A Call to Reduce the Use of Bridging Anticoagulation

Effect of antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy on bleeding complications following ventral hernia repair: An ACHQC analysis

BACKGROUND

We investigate the effect of antiplatelet and anticoagulant medications on bleeding complications in patients undergoing ventral hernia repair.

METHODS

The Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative registry was queried from 2013 to 2022 for patients who underwent ventral hernia repair, evaluating the association between antiplatelet or anticoagulant use and bleeding complications.

RESULTS

37,973 patients underwent ventral hernia repair: 11.5 ​% on antiplatelet therapy alone and 5.8 ​% on anticoagulation alone. Despite being held, an adjusted regression analysis showed that anticoagulation was associated with an increased risk for postoperative bleeding requiring transfusion (OR 2.4 [1.7-3.4], p ​< ​0.0001), reoperation for postoperative bleeding (OR 6.3 [3.9-10.0], p ​< ​0.0001), and readmission for bleeding complications (OR 4.9 [2.9-8.2], p ​< ​0.0001). Antiplatelet use was not a risk factor for any postoperative bleeding complication.

CONCLUSION

Despite being held preoperatively, patients on anticoagulants are at an increased risk for postoperative hemorrhagic complications. Antiplatelet therapy does not pose the same risk.

Postoperative Atrial Fibrillation: A Review

Atrial fibrillation (AF) in the postoperative phase is a manifestation of numerous factors, including surgical stress, anesthetic effects, and underlying cardiovascular conditions. The resultant cardiac hyperactivity can induce new onset or exacerbate existing AF. A common phenomenon, postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) affects nearly 40% of patients and is associated with longer hospitalization stays, and increased mortality, heart failure, stroke, and healthcare costs. Areas of controversy in POAF include whether to anticoagulate patients who have short-lived POAF, especially given their higher bleeding risk in the postoperative period, and the identification of patients who would benefit the most from preventive drug therapy for POAF. This review discusses the pathophysiology and management of POAF, and strategies to reduce its occurrence.

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.

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.

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

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

Bridging vs Non-Bridging with Warfarin Peri-Procedural Management: Cost and Cost-Effectiveness Analyses

The warfarin peri-procedural management in Qatar is predominantly based on bridging (63%), compared to non-bridging. This study sought to perform a first-time cost analysis of current warfarin peri-procedural management practices, including a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of predominant bridging vs predominant non-bridging practices. From the hospital perspective, a one-year decision-analytic model followed the cost and success consequences of the peri-procedural warfarin in a hypothetical cohort of 10,000 atrial fibrillation patients. Success was defined as survival with no adverse events. Outcome measures were the cost and success consequences of the 63% bridging (vs not-bridging) practice in the study setting, ie, Hamad Medical Corporation, Qatar, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER, cost/success) of the warfarin therapy when predominantly bridging based vs when predominantly non-bridging based. The model was based on Monte Carlo simulation, and sensitivity analyses were performed to confirm the robustness of the study conclusions. As per 63% bridging practices, the mean overall cost of peri-procedural warfarin management per patient was USD 3,260 (QAR 11,900), associated with an overall success rate of 0.752. Based on the CEA, predominant bridging was dominant (lower cost, higher effect) over the predominant non-bridging practice in 62.2% of simulated cases, with a cost-saving of up to USD 2,001 (QAR 7,303) at an average of USD 272 (QAR 993) and was cost-effective in 36.9% of cases. Being between cost-saving and cost-effective, compared to predominant non-bridging practices, the predominant use of bridging with warfarin seems to be a favorable strategy in atrial fibrillation patients.

Periprocedural Anticoagulation Management of Patients receiving Warfarin in Qatar: A Prospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

The use of anticoagulant bridging remains controversial. This study was conducted to evaluate our warfarin periprocedural management in Qatar and investigate the associated clinical outcomes with such management.

METHODS

A prospective cohort study was designed to describe the periprocedural clinical practice in warfarin patients in Qatar and to compare clinical safety and efficacy outcomes between anticoagulant bridging and nonbridging.

RESULTS

103 patients were recruited. Bridging occurred in 82% of the participants. No thromboembolic events were observed, while 39.1% of patients experienced bleeding events during the study period. The incidence of overall bleeding and major bleeding were numerically higher for bridging group compared to nonbridging but did not reach statistical significance ([30.6% vs 22.2%, P = 0.478] and [12.9% vs 5.6%, P = 0.375], respectively).

CONCLUSION

Warfarin interruption and bridging are overwhelmingly used in warfarin-treated patients in Qatar. While bridging was numerically associated with increased bleeding events, there is no statistical difference in reported clinical events between bridging and nonbridging strategies.

The role of heparin bridging in lung cancer surgery: a nationwide database analysis

PURPOSE

There is little evidence to demonstrate the impact of heparin bridging (HB) in major surgery. This study aimed to evaluate the benefits and risks of HB in lung cancer surgery by comparing HB and non-HB (NHB) groups.

METHODS

We extracted patients who were taking an anticoagulant, were diagnosed with lung cancer, and underwent lung resection between April 2014 and March 2018 from a nationwide database in Japan. We compared the HB and NHB groups to determine the benefits and risks of HB. The proportion of postoperative thromboembolism and bleeding events between the HB and NHB groups was the primary outcome. We performed propensity score matching to remove any HB assignment bias.

RESULTS

We selected 2416 patients, and among these, 1068 patients had HB and 1348 did not. Propensity score matching extracted 1500 patients: 750 with HB and 750 without HB. After matching, a Chi-square test showed no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative thromboembolism (1.5% vs 0.9%, p value = 0.343) and bleeding events (5.9% vs 4.0%, p value = 0.124) between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative thromboembolism and bleeding in the patients with and those without HB.

Is anticoagulation reversal necessary prior to surgical treatment of geriatric hip fractures?

OBJECTIVE

Hip fracture surgery in geriatric patients on anticoagulants may increase the risk for blood loss. Anticoagulation reversal may lower these risks; however, data on blood loss and transfusions are limited. The study purpose was to compare outcomes between hip fracture patients 1) not on anticoagulants 2) whose anticoagulants were reversed, and 3) whose anticoagulants were not reversed.

METHODS

This four-year retrospective cohort study at six Level 1 Trauma Centers enrolled geriatric patients (≥65) with isolated hip fractures. The primary outcome was total hospital blood loss (ml). Secondary outcomes: hospital length of stay (HLOS) and volume of packed red blood cells (pRBC) transfusions (ml). Statistical analyses included: Fisher's, chi-squared, Kruskal-Wallis, linear mixed-effect and logistic regression. Bonferroni adjusted alpha = 0.025.

RESULTS

Of the 459 patients, 189 (41%) were not on anticoagulants, 186 (41%) were reversed, and 84 (18%) were not reversed. The LS mean (SE) blood loss was 134 ml (12) for not reversed patients and 159 (17) for reversed patients; no significant difference compared to those not on anticoagulants [138 (12)], p-diff = 0.14 and 0.83, respectively. The LS mean (SE) HLOS was significantly longer for the reversed patients, 7.7 (0.4) days, when compared to those not on anticoagulants, 6.8 (0.4), p = 0.02, and when compared to those not reversed, 6.3 (0.6), p = 0.01. There was no significant difference in pRBC transfusions.

CONCLUSION

Not reversing anticoagulants for geriatric hip fractures was not associated with increased volume of blood loss or transfusions when compared to those reversed. Delayed surgery for anticoagulant reversal may be unnecessary and contributing to an increased HLOS.

The impact of perioperative heparin bridging therapy in lung cancer surgery

PURPOSE

The impact of perioperative heparin bridging (HB) for lung surgery in patients on anti-clotting drugs remains unclear. We performed a retrospective study to assess its effect on surgical safety by comparing HB and non-HB groups.

METHODS

This study included 274 consecutive patients on anti-clotting drugs who underwent surgery for lung cancer. Of these, 77 received HB and 197 did not. Propensity score matching extracted 124 patients, consisting of 62 patients with HB and 62 patients without HB. Endpoints were surgical safety.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference in the outcomes of surgical safety outcomes between the HB and non-HB group after propensity-score matching, operative time (172 vs. 203 min, p = 0.131), volume of blood loss (60 vs. 70 ml, p = 0.335), need for intraoperative RBC transfusion (3.2 vs. 6.5%, p = 0.680), chest tube drainage volume on the 1st postoperative day (200 vs. 200 ml, p = 0.796), and chest tube placement duration (3 vs. 3 days, p = 0.606).

CONCLUSIONS

The influence of perioperative HB on postoperative thromboembolic or bleeding events in lung cancer surgery is not obvious, but its surgical safety appears to be acceptable.

Surgical thromboprophylaxis in daily urologic surgery: Beyond bridge therapy

INTRODUCTION

With the advanced laparoscopic and robotic surgery, thromboembolic prophylaxis in urologic procedures has traditionally been based on the experience of other surgical specialties. This paper aims to analyze the current recommendations, through a detailed study of the European clinical guidelines and bibliography, applying the recommendations of thromboprophylaxis to the daily urological practice.

OBJECTIVES

To elaborate general recommendations to surgical patients in Urology, avoiding the risk of perioperative thromboembolic events. Optimize medication in chronic patients and accurately classify who are eligible for bridge therapy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A review of the available literature and the European clinical guidelines was carried out. We analyzed the most recent consensus articles by studying the available bibliography, trials and reviews on which the European guidelines for thromboprophylaxis in urology are based.

RESULTS

Thromboembolic prophylaxis should be targeted towards surgeries that require abdominal approaches, prolonged bed rest or oncological pathologies. Bridge therapies with low molecular weight heparins should be limited. Patients undergoing treatment for chronic conditions can benefit from bridge therapies in specific cases.

CONCLUSIONS

According to the current guidelines, there might be an overuse of heparins in the daily clinical practice. The development of -direct oral- anticoagulants have shown to reduce the time to reintroduction of medication for chronic conditions as well as a more effective bleeding management.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

A Bridge to Nowhere? Benefits and Risks for Periprocedural Anticoagulation in Atrial Fibrillation

In patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), oral anticoagulation is used to prevent stroke and systemic embolism. In a common clinical scenario, AF patients frequently undergo invasive procedures requiring temporary interruption of oral anticoagulation, thereby potentially exposing such patients to increased risk of thromboembolism. Bridging anticoagulation has been used clinically to mitigate this perceived thromboembolic risk, though this practice may also increase risk of periprocedural bleeding. High-quality data has not previously existed to inform decision-making in this clinical situation of bridging anticoagulation. We discuss recent results from the BRIDGE trial and secondary analyses from recent phase 3 randomized clinical trials of direct-acting oral anticoagulant (DOAC) use in non-valvular AF, that inform periprocedural anticoagulation with bridging strategies in AF patients. Updated data from these current trials favor against a strategy of bridging anticoagulation for elective procedures in the majority of AF patients, low or moderate in thromboembolic risk. Bridging anticoagulation is associated with an increased risk of bleeding and no decreased risk of thromboembolism.

Consensus Document of the Italian Association of Hospital Cardiologists (ANMCO), Italian Society of Cardiology (SIC), Italian Association of Interventional Cardiology (SICI-GISE) and Italian Society of Cardiac Surgery (SICCH): clinical approach to pharmacologic pre-treatment for patients undergoing myocardial revascularization procedures

The wide availability of effective drugs in reducing cardiovascular events together with the use of myocardial revascularization has greatly improved the prognosis of patients with coronary artery disease. The combination of antithrombotic drugs to be administered before the knowledge of the coronary anatomy and before the consequent therapeutic strategies, can allow to anticipate optimal treatment, but can also expose the patients at risk of bleeding that, especially in acute coronary syndromes, can significantly weigh on their prognosis, even more than the expected theoretical benefit. In non ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes patients in particular, we propose a 'selective pre-treatment' with P2Y12 inhibitors, based on the ischaemic risk, on the bleeding risk and on the time scheduled for the execution of coronary angiography. Much of the problems concerning this issue would be resolved by an early access to coronary angiography, particularly for patients at higher ischaemic and bleeding risk.

Thulium laser vaporesection of the prostate: Can we operate without interrupting oral antiplatelet/anticoagulant therapy?

Purpose

Thulium vaporesection of the prostate (ThuVARP) is a new and safe approach for patients receiving anticoagulant therapy in whom transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) may possess a high bleeding risk. We aimed to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of ThuVARP in patients receiving oral antiplatelet/anticoagulant (OAP/OAC) therapy.

Materials and Methods

A total of 103 patients who underwent ThuVARP between 2011 and 2013 were enrolled in the study. Patients were divided into 2 groups. Group A consisted of 47 patients who underwent low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) bridging and group B consisted of 56 patients who were operated on while receiving OAP/OAC therapy.

Results

The drop in hemoglobin levels in the pre- and postoperative periods was significantly higher in group A than in group B. When subgroups were analyzed, the mean drop in hemoglobin was significantly lower in the warfarin and ticlopidine subgroups of group B than in group A. International Prostate Symptom Scores were significantly lower 3, 12, 18, and 24 months after surgery in group A than in group B. Quality of life scores, maximal flow rate values, and postmicturition residual urine volumes (mL) were similar between the 2 groups. A total of 38 and 41 patients in groups A and B, respectively, had no complications.

Conclusions

Our study showed the safety profile of continuing different OAP/OAC therapies in terms of bleeding problems in patients undergoing ThuVARP. We strongly recommend abandoning LMWH bridging and maintaining the OAP/OAC regimen patients are already receiving.

[Perioperative patient management in orthogeriatrics]

The management of major orthopedic surgery in the elderly prototypically reflects the perioperative risks of geriatric, often very frail patients reflecting an aging population. To improve outcome, the risks of anesthesia and surgery as well as of patient comorbidities must be thoroughly assessed and balanced using a multidisciplinary approach. Particular risks include cardiopulmonary morbidity, anemia, risk of hemorrhage and the management by anticoagulation, cerebral impairments as well as frailty and limited physiological reserves in general. Accordingly, an optimized therapy prior to, during, and after surgery will likely influence not only the immediate postoperative course but also hospital mortality and long-term outcome. Publications on the topic of perioperative management of geriatric patients are fortunately gaining in quality and quantity, not least against the background of the demographic developments. Accordingly, specific influencing factors relevant for perioperative management can be increasingly more identified. This short review summarizes the current state of knowledge to provide an overview and rationale for clinical decision making.

Bridge Therapy Outcomes in Patients With Mechanical Heart Valves

Background:

Bridge therapy is associated with an increased risk of major bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism (TE) without a corresponding reduction in TE. The benefits of bridge therapy in patients with mechanical heart valve (MHV) prostheses interrupting warfarin for invasive procedures are not well described.

Methods and Results:

A retrospective cohort study was conducted at an integrated health-care delivery system. Anticoagulated patients with MHV interrupting warfarin for invasive diagnostic or surgical procedures between January 1, 2006, and March 31, 2012, were identified. Patients were categorized according to exposure to bridge therapy during the periprocedural period and TE risk (low, medium, and high). Outcomes validated via manual chart review included clinically relevant bleeding, TE, and all-cause mortality in the 30 days following the procedure. There were 547 procedures in 355 patients meeting inclusion criteria. Mean cohort age was 65.2 years, and 38% were female. Bridge therapy was utilized in 466 (85.2%) procedures (95.2%, 77.3%, and 65.8% of high, medium, and low TE risk category procedures, respectively). The 30-day rate of clinically relevant bleeding was numerically higher in bridged (5.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.9%-8.3%) versus not bridged procedures (1.2%; 95% CI, <0.1%-6.7%; P = .102). No TEs or deaths were identified.

Conclusion:

The use of bridge therapy is common among patients with MHV and may be associated with increased bleeding risk. Further research is needed to determine whether bridge therapy reduces TE in patients with MHV interrupting warfarin for invasive procedures.