Periprocedural heparin bridging in patients receiving vitamin K antagonists: systematic review and meta-analysis of bleeding and thromboembolic rates

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Perioperative management of a patient with systemic lupus erythematosus-associated antiphospholipid syndrome undergoing mandibular third molar surgery

Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is a systemic autoimmune condition characterised by recurrent venous or arterial thrombosis and pregnancy complications, with persistent antiphospholipid autoantibodies. APS is often found in conjunction with other autoimmune diseases, such as systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). SLE-associated APS patients may require dental procedures like tooth extractions. Due to the complex nature of this autoimmune disorder, perioperative management requires a comprehensive approach involving various medical specialists.These patients are frequently taking medications like anticoagulants, antiplatelet drugs, disease-modifying drugs and immunosuppressants. This medication regimen can increase their risk of postoperative complications, including bleeding, thrombosis, delayed healing and postoperative infections. Currently, there are no established guidelines for performing tooth extractions in individuals with SLE-associated APS.We report a case of SLE-associated APS with pericoronitis requiring surgical extraction. The purpose of this report is to offer practical recommendations for the perioperative management of dental procedures and alteration in medications used in such cases.

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.

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.

Perioperative Management of Traditional and Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Hip Fracture Patients

Hip fractures are an increasingly common injury in the senior population and almost always require surgical fixation or prosthetic replacement. These surgeries, according to the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, are considered high-risk for bleeding, especially in a population fraught with comorbidities and often presenting on anticoagulation medications. Direct oral anticoagulants represent a class of drugs that have been becoming more popular in use in this population, with many benefits over the historically used Warfarin. There are recommendations for preoperative discontinuation and postoperative resumption of these medications, which can be more readily managed for elective surgeries. However, there is a paucity of literature detailing best practice guidelines for the perioperative management of direct oral anticoagulants when a patient presents with a hip fracture. This review article summary of the periprocedural management of DOACs for hip surgery was developed by examining the American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines, Perioperative Guidelines on Antiplatelet and Anticoagulant Agents written by anesthesiologists, various retrospective studies, and drug labels for pharmacokinetic data. These recommendations should be used as a guideline, along with the collaboration of multidisciplinary hospital teams during inpatient admission, to manage these complex patients.

A decade of experience in over 300 surgically treated spine patients with long-term oral anticoagulation: a propensity score matched cohort study

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to investigate the risks and outcomes of patients with long-term oral anticoagulation (OAC) undergoing spine surgery.

METHODS

All patients on long-term OAC who underwent spine surgery between 01/2005 and 06/2015 were included. Data were prospectively collected within our in-house Spine Surgery registry and retrospectively supplemented with patient chart and administrative database information. A 1:1 propensity score-matched group of patients without OAC from the same time interval served as control. Primary outcomes were post-operative bleeding, wound complications and thromboembolic events up to 90 days post-surgery. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative blood loss, length of hospital stay, death and 3-month post-operative patient-rated outcomes.

RESULTS

In comparison with the control group, patients with OAC (n = 332) had a 3.4-fold (95%CI 1.3-9.0) higher risk for post-operative bleeding, whereas the risks for wound complications and thromboembolic events were comparable between groups. The higher bleeding risk was driven by a higher rate of extraspinal haematomas (3.3% vs. 0.6%; p = 0.001), while there was no difference in epidural haematomas and haematoma evacuations. Risk factors for adverse events among patients with OAC were mechanical heart valves, posterior neck surgery, blood loss > 1000 mL, age, female sex, BMI > 30 kg/m2 and post-operative PTT levels. At 3-month follow-up, most patients reported favourable outcomes with no difference between groups.

CONCLUSION

Although OAC patients have a higher risk for complications after spine surgery, the risk for major events is low and patients benefit similarly from surgery.

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.

Prospective insights into spinal surgery outcomes and adverse events: A comparative study between patients 65-79 years vs. ≥80 years from a German tertiary center

Introduction

In light of an aging global population, understanding adverse events (AEs) in surgeries for older adults is crucial for optimal outcomes and patient safety.

Research question

Our study compares surgical outcomes and AEs in patients aged 65-79 with those aged ≥80, focusing on clinical outcomes, morbidity and mortality rates, and age-related risk factors for AEs.

Material and methods

Our study, from January 2019 to December 2022, involved patients aged 65-79 and ≥ 80 undergoing spinal surgery. Each patient was evaluated for AEs post-discharge, defined as negative clinical outcomes within 30 days post-surgery. Patients were categorized based on primary spinal diagnoses: degenerative, oncological, traumatic, and infectious.

Results

We enrolled 546 patients aged 65-79 and 184 octogenarians. Degenerative diseases were most common in both groups, with higher infection and tumor rates in the younger cohort. Octogenarians had a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index and longer ICU/hospital stays. Surgery-related AE rates were 8.1% for 65-79-year-olds and 15.8% for octogenarians, with mortality around 2% in both groups.

Discussion and conclusion

Our prospective analysis shows octogenarians are more susceptible to surgical AEs, linked to greater health complexities. Despite higher AEs in older patients, low mortality rates across both age groups highlight the safety of spinal surgery. Tracking AEs is crucial for patient communication and impacts healthcare accreditation and funding.

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.

Management of Antithrombotic Drugs before Elective Spine Surgery: A Nationwide Web-Based Questionnaire Survey in Japan

Introduction

The number of patients on antithrombotic drugs for coronary heart disease or cerebrovascular disease has been increasing with the aging of society. We occasionally need to decide whether to continue or discontinue antithrombotic drugs before spine surgery. The purpose of this study is to understand the current perioperative management of antithrombotic drugs before elective spine surgery in Japan.

Methods

In 2021, members of the Japanese Society for Spine Surgery and Related Research (JSSR) were asked to complete a web-based questionnaire survey that included items concerning the respondents' surgical experience, their policy regarding discontinuation or continuation of antithrombotic drugs, their reasons for decisions concerning the management of antithrombotic drugs, and their experience of perioperative complications related to the continuation or discontinuation of these drugs.

Results

A total of 1,181 spine surgeons returned completed questionnaires, giving a response rate of 32.0%. JSSR board-certified spine surgeons comprised 75.1% of the respondents. Depending on the management policy regarding antithrombotic drugs for each comorbidity, approximately 73% of respondents discontinued these drugs before elective spine surgery, and about 80% also discontinued anticoagulants. Only 4%-5% of respondents reported continuing antiplatelet drugs, and 2.5% reported continuing anticoagulants. Among the respondents who discontinued antiplatelet drugs, 20.4% reported having encountered cerebral infarction and 3.7% reported encountering myocardial infarction; among those who discontinued anticoagulants, 13.6% reported encountering cerebral embolism and 5.4% reported encountering pulmonary embolism. However, among the respondents who continued antiplatelet drugs and those who continued anticoagulants, 26.3% and 27.2%, respectively, encountered an unexpected increase in intraoperative bleeding, and 10.3% and 8.7%, respectively, encountered postoperative spinal epidural hematoma requiring emergency surgery.

Conclusions

Our findings indicate that, in principle, >70% of JSSR members discontinue antithrombotic drugs before elective spine surgery. However, those with a discontinuation policy have encountered thrombotic complications, while those with a continuation policy have encountered hemorrhagic complications.

Reducing bleeding risk in patients on oral anticoagulation therapy

INTRODUCTION

Oral anticoagulation (OAC) significantly mitigates thromboembolism risks in atrial fibrillation (AF) and venous thromboembolism (VTE) patients yet concern about major bleeding events persist. In fact, clinically relevant hemorrhages can be life-threatening. Bleeding risk is dynamic and influenced by factors such as age, new comorbidities, and drug therapies, and should not be assessed solely based on static baseline factors.

AREAS COVERED

We comprehensively review the bleeding risk associated with OAC therapy. Emphasizing the importance of assessing both thromboembolic and bleeding risks, we present clinical tools for estimating stroke and systemic embolism (SSE) and bleeding risk in AF and VTE patients. We also address overlapping risk factors and the dynamic nature of bleeding risk.

EXPERT OPINION

The OAC management is undergoing constant transformation, motivated by the primary objective of mitigating thromboembolism and bleeding hazards, thereby amplifying patient safety throughout the course of treatment. The future of OAC embraces personalized approaches and innovative therapies, driven by advanced pathophysiological insights and technological progress. This holds promise for improving patient outcomes and revolutionizing anticoagulation practices.

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.

Assessment of delayed bleeding after endoscopic submucosal dissection of early-stage gastrointestinal tumors in patients receiving direct oral anticoagulants

Delayed bleeding is a major and serious adverse event of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for early-stage gastrointestinal tumors. The rate of post-ESD bleeding for gastric cancer is higher (around 5%-8%) than that for esophagus, duodenum and colon cancer (around 2%-4%). Although investigations into the risk factors for post-ESD bleeding have identified several procedure-, lesion-, physician- and patient-related factors, use of antithrombotic drugs, especially anticoagulants [direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and warfarin], is thought to be the biggest risk factor for post-ESD bleeding. In fact, the post-ESD bleeding rate in patients receiving DOACs is 8.7%-20.8%, which is higher than that in patients not receiving anticoagulants. However, because clinical guidelines for management of ESD in patients receiving DOACs differ among countries, it is necessary for endoscopists to identify ways to prevent post-ESD delayed bleeding in clinical practice. Given that the pharmacokinetics (e.g., plasma DOAC level at both trough and T_max) and pharmacodynamics (e.g., anti-factor Xa activity) of DOACs are related to risk of major bleeding, plasma DOAC level and anti-FXa activity may be useful parameters for monitoring the anti-coagulate effect and identifying DOAC patients at higher risk of post-ESD bleeding.

Perioperative Assessment and Optimization in Major Colorectal Surgery: Medication Management

The colorectal surgeon is often faced with medications that can be challenging to manage in the perioperative period. In the era of novel agents for anticoagulation and immunotherapies for inflammatory bowel disease and malignancy, understanding how to advise patients about these medications has become increasingly complex. Here, we aim to provide clarity regarding the use of these agents and their perioperative management, with a particular focus on when to stop and restart them perioperatively. This review will begin with the management of both nonbiologic and biologic therapies used in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease and malignancy. Then, discussion will shift to anticoagulant and antiplatelet medications, including their associated reversal agents. Upon finishing this review, the reader will have gained an increased familiarity with the management of common medications requiring modification by colorectal surgeons in the perioperative period.

Perioperative Management of Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients Who Undergo Dental Procedures: A Systematic Review of the Literature and Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The surgical dental treatment of subjects admitted for anticoagulants therapy represents a consistent risk for peri-operative bleeding. The aim of the present study was to investigate the clinical findings of dental surgery operative management of the patients under anticoagulants drugs protocol.

METHODS

The literature screening was performed using Pubmed/Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane library, considering only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) papers. No limitations about the publication's period, follow-up time or clinical parameters were considered.

RESULTS

A total of eight RCTs were included for the qualitative synthesis. No thromboembolic complications were reported in any studies. Several bleeding episodes associated with anticoagulant drugs in dental surgery were mild and generally happened on the first day after the treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of local haemostatic measures is generally effective for bleeding control with no further pharmacological drug management or suspension.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

DISCUSSION

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

Proactive Risk Assessment through Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) for Perioperative Management Model of Oral Anticoagulant Therapy: A Pilot Project

INTRODUCTION

Correct perioperative management of anticoagulant therapy is essential to prevent thromboembolic events and reduce the risk of bleeding. The lack of universally accepted guidelines makes perioperative anticoagulant therapy management difficult. The present study aims to identify the perioperative risks of oral anticoagulant therapy and to reduce adverse events through Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A multidisciplinary working group was set up, and four main phases of the process were identified. Each of these phases was divided into micro-activities to identify the related possible failure modes and their potential consequences. The Risk Priority Number was calculated for each failure mode.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Seventeen failure modes were identified in the entire perioperative period; those with a higher priority of intervention concern the incorrect timing between therapy suspension and surgery, and the incorrect assessment of the bleeding risk related to the invasive procedure.

CONCLUSION

The FMEA method can help identify anticoagulant therapy perioperative failures and implement the management and patient safety of surgical procedures.

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.

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.

Predictors of pocket hematoma after cardiac implantable electronic device surgery: A nationwide cohort study

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Perioperative Considerations for Antithrombotic Therapy in Oculofacial Surgery: A Review of Current Evidence and Practice Guidelines

PURPOSE

Recent survey studies have demonstrated wide variability in practice patterns regarding the management of antithrombotic medications in oculofacial plastic surgery. Current evidence and consensus guidelines are reviewed to guide perioperative management of antithrombotic medications.

METHODS

Comprehensive literature review of PubMed database on perioperative use of antithrombotic medication.

RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS

Perioperative antithrombotic management is largely guided by retrospective studies, consensus recommendations, and trials in other surgical fields due to the limited number of studies in oculoplastic surgery. This review summarizes evidence-based recommendations from related medical specialties and provides context for surgeons to tailor antithrombotic medication management based on patient's individual risk. The decision to continue or cease antithrombotic medications prior to surgery requires a careful understanding of risk: risk of intraoperative or postoperative bleeding versus risk of a perioperative thromboembolic event. Cessation and resumption of antithrombotic medications after surgery should always be individualized based on the patient's thrombotic risk, surgical and postoperative risk of bleeding, and the particular drugs involved, in conjunction with the prescribing doctors. In general, we recommend that high thromboembolic risk patients undergoing high bleeding risk procedures (orbital or lacrimal surgery) may stop antiplatelet agents, direct oral anticoagulants, and warfarin including bridging warfarin with low-molecular weight heparin. Low-risk patients, regardless of type of procedure performed, may stop all agents. Decision on perioperative management of antithrombotic medications should be made in conjunction with patient's internist, cardiologist, hematologist, or other involved physicians which may limit the role of guidelines depending on patient risk and should be used on a case-by-case basis. Further studies are needed to provide oculofacial-specific evidence-based guidelines.

Bleeding disorders in implant dentistry: a narrative review and a treatment guide

Purpose

Considering a high prevalence of congenital and especially acquired bleeding disorders, their heterogeneity and the multitude of possible treatments strategies, a review of the scientific data on this topic is needed to implement a treatment guide for healthcare professionals.

Methods

A selective literature review was performed via PubMed for articles describing oral surgery / dental implant procedures in patients with congenital and acquired bleeding disorders. Out of the existing literature, potential treatment algorithms were extrapolated.

Results

In order to assess the susceptibility to bleeding, risk stratification can be used for both congenital and acquired coagulation disorders. This risk stratification, together with an appropriate therapeutic pathway, allows for an adequate and individualized therapy for each patient. A central point is the close interdisciplinary cooperation with specialists. In addition to the discontinuation or replacement of existing treatment modalities, local hemostyptic measures are of primary importance. If local measures are not sufficient, systemically administered substances such as desmopressin and blood products have to be used.

Conclusions

Despite the limited evidence, a treatment guide could be developed by means of this narrative review to improve safety for patients and practitioners. Prospective randomized controlled trials are needed to allow the implementation of official evidence-based guidelines.

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.

Recommendation Reversals in Gastroenterology Clinical Practice Guidelines

Background

Recommendations in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) may be reversed when evidence emerges to show they are futile or unsafe. In this study, we identified and characterized recommendation reversals in gastroenterology CPGs.

Methods

We searched CPGs published by 20 gastroenterology societies from January 1990 to December 2019. We included guidelines which had at least two iterations of the same topic. We defined reversals as when (a) the more recent iteration of a CPG recommends against a specific practice that was previously recommend in an earlier iteration of a CPG from the same body, and (b) the recommendation in the previous iteration of the CPG is not replaced by a new diagnostic or therapeutic recommendation in the more recent iteration of the CPG. The primary outcome was the number of recommendation reversals. Secondary outcomes included the strength of recommendations and quality of evidence cited for reversals.

Results

Twenty societies published 1022 CPGs from 1990 to 2019. Our sample for analysis included 129 unique CPGs. There were 11 recommendation reversals from 10 guidelines. New evidence was presented for 10 recommendation reversals. Meta-analyses were cited for two reversals, and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for seven reversals. Recommendations were stronger after the reversal for three cases, weaker in two cases, and of similar strength in three cases. We were unable to compare recommendation strengths for three reversals.

Conclusion

Recommendation reversals in gastroenterology CPGs are uncommon but highlight low value or harmful practices.

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.

Is Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator surgery in patients with an implanted left ventricular assist device safe under uninterrupted oral anticoagulation?

BACKGROUND

Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator (ICD) surgery in patients with implanted left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) is associated with an increased risk of bleeding complications because of the need to ensure that these patients are adequately anticoagulated. Our study aimed to evaluate the safety of our new strategy of uninterrupted oral anticoagulation compared to heparin-bridging during the surgical interval.

METHODS

Between 01/2009 and 01/2020, 116 patients with LVAD underwent ICD surgery. Since 01/2015, 60 patients were operated under continued sufficient oral anticoagulation with a vitamin k antagonist (VKA group). Fifty-six patients underwent a heparin-bridging regimen (heparin group). Demographics, perioperative data, complications, and mortality were analyzed.

RESULTS

Bleeding complications attributable to the surgical intervention occurred more often (19.6% vs. 10.0%, p=0.142) and at a higher rate of re-exploratory surgery (14.3 % vs. 5.0%, p=0.088) in the heparin group without reaching statistical significance. Moreover, the heparin group patients' postoperative total length of stay was 10 days longer. (17.8 ± 23.8 days vs. 8.3 ± 9.5 days, p=0.007). There were no procedure-related deaths, no thromboembolic events, and no LVAD-related thrombosis.

CONCLUSION

Our strategy of uninterrupted oral anticoagulation is safe and results in a reduction by more than half the number of days in hospital without an increase in adverse events.

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.

Postprocedural Radial Artery Compression Time In Chronic AnticoaguLated patients using StatSeal: The PRACTICAL-SEAL study

BACKGROUND

Patients on uniterrupted chronic oral anticoagulation (OAC) therapy are at high-risk of bleeding during cardiac catheterization. We aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of the StatSeal® disc for adjunct hemostasis in patients undergoing transradial coronary angiography under uninterrupted OAC therapy.

METHODS

Patients who underwent transradial cardiac catheterization without interrupted OAC therapy were included in this study.

RESULTS

Among 180 patients, 85 (47.2%) patients were on warfarin and 95 (52.8%) patients on novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs). Patients on NOACs were older (72.9 ± 9.6 versus 69.7 ± 10.8 years, P < 0.001) and had more atrial fibrillation/flutter (94.7% versus 62.4%, P < 0.001), whereas patients on Warfarin were more often women (43.5% versus 26.3%, P = 0.02) and had mechanical heart valves (27.1% versus 0%, P < 0.001). Intravenous unfractioned heparin (UFH) was administered in 96.5% of patients on warfarin (3799 ± 1342 units) and 93.7% patients on NOACs (4028 ± 1362 units), P = 0.27. There were no differences in terms of type and sheath size and the need for ad hoc coronary intervention. Time-to-first release of the hemostatic wristband was 56.2 ± 12.6 min and complete hemostasis was achieved in 71.1 ± 13.0 min, with shorter times among patients on NOACs (54.1 ± 11.7 and 58.5 ± 13.2 min, 68.9 ± 11.7 versus 73.6 ± 14.0 min, P = 0.02, for both). There were no significant differences in terms of bleeding. There was no radial artery occlusion among 112 participants who underwent color Doppler ultrasound.

CONCLUSION

The present study shows that in patients undergoing transradial coronary angiogram under contemporary uninterrupted OAC therapy and periprocedural administration of UFH, the use of StatSeal® disc for adjunctive hemostasis was associated with short times to complete hemostasis.

Risk of Bleeding after Colorectal Endoscopic Resection in Patients with Continued Warfarin Use Compared to Heparin Replacement: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis

The Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society (JGES) guidelines recommend continued warfarin treatment during gastroenterological endoscopic procedures with a high risk of bleeding as an alternative to heparin replacement in patients on warfarin therapy. However, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of warfarin in colorectal endoscopic resection (ER). The present study is aimed at verifying the risk of bleeding after ER for colorectal neoplasia (CRN) in patients with continued warfarin use. This was a single-center retrospective cohort study using clinical records. We assessed 126 consecutive patients with 159 CRNs who underwent ER (endoscopic mucosal resection, 146 cases; endoscopic submucosal dissection, 13 cases) at Hiroshima University Hospital between January 2014 and December 2019. Patients were divided into two groups: the heparin replacement group (79 patients with 79 CRNs) and the continued warfarin group (47 patients with 80 CRNs). One-to-one propensity score matching was performed to compare the bleeding rate after ER between the groups. The rate of bleeding after ER was significantly higher in the heparin replacement group than in the continued warfarin group for both before (10.1% vs. 1.3%, respectively; P = 0.0178) and after (11.9% vs. 0%, respectively; P = 0.0211) propensity score matching. None of the patients experienced thromboembolic events during the perioperative period. The risk of bleeding after colorectal ER was significantly lower in patients with continued warfarin use than in those with heparin replacement. Our data supports the recommendations of the latest JGES guidelines for patients receiving warfarin therapy.

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.

Perioperative Care of Patients at High Risk for Stroke During or After Non-cardiac, Non-neurological Surgery: 2020 Guidelines From the Society for Neuroscience in Anesthesiology and Critical Care

Perioperative stroke is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. Stroke recognition and diagnosis are challenging perioperatively, and surgical patients receive therapeutic interventions less frequently compared with stroke patients in the outpatient setting. These updated guidelines from the Society for Neuroscience in Anesthesiology and Critical Care provide evidence-based recommendations regarding perioperative care of patients at high risk for stroke. Recommended areas for future investigation are also proposed.

Incidence of Acute Ischemic Stroke in Hospitalized Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Who Had Anticoagulation Interruption: A Retrospective Study

Background

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is one of the leading causes of acute ischemic stroke requiring anticoagulation. Many patients experience treatment interruption in the hospital setting. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of anticoagulation interruption on short-term risk of ischemic stroke in hospitalized patients with AF.

Methods

We performed a retrospective medical record review using the Hospital Corporation of America (HCA) database. We included patients admitted to our institution between December 2015 and December 2018 who had a prior history of AF. Patients were excluded if they had ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, history venous thromboembolism or mechanical valve on admission. We compared the incidence of ischemic stroke in patients in whom anticoagulation was interrupted for more than 48 h to those who continued anticoagulation.

Results

A total of 2,277 patients with history of AF were included in the study. In this cohort, 79 patients (3.47%) had anticoagulation interruption of more than 48 h during their hospital stay. There was no difference in incidence of stroke between the interruption and no interruption groups (1.27% (n = 1) vs. 0.23% (n = 5), P = 0.19). Interruption of anticoagulation did not associate with a significant increase in the risk of in-hospital ischemic stroke. CHA₂DS₂VASc score was a strong predictor of in-hospital stroke risk regardless of anticoagulation interruption (odds ratio: 7.199, 95% confidence interval: 2.920 - 17.751).

Conclusion

In this study, the in-hospital incidence of ischemic stroke in patients with AF did not significantly increase by short-term anticoagulation interruption.

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

OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacy and safety of dalteparin postoperative bridging treatment versus placebo for patients with atrial fibrillation or mechanical heart valves when warfarin is temporarily interrupted for a planned procedure.

DESIGN

Prospective, double blind, randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

10 thrombosis research sites in Canada and India between February 2007 and March 2016.

PARTICIPANTS

1471 patients aged 18 years or older with atrial fibrillation or mechanical heart valves who required temporary interruption of warfarin for a procedure.

INTERVENTION

Random assignment to dalteparin (n=821; one patient withdrew consent immediately after randomisation) or placebo (n=650) after the procedure.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Major thromboembolism (stroke, transient ischaemic attack, proximal deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, peripheral embolism, or vascular death) and major bleeding according to the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis criteria within 90 days of the procedure.

RESULTS

The rate of major thromboembolism within 90 days was 1.2% (eight events in 650 patients) for placebo and 1.0% (eight events in 820 patients) for dalteparin (P=0.64, risk difference -0.3%, 95% confidence interval -1.3 to 0.8). The rate of major bleeding was 2.0% (13 events in 650 patients) for placebo and 1.3% (11 events in 820 patients) for dalteparin (P=0.32, risk difference -0.7, 95% confidence interval -2.0 to 0.7). The results were consistent for the atrial fibrillation and mechanical heart valves groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with atrial fibrillation or mechanical heart valves who had warfarin interrupted for a procedure, no significant benefit was found for postoperative dalteparin bridging to prevent major thromboembolism.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00432796.

Predictors of preprocedural direct oral anticoagulant levels in patients having an elective surgery or procedure

The Perioperative Anticoagulation Use for Surgery Evaluation (PAUSE) study prospectively evaluated a prespecified periprocedural-interruption strategy of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) among patients with atrial fibrillation. Logistic regression analyses were performed to identify clinical parameters associated with residual DOAC levels ≥30 ng/mL or ≥50 ng/mL. Patients undergoing low-bleed-risk procedures were more likely to have residual levels of ≥30 ng/mL and ≥50 ng/mL. For low-risk procedures, age ≥75 years, female sex, a creatinine clearance (CrCl) <50 mL/min, and an interruption of <36 hours were associated with a greater likelihood of levels ≥30 ng/mL, whereas age ≥75 years, female sex, a CrCl of <50 mL/min, and standard DOAC dosing were associated with levels ≥50 ng/mL. For high-risk procedures, weight of <70 kg, CrCl <50 mL/min, and standard DOAC dosing were associated with residual levels ≥30 ng/mL, whereas female sex was associated with levels ≥50 ng/mL. For low-risk procedures, apixaban was associated with a higher likelihood of levels ≥30 ng/mL as compared with dabigatran (P = .0019) and of levels ≥50 ng/mL when compared with rivaroxaban (P = .0003). For high-risk procedures, apixaban was marginally associated with a higher likelihood of residual levels ≥30 ng/mL when compared with dabigatran (P = .05), whereas rivaroxaban was associated with a higher likelihood of levels ≥30 ng/mL as compared with apixaban. Further study is required to determine whether adjustments to perioperative plans based on these clinical parameters could result in a lower risk of residual DOAC levels. The PAUSE trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT2228798.

Cardiac implantable electronic device surgery with interruption of warfarin forgoing post-operative bridging therapy in patients with moderate or high thromboembolic risks

Background

For patients taking warfarin and undergoing pacemaker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator surgery, clinical evidence and guidelines support continuation of warfarin therapy, as opposed to interruption of warfarin therapy with heparin bridging. Interruption of warfarin without post-operative bridging therapy may be a feasible alternative but data is sparse.

Methods

This is a single-arm observational study including adults who had interruption of warfarin therapy without post-operative bridging therapy for cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) surgery performed between 2010 and 2019 in a tertiary referral hospital. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality, arterial or venous thromboembolic events. The secondary outcomes were clinically significant device-pocket hematoma and other procedural complications.

Results

Of the 411 patients analysed including 257 patients (62.5%) who had mechanical heart valves, the primary outcome developed in 5 (1.2%) patients within 30 days after surgery, including death in 3 (0.7%) patients, transient ischemic attack in 1 (0.2%) patient and non-CNS embolism in 1 (0.2%) patient. Clinically significant hematomas occurred in 24 (5.8%) patients, including 15 (3.7%) requiring additional interruption of anti-coagulation and 6 (1.5%) requiring clot evacuation. Other procedural complications and bleeding events were rare (< 1%).

Conclusions

Warfarin interruption without post-operative bridging therapy for CIED surgery was associated with low thromboembolic risks and acceptable bleeding risk. Randomized controlled trials are required to formulate an optimal approach to anti-coagulation management.

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.

Update on the perioperative management of antiplatelets and anticoagulants in ophthalmic surgery

INTRODUCTION

Anti-thrombotic drugs (antiplatelets and anticoagulants) are widely used for different clinical reasons. This means that there are an increasing number of patients undergoing elective ophthalmic surgery that are being treated with these drugs. A better knowledge of their implications and their peri-operative use may help to prevent surgical and secondary adverse events. There is often no firm recommendation on how to manage certain drugs in certain surgeries.

OBJECTIVE

To review the recommendations in the scientific literature as regards managing anti-thrombotic agents during the peri-operative period of ophthalmic surgery.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A review was made of the relevant guidelines and studies using an antiplatelet and anticoagulant drugs approach for cataract, vitreo-retinal, glaucoma, oculoplastic, and strabismus surgeries.

RESULTS

Recommendations about whether to continue or discontinue anti-thrombotic drugs in the peri-operative period of different ophthalmic surgical fields are presented.

CONCLUSIONS

There are only firm recommendations of maintaining anti-thrombotic drugs as regards cataract surgery using phacoemulsification with topical anaesthesia. In other surgical fields, ophthalmologists should balance the risk of thromboembolic events and risks of haemorrhagic complications in order to carry out a proper management. A multi-disciplinary approach is recommended for complex cases. Additional studies should be performed to better characterise the peri-operative use of anti-thrombotic agents in order to prepare clinical guidelines for ophthalmic surgery.

Efficacy and Safety of Perioperative Bridging Anticoagulation in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Elective Surgical Procedures: A Meta-analysis

Objective: The study objective was to determine if peri-operative bridging anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation is beneficial or harmful.Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.Setting: Inpatient or in-hospital setting.Participants: Adults with atrial fibrillation having a CHADS2 score >1 undergoing elective surgical procedure on anticoagulation.Methods: A systemic search of multiple databases (Cochrane, Medline, PubMed) was performed regarding studies conducted on efficacy and safety of perioperative bridging anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation. Studies identified were reviewed by two authors individually before inclusion. The results were then pooled using Review Manager to determine the combined effect. Stroke/systemic embolism was considered as the primary efficacy outcome. Major bleeding was the primary safety outcome.Results: The systematic search revealed 108 potential articles. The full texts of 28 articles were retrieved for assessment of eligibility. After full text review, 25 articles were excluded. Three articles met inclusion criteria. No significant difference in stroke/systemic embolism with bridging anticoagulation was noted (risk ratio, 1.25-95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55-2.85). Bridging was associated with significantly higher risk of major bleeding (risk ratio, 3.29-95% CI, 2.25-4.81).Conclusion: An individualized approach is required when initiating peri-operative bridging anticoagulation. There is certainly a higher risk of bleeding with bridging anticoagulation and no difference in stroke/systemic embolism. However, the results cannot be extrapolated to patients who have valvular atrial fibrillation or CHADS2 score of 5 or greater.

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.

Day case locked anterior plating for distal radial fractures is safe with uninterrupted antithrombotic therapy

We undertook a matched prospective cohort study over a 4-year period to examine the safety of continuing the administration of regular antithrombotic treatment with warfarin, clopidogrel or aspirin during day case surgical fixation of distal radial fractures. One hundred and one patients were identified and consented to participate in this study. There was only one reported complication: a superficial wound infection treated with antibiotics. No episodes of excessive bleeding were noted intraoperatively. All patients were discharged home on the day of surgery and there were no episodes of readmission, significant bleeding, haematoma requiring intervention, compartment syndrome or wound dehiscence. Complication rates were comparable with those of the matched cohort of patients undergoing the same procedure but who were not taking antithrombotic medications.Level of evidence: IV.

Retrospective high volume comparative study suggests that patients on aspirin could have immediate surgery for hip fractures without significant blood loss

PURPOSE

This study aimed to investigate the effects of aspirin on peri-operative hidden blood loss during hip fracture surgery by adjusting for possible factors affecting blood loss using a propensity score matching method.

METHODS

We retrospectively collected data from a cohort of isolated hip fracture patients (aged ≥ 65 years)who underwent surgery from January 2010 to December 2019. The study's primary outcome was blood loss from admission to the day after surgery in the aspirin and control groups. We estimated the hidden blood loss, calculated based on patient's blood volume, haemoglobin measurements, and blood transfusions. The secondary outcome focused on the requirement for blood transfusion. We adjusted for possible factors affecting blood loss using a propensity score matching method and statistically examined the effects of aspirin on hip fracture surgery.

RESULTS

We enrolled 806 patients of whom 271 (34%) were taking anticoagulant and antiplatelet drugs, while 114 (14%) were taking only aspirin (aspirin group). A total of 535 patients were not taking antiplatelets and anticoagulants (control group). In propensity score matching, 103 patients were matched. Aspirin was not associated with a significantly higher risk of hidden blood loss (aspirin group; median 598 mL [410-783 mL] vs control group; median 556 ml [321-741 mL], p = 0.14) and higher risk of blood transfusion requirement (aspirin group; 49 patients [48%] vs control group; 39 patients [38%], p = 0.21).

CONCLUSION

Aspirin did not affect peri-operative blood loss in hip fracture surgery. We concluded that patients taking aspirin can safely undergo hip fracture surgery without delay.

Influence of anticoagulants on the risk of delayed bleeding after gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection: a multicenter retrospective study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Delayed bleeding after gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in patients receiving anticoagulants remains an unpreventable adverse event. Although direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have superior efficacy in preventing thromboembolism, their effects on the occurrence of delayed bleeding remain unclear. This study aimed to elucidate the clinical effect of DOACs on delayed bleeding after gastric ESD.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively examined 728 patients who received anticoagulants and were treated for gastric neoplasms with ESD in 25 institutions across Japan. Overall, 261 patients received DOACs, including dabigatran (92), rivaroxaban (103), apixaban (45) and edoxaban (21), whereas 467 patients were treated with warfarin.

RESULTS

Delayed bleeding occurred in 14% of patients taking DOACs, which was not considerably different in patients receiving warfarin (18%). Delayed bleeding rate was significantly lower in patients receiving dabigatran than in those receiving warfarin and lower than that observed for other DOACs. Multivariate analysis showed that age ≥ 65, receiving multiple antithrombotic agents, resection of multiple lesions and lesion size ≥ 30 mm were independent risk factors, and that discontinuation of anticoagulants was associated with a decreased risk of bleeding. In multivariate analysis among patients taking DOACs, dabigatran therapy was associated with a significantly lower risk of delayed bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

The effects of DOACs on delayed bleeding varied between agents, but dabigatran therapy was associated with the lowest risk of delayed bleeding. Switching oral anticoagulants to dabigatran during the perioperative period could be a reasonable option to reduce the risk of delayed bleeding after gastric ESD.