolic events and mortality data were not suitable for meta-analytic calculations. Single studies did not show statistically significant differences. Data quality assessment showed a serious overall risk of bias and very low quality of evidence (GRADE D).

CONCLUSION

DOAC resumption after a GIB episode may not elevate the risk of rebleeding. However, the need for high-quality randomized clinical trials is crucial.

Resumption of anticoagulant therapy after major bleeding and the risk of negative events in patients with atrial fibrillation (based on REGistry of Long-term AnTithrombotic TherApy-2 – REGATA)

Background. It is necessary to strive to resume anticoagulants for patients with atrial fibrillation who have a high risk of thrombosis after the development of large bleeding. Due to the fact that death in these patients is caused not by a recurrence of fatal bleeding, but by the development of stroke in case of refusal of anticoagulant therapy. Aim. To evaluate the effect of the resumption of anticoagulant therapy on the risk of recurrence of major bleeding, thrombosis and death in patients with atrial fibrillation who have suffered major bleeding. Materials and methods. To evaluate the frequency of bleeding, thrombosis and death in patients with atrial fibrillation after major bleeding according to prospective follow-up data for one year. Results. The recurrence rate of major bleeding after the resumption of therapy was 21.7% per year. The frequency of fatal bleeding was 2.2%. In the anticoagulant withdrawal group, the incidence of thrombotic complications (ischemic stroke and myocardial infarction) was significantly higher compared to patients who resumed therapy. The frequency of death from all causes was significantly higher in the group of patients who did not resume anticoagulant therapy. Half of the deaths were due to cardiovascular causes. The presence of more than 5 points of the Charlson Comorbidity Index was a predictor of the development of the sum of all adverse events. Conclusion. The resumption of anticoagulant therapy after the development of major bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation reduces the risk of thrombosis and death at a cost, while increasing the risk of recurrence of non-fatal bleeding.

Anticoagulation strategies and clinical outcomes after bleeding events during anticoagulation therapy for venous thromboembolism in the practice-based Japanese registry

There is a paucity of data on anticoagulation strategies and clinical outcomes after bleeding events for venous thromboembolism (VTE). In a multicenter Japanese registry enrolling 3027 patients with acute symptomatic VTE, after excluding 430 patients with thrombolysis and 207 patients without anticoagulation therapy, the current study population consisted of 2390 patients, who were divided into patients with major bleeding, clinically relevant non-major (CRNM) bleeding and no bleeding during anticoagulation therapy. All-cause death at 90 days after the bleeding events was evaluated as the primary outcome. There were 189 patients with major bleeding, 147 patients with CRNM bleeding, and 2054 patients without bleeding. Among 189 patients with major bleeding, 142 patients (75%) discontinued anticoagulants, of whom patients with temporary discontinuation and those with permanent discontinuation accounted for 63 patients (44%) and 79 patients (56%), and 58 patients (30.7%) died within 90 days after the bleeding events. The multivariable logistic regression model among patients with bleeding events revealed that active cancer and bleeding events within 90 days after VTE diagnosis were independently associated with 90-day mortality after the bleeding events (active cancer: OR 5.05, 95%CI 2.82-9.05; bleeding events within 90 days after VTE diagnosis: OR 2.23, 95%CI 1.25-3.96). In this practice-based large registry, anticoagulants were frequently discontinued in patients who experienced major bleeding events during anticoagulation therapy and nearly half of them restarted anticoagulants with mortality rate of approximately 30% within 90 days after the bleeding events, and active cancer was the most prevalent cause of death.Clinical trial registration COMMAND VTE Registry: http://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/index.htm . Unique identifier: UMIN000021132.

Anticoagulation Changes Following Major and Clinically Relevant Nonmajor Bleeding Events in Non-valvular Atrial Fibrillation Patients

BACKGROUND

Bleeding events are common complications of oral anticoagulant drugs, including both warfarin and the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Some patients have their anticoagulant changed or discontinued after experiencing a bleeding event, while others continue the same treatment. Differences in anticoagulation management between warfarin- and DOAC-treated patients following a bleeding event are unknown.

METHODS

Patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation from six anticoagulation clinics taking warfarin or DOAC therapy who experienced an International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH)-defined major or clinically relevant non-major (CRNM) bleeding event were identified between 2016 and 2020. The primary outcome was management of the anticoagulant following bleeding (discontinuation, change in drug class, and restarting of same drug class). DOAC- and warfarin-treated patients were propensity matched based on the individual elements of the CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED scores as well as the severity of the bleeding event.

RESULTS

Of the 509 patients on warfarin therapy and 246 on DOAC therapy who experienced a major or CRNM bleeding event, the majority of patients continued anticoagulation therapy. The majority of warfarin (231, 62.6%) and DOAC patients (201, 81.7%) restarted their previous anticoagulation.

CONCLUSION

Following a bleeding event, most patients restarted anticoagulation therapy, most often with the same type of anticoagulant that they previously had been taking.

Anticoagulant Reversal in Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Review of Treatment Guidelines

BACKGROUND

Patients receiving anticoagulant therapies, such as vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), commonly experience gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding as a complication and may require anticoagulant reversal prior to endoscopic treatment. Anticoagulant reversal agents include prothrombin complex concentrates (PCCs; including 3 or 4 coagulation factors), plasma, vitamin K, and target-specific DOAC reversal agents (e.g., idarucizumab and andexanet alfa).

AIM

To review current US, as well as international, guidelines for anticoagulant reversal agents in patients on VKAs or DOACs presenting with GI bleeding prior to endoscopy, guideline-based management of coagulation defects, timing of endoscopy, and recommendations for resumption of anticoagulant therapy following hemostasis. Supporting clinical data were also reviewed.

METHODS

This is a narrative review, based on PubMed and Internet searches reporting GI guidelines and supporting clinical data.

RESULTS

GI-specific guidelines state that use of reversal agents should be considered in patients with life-threatening GI bleeding. For VKA patients presenting with an international normalized ratio > 2.5, guidelines recommend PCCs (specifically 4F-PCC), as they may exhibit greater efficacy/safety compared with fresh frozen plasma in reversal of VKA-associated GI bleeding. For DOAC patients, most guidelines recommend targeted specific reversal agents in the setting of GI bleeding; however, PCCs (primarily 4F-PCC) are often listed as another option. Resumption of anticoagulant therapy following cessation of GI bleeding is also recommended to reduce risks of future thromboembolic complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The utility of anticoagulant reversal agents in GI bleeding is recognized in guidelines; however, such agents should be reserved for use in truly life-threatening scenarios.

Anticoagulant-associated gastrointestinal bleeding: Framework for decisions about whether, when and how to resume anticoagulants

Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is the most frequent single site of oral anticoagulant (OAC)-associated major bleeding. Patients with major GI bleeding experience morbidity and a substantial risk of short-term all-cause mortality up to 10%. While OACs are frequently discontinued during acute bleeding, there is substantial uncertainty about whether, when, and how OACs should be resumed after bleeding has resolved. Limited evidence suggests a lower risk of thromboembolism and death, and a higher risk of recurrent bleeding with OAC resumption. However, the absolute risks and optimal timing of anticoagulation remain uncertain based on these observational studies at risk of bias, particularly due to baseline confounding. In addition to an individualized approach to determining the benefits and harms of treatment decisions informed by the best available evidence about thrombosis and recurrent bleeding, discussions should meaningfully incorporate patient values and preferences. The objective of this review is to provide a framework for decision-making by summarizing the epidemiology and clinical outcomes of OAC-associated GI bleeding, providing an approach for assessment and risk stratification for OAC resumption and its timing, and outlining strategies for the prevention of recurrent GI bleeding.

Recurrent bleeding and thrombotic events after resumption of oral anticoagulants following gastrointestinal bleeding: Communication from the ISTH SSC Subcommittee on Control of Anticoagulation

BACKGROUND

Gastrointestinal bleeding frequently complicates anticoagulant therapy causing treatment discontinuation. Data to guide the decision regarding whether and when to resume anticoagulation based on the risks of thromboembolism and recurrent bleeding are scarce.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to retrospectively evaluate the incidence of these events after anticoagulant-related gastrointestinal bleeding and assess their relationship with timing of anticoagulation resumption.

METHODS

Patients hospitalized because of gastrointestinal bleeding during oral anticoagulation for any indication were eligible. All patients were followed up to 2 years after the index bleeding for recurrent major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding, venous or arterial thromboembolism, and mortality.

RESULTS

We included 948 patients hospitalized for gastrointestinal bleeding occurring during treatment with vitamin K antagonists (n = 531) or direct oral anticoagulants (n = 417). In time-dependent analysis, anticoagulant treatment was associated with a higher risk of recurrent clinically relevant bleeding (hazard ratio [HR] 1.55; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08-2.22), but lower risk of thromboembolism (HR 0.34; 95% CI 0.21-0.55), and death (HR 0.50; 95% CI 0.36-0.68). Previous bleeding, index major bleeding, and lower glomerular filtration rate were associated with a higher risk of recurrent bleeding. The incidence of recurrent bleeding increased after anticoagulation restart independently of timing of resumption.

CONCLUSIONS

Anticoagulant treatment after gastrointestinal bleeding is associated with a lower risk of thromboembolism and death, but higher risk of recurrent bleeding. The latter seemed to be influenced by patient characteristics and less impacted by time of anticoagulation resumption.

The effects of anticoagulant therapy re-initiation after gastrointestinal bleeding: A systematic review and meta-analysis

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Long-term anticoagulant/antithrombotic therapy is widely used for the management of thromboembolic conditions. Gastrointestinal bleeding is a common collateral manifestation of anticoagulant/antithrombotic therapy that complicates its administration. The continuation or discontinuation of anticoagulant/antithrombotic therapy after an episode of gastrointestinal bleeding has been a matter of debate. Despite recent positive reports from retrospective cohort studies suggesting a reduction in morbidity- and mortality-related outcomes with continued administration of anticoagulant/antithrombotic agents (even after gastrointestinal bleeding), no consensus or comparisons about the efficacies of continued or discontinued antithrombotic administration exist. Therefore, we developed this current state-of-evidence analysis evaluating the comparative effects of continuation and discontinuation of anticoagulant/antithrombotic drugs after gastrointestinal bleeding on the overall incidences of gastrointestinal bleeding, thromboembolic events and mortality events.

METHODS

We performed a systematic academic literature search according to the PRISMA guidelines across five databases: Web of Science, Embase, CENTRAL, Scopus and MEDLINE. Moreover, we conducted a random effect meta-analysis to compare the effects of continuation and discontinuation of anticoagulant/antithrombotic drugs after an event of gastrointestinal bleeding on the overall incidences of gastrointestinal bleeding, thromboembolic events and mortality events.

RESULTS

We found seven eligible studies (from 1397 candidates) with 2532 participants (mean age, 73.1 ± 4.1 years). Our meta-analysis revealed lower odds of thromboembolic events (OR, -0.21), mortality outcomes (OR, -0.39) and an increase in the incidence of gastrointestinal bleeding (OR, 2.4) in the group with continued anticoagulant/antithrombotic therapy than in the group discontinuing the therapy.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

We provide an updated evidence on the comparative effects between continuation and discontinuation of anticoagulant/antithrombotic drugs after gastrointestinal bleeding events based on the overall incidences of gastrointestinal bleeding, thromboembolic events and mortality events. This study reports confirm an overall lower incidence of thromboembolic events and mortality outcomes for the continuation group than for the discontinuation group.

Endoscopic diagnosis and management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (NVUGIH): European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2021

1: ESGE recommends in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (UGIH) the use of the Glasgow-Blatchford Score (GBS) for pre-endoscopy risk stratification. Patients with GBS ≤ 1 are at very low risk of rebleeding, mortality within 30 days, or needing hospital-based intervention and can be safely managed as outpatients with outpatient endoscopy.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2: ESGE recommends that in patients with acute UGIH who are taking low-dose aspirin as monotherapy for secondary cardiovascular prophylaxis, aspirin should not be interrupted. If for any reason it is interrupted, aspirin should be re-started as soon as possible, preferably within 3-5 days.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends that following hemodynamic resuscitation, early (≤ 24 hours) upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy should be performed. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 4: ESGE does not recommend urgent (≤ 12 hours) upper GI endoscopy since as compared to early endoscopy, patient outcomes are not improved. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 5: ESGE recommends for patients with actively bleeding ulcers (FIa, FIb), combination therapy using epinephrine injection plus a second hemostasis modality (contact thermal or mechanical therapy). Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 6: ESGE recommends for patients with an ulcer with a nonbleeding visible vessel (FIIa), contact or noncontact thermal therapy, mechanical therapy, or injection of a sclerosing agent, each as monotherapy or in combination with epinephrine injection. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 7 : ESGE suggests that in patients with persistent bleeding refractory to standard hemostasis modalities, the use of a topical hemostatic spray/powder or cap-mounted clip should be considered. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 8: ESGE recommends that for patients with clinical evidence of recurrent peptic ulcer hemorrhage, use of a cap-mounted clip should be considered. In the case of failure of this second attempt at endoscopic hemostasis, transcatheter angiographic embolization (TAE) should be considered. Surgery is indicated when TAE is not locally available or after failed TAE. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 9: ESGE recommends high dose proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy for patients who receive endoscopic hemostasis and for patients with FIIb ulcer stigmata (adherent clot) not treated endoscopically. (A): PPI therapy should be administered as an intravenous bolus followed by continuous infusion (e. g., 80 mg then 8 mg/hour) for 72 hours post endoscopy. (B): High dose PPI therapies given as intravenous bolus dosing (twice-daily) or in oral formulation (twice-daily) can be considered as alternative regimens.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 10: ESGE recommends that in patients who require ongoing anticoagulation therapy following acute NVUGIH (e. g., peptic ulcer hemorrhage), anticoagulation should be resumed as soon as the bleeding has been controlled, preferably within or soon after 7 days of the bleeding event, based on thromboembolic risk. The rapid onset of action of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACS), as compared to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), must be considered in this context.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

Resuming Anticoagulation Following Hospitalization for Gastrointestinal Bleeding Is Associated with Reduced Thromboembolic Events and Improved Mortality: Results from a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Systemic anticoagulants are widely prescribed for prevention and treatment of thromboembolism, but are commonly complicated by gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB). Limited data exist on the management of anticoagulation after hospitalization for GIB and the subsequent risks of recurrent GIB, thromboembolism, and mortality.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies to determine risk of recurrent GIB, thromboembolism, and mortality after resuming anticoagulation following GIB. PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus were searched for randomized controlled trials and cohort studies in patients with atrial fibrillation, venous thromboembolism, or valvular heart disease who received long-term warfarin or direct oral anticoagulants before experiencing GIB. Studies were included if data were available on anticoagulation management and outcomes of recurrent GIB, thromboembolism, and mortality following GIB.

RESULTS

A total of 5354 studies were reviewed of which 10 were included in the meta-analysis. There were 2080 patients who resumed anticoagulation and 2296 patients who discontinued anticoagulation post-index GIB. Resumption of anticoagulation was associated with a significant increase in recurrent GIB (OR 1.646, 95% CI 1.035-2.617, p = 0.035). There was a significant decrease in thromboembolic events in patients who resumed anticoagulation compared to those who did not (OR 0.340, 95% CI 0.178-0.652, p = 0.001, I² = 62.7%). Resumption of anticoagulation was associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality (OR 0.499, 95% CI 0.419-0.595, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

While resumption of anticoagulation following index GIB was associated with a significant increase in recurrent GIB, it was also associated with a significant decrease in thromboembolic events and all-cause mortality.

What gastroenterologists should know about direct oral anticoagulants

Direct oral anticoagulants are being increasingly used in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism, due to their improved efficacy/ safety ratio, a predictable anticoagulant effect without need for routine coagulation monitoring, and fewer food and drug interactions compared with vitamin K antagonists. Gastrointestinal bleeding remains a serious complication, whose management is challenging for gastroenterologists due to the lack of a standardized clinical approach. Clinical experience on periendoscopic management of these drugs is still limited and there is a paucity of clinical data supporting guidelines recommendations', and this ultimately turns out in different, unsubstantiated and potentially harmful practices of patient management. Present study will provide a thorough revision on the risk of GI bleeding for DOAC therapy and the identification of patient risk factors to individualize treatment. Moreover, the approach to management of DOACs in case of bleeding complications is discussed, and an algorithm of different strategies in presence or not of plasma level measurement is proposed. Finally the periendoscopic management for elective procedures will be reviewed, at the light of the guideline recommendations and new evidences from observational studies.

How I assess and manage the risk of bleeding in patients treated for venous thromboembolism

For patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE), prediction of bleeding is relevant throughout the course of treatment, although the means and goal of this prediction differ between the subsequent stages of treatment: treatment initiation, hospital discharge, 3-month follow-up, and long-term follow-up. Even in the absence of fully established risk prediction schemes and outcome studies using a prediction scheme for treatment decisions, the present evidence supports screening for and targeting of modifiable risk factors for major bleeding, as well as the application of decision rules to identify patients at low risk of bleeding complications, in whom long-term anticoagulant treatment is likely safe. Moving forward, prediction tools need to be incorporated in well-designed randomized controlled trials aiming to establish optimal treatment duration in patients at high risk of recurrent VTE. Moreover, the benefit of their longitudinal assessment rather than application as stand-alone baseline assessments should be studied, because changes in bleeding risk over time likely constitute the best predictor of major bleeding. We provide the state-of-the-art of assessing and managing bleeding risk in patients with acute VTE and highlight a practical approach for daily practice illustrated by 2 case scenarios.

Incidence and consequences of resuming oral anticoagulant therapy following hematuria and risks of ischemic stroke and major bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation

Following hematuria, it is uncertain to what extent a vitamin K antagonist (VKA) or non-VKA oral anticoagulant (NOAC) is resumed, and the risks of ischemic stroke/systemic embolism and major bleeding associated with NOAC and VKA resumption are unknown. A cohort study was conducted using electronic medical records collected from 2009 to 2017 at a multicenter healthcare provider in Taiwan. The cohort included 4155 atrial fibrillation patients receiving anticoagulant therapy with hematuria (age: 71.4 ± 11.2 years; 48.8% female). Within 90 days following hematuria, 3287 patients (79.1%) resumed oral anticoagulants including VKA (n = 1554, 37.4%) and NOACs (n = 1733, 41.7%), whereas 868 patients did not resume anticoagulant. Follow-up was initiated 90 days after the occurrence of hematuria, and time-varying multiple Cox regression analyses were used for comparisons between the resumption of NOAC and VKA. The event rates per 100 person-years in the VKA resumption and NOAC resumption groups were 3.04 and 3.28 for ischemic stroke/systemic embolism, and 2.63 and 2.92 for major bleeding, respectively. Patients resuming NOAC had similar risks of ischemic stroke/systemic embolism (hazard ratio 1.14, 95% CI 0.75-1.74) and major bleeding (hazard ratio 1.12, 95% CI 0.72-1.74) compared with those resuming VKA. Since 2011, the proportion of NOAC resumption has increased, whereas the proportions of VKA resumption and non-resumption have decreased. In conclusion, more and more patients who suffer a hematuria while on oral anticoagulant therapy resume NOAC. Patients resuming NOAC have similar risks of ischemic stroke/systemic embolism and major bleeding compared with those resuming VKA.

Restarting of anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation after major bleeding: A meta-analysis

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Benefits and risks of restarting oral anticoagulants (OACs) in patients with atrial fibrillation after major bleeding remain unknown. A meta-analysis was performed to systematically evaluate the effects of restarting OACs on thromboembolism and bleeding events in these patients.

METHODS

Relevant studies were obtained via systematically search of PubMed, Cochrane's Library and Embase databases. A randomized-effect model was used to pool the results. Subgroup analyses according to the types of OACs and sites of reoccurred bleeding were performed.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Seven retrospective cohort studies with 12 197 patients were included. Restarting OACs was associated with reduced risk of thromboembolism (risk ratio [RR]: 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.42-0.87; P = .007). Subgroup analyses showed that restarting warfarin reduced risk of thromboembolism (RR = 0.59, P = .05), but not for the new oral anticoagulants (NOACs; RR = 1.37, P = .18). Moreover, restarting OACs did not affect the risk of reoccurred bleeding (RR = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.74-1.30, P = .89). Similar results were found for warfarin and NOACs, as well as for reoccurred intracranial haemorrhage or gastrointestinal bleeding. In addition, restarting OACs was associated with significantly reduced risk of all-cause mortality (RR = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.33-0.52, P < .001). Consistent results were found for warfarin and NOACs.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

Restarting of OACs after major bleeding in AF patients may be associated with reduced risks of thromboembolism and mortality without increasing reoccurrence of bleeding.

Treatment of bleeding complications in patients on anticoagulant therapy

Anticoagulant therapy is often refrained from out of fear of hemorrhagic complications. The most frequent type of major bleeding is gastrointestinal, but intracranial hemorrhage has the worst prognosis. Management of these complications in patients on anticoagulants should follow the same routines as for nonanticoagulated patients, as described here with the previously mentioned bleeds as examples. In addition, for life-threatening or massive hemorrhages, reversal of the anticoagulant effect is also crucial. Adequate reversal requires information on which anticoagulant the patient has taken and when the last dose was ingested. Laboratory data can be of some help, but not for all anticoagulants in the emergency setting. This is reviewed here for the different types of anticoagulants: vitamin K antagonists, heparins, fondaparinux, thrombin inhibitors and factor Xa inhibitors. Specific antidotes for the latter are becoming available, but supportive care and nonspecific support for hemostasis with antifibrinolytic agents or prothrombin complex concentrates, which are widely available, should be kept in mind.

American Society of Hematology 2018 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: optimal management of anticoagulation therapy

BACKGROUND

Clinicians confront numerous practical issues in optimizing the use of anticoagulants to treat venous thromboembolism (VTE).

OBJECTIVE

These evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians and other health care professionals in their decisions about the use of anticoagulants in the management of VTE. These guidelines assume the choice of anticoagulant has already been made.

METHODS

ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel balanced to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline development process, including updating or performing systematic evidence reviews. The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment.

RESULTS

The panel agreed on 25 recommendations and 2 good practice statements to optimize management of patients receiving anticoagulants.

CONCLUSIONS

Strong recommendations included using patient self-management of international normalized ratio (INR) with home point-of-care INR monitoring for vitamin K antagonist therapy and against using periprocedural low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) bridging therapy. Conditional recommendations included basing treatment dosing of LMWH on actual body weight, not using anti-factor Xa monitoring to guide LMWH dosing, using specialized anticoagulation management services, and resuming anticoagulation after episodes of life-threatening bleeding.

Restarting oral anticoagulant therapy after major bleeding in atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Use of oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapy in atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with an inherited risk of bleeding. Benefits and risks of OAC restarting after a major bleeding are still uncertain. We aimed to assess effectiveness and safety of restarting OAC in AF patients after a major bleeding event.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all studies reporting data about AF patients that sustained a major bleeding, reporting data on restarting or not restarting OAC therapy.

RESULTS

A total of seven studies were included, involving 5685 patients. No significant difference was found in "any stroke" occurrence between OAC restarters and non-restarters (odds ratio [OR]: 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.37-1.51), with a significant 46% relative risk reduction (RRR) (p < 0.00001) for "any thromboembolism" in OAC restarters, with consistent results when the index bleeding event was an intracranial or gastrointestinal bleeding. A significantly higher risk of recurrent major bleeding was seen (OR: 1.85, 95% CI: 1.48-2.30), but no difference in risk for recurrence of index event. OAC restarters had a 10.8% absolute risk reduction for all-cause death (OR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.24-0.60); p < 0.00001). Net clinical benefit (NCB) analysis demonstrated that restarting OAC therapy after a major bleeding was significantly associated with a clinical advantage (NCB: 0.11, 95% CI: 0.09-0.14; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Restarting OAC therapy after a major bleeding event in AF was associated with a positive clinical benefit when compared to non-restarting OAC, with a significant reduction in any thromboembolism and all-cause mortality.

Evaluation and management of Non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding continues to be an important cause of morbidity and mortality. The most common causes include peptic ulcer disease, Mallory-Weiss syndrome, erosive gastritis, duodenitis, esophagitis, malignancy, angiodysplasias and Dieulafoy's lesion. Initial assessment and early aggressive resuscitation significantly improves outcomes. Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy continues to be the gold standard for diagnosis and treatment. We present a comprehensive review of literature for the evaluation and management of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

Management and outcome of gastrointestinal bleeding in patients taking oral anticoagulants or antiplatelet drugs

BACKGROUND

Non-vitamin K dependent oral anticoagulants (NOACs) significantly decrease overall major bleeding rates compared with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) but there is conflicting evidence regarding the relative risk of gastrointestinal bleeding. Since data regarding the types, the management, and the outcome of NOAC-associated gastrointestinal bleeding are scarce, we aimed to fill this gap by comparing cases of gastrointestinal bleeding associated with NOAC, VKA, or antiplatelet therapy.

METHODS

All major gastrointestinal bleeding events documented in the prospective Dresden NOAC registry were identified, and bleeding location, lesion type, endoscopic treatment, use of blood and coagulation factor transfusion, length of stay, and in-hospital mortality were compared with historical data from a large cohort of consecutive gastrointestinal bleeding patients.

RESULTS

In the 143 NOAC therapy cases, upper gastrointestinal tract bleeding was seen in 44.1%, lower gastrointestinal tract bleeding was seen in 42.0%, and no lesion could be identified in the remaining 14.0%. In contrast, upper gastrointestinal tract bleeding was commoner in the 185 VKA therapy cases (53.0%) and in the 711 antiplatelet therapy cases (68.1%). Among cases with upper gastrointestinal tract bleeding during VKA or antiplatelet therapy, 54.1% and 61.4% respectively presented with ulcers, compared with 27.0% for NOAC therapy. In contrast, hemorrhoid bleeding was the predominant lesion type for lower gastrointestinal tract bleeding with NOAC therapy, with a rate of 33.3%, compared with 10.6% with VKA therapy and 8.7% with antiplatelet therapy. NOAC-associated gastrointestinal bleeding resulted in comparatively low resource consumption, shorter hospitalization, and low in-hospital mortality (1.6%) compared with gastrointestinal bleeding historically seen with use of VKAs (in-hospital mortality 5.6%) or antiplatelet agents (in-hospital mortality 11.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

Gastrointestinal bleeding in NOAC recipients is different from that seen with VKA or antiplatelet therapy and has a better short-term prognosis.

Direct oral anticoagulant reversal: how, when and issues faced

INTRODUCTION

The number of atrial fibrillation (AF) patients requiring thrombo-prophylaxis with oral anticoagulation is greatly increasing. The introduction of non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in addition to standard therapy with dose-adjusted warfarin has increased the therapeutic options for AF patients. Despite a generally better safety profile of the NOACs, the risk of major bleedings still persists, and the management of serious bleeding is a clinical challenge. Areas covered: In the current review, risk of major bleeding in patients taking NOACs and general approaches to manage bleeding depending on severity, with a particular focus on specific reversal agents, are discussed. Expert commentary: Due to short half-life of NOACs compared to warfarin, discontinuation of drug, mechanical compression, and volume substitution are considered to be sufficient measures in most of bleeding cases. In case of life-threatening bleeding or urgent surgery, hemostasis can be achieved with non-specific reversal agents (prothrombin complex concentrates) in patients treated with factor Xa inhibitor until specific antidotes (andexanet α and ciraparantag) will receive approval. Thus far, idarucizumab has been the only reversal agent approved for dabigatran.

Management of Oral Anticoagulation Therapy After Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Whether to, When to, and How to Restart an Anticoagulation Therapy

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate current clinical evidence for management of oral anticoagulation therapy after gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) with an emphasis on whether to, when to, and how to resume an anticoagulation therapy.

DATA SOURCES

Relevant articles from MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE databases were identified from 1946 through May 20, 2017, using the keywords: gastrointestinal hemorrhage or gastrointestinal bleeding and antithrombotic therapy or anticoagulation therapy or warfarin or dabigatran or rivaroxaban or apixaban or edoxaban.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

All English-language studies assessing management of oral anticoagulation therapy after GIB were evaluated.

DATA SYNTHESIS

A total of 9 studies were identified. Four retrospective cohort studies showed that resuming anticoagulation therapy was associated with significantly lower rate of thromboembolism (TE) in the general population. Meta-analyses and prospective cohort studies also supported this finding. Two retrospective cohort studies indicated an increase in GIB when anticoagulation reinitiation occurred in less than 7 days without a decrease in TE. Resuming therapy between 7 and 15 days did not demonstrate a significant increase in GIB or TE. A large retrospective study showed that apixaban was associated with the significantly lowest risk of GIB compared with both rivaroxaban and dabigatran.

CONCLUSION

Anticoagulation therapy resumption is recommended, with resumption being considered between 7 and 14 days following GIB regardless of the therapy chosen. Data for warfarin management after GIB should be applied with caution to direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) because of the quicker onset and experimental nature of reversal agents. Apixaban may be a preferred option when restarting a DOAC therapy.