Multicenter study on hemorrhagic risk of heparin bridging therapy for periendoscopic thromboprophylaxis

Establishment of a swine model of delayed bleeding after endoscopic procedure

Objectives

Although delayed bleeding after endoscopic procedures has become a problem, currently, there are no appropriate animal models to validate methods for preventing it. This study aimed to establish an animal model of delayed bleeding after endoscopic procedures of the gastrointestinal tract.

Methods

Activated coagulation time (ACT) was measured using blood samples drawn from a catheter inserted into the external jugular vein of swine (n = 7; age, 6 months; mean weight, 13.8 kg) under general anesthesia using the cut-down method. An upper gastrointestinal endoscope was inserted orally, and 12 mucosal defects were created in the stomach by endoscopic mucosal resection using a ligating device. Hemostasis was confirmed at this time point. The heparin group (n = 4) received 50 units/kg of unfractionated heparin via a catheter; after confirming that the ACT was ≥200 s 10 min later, continuous heparin administration (50 units/kg/h) was started. After 24 h, an endoscope was inserted under general anesthesia to evaluate the blood volume in the stomach and the degree of blood adherence at the site of the mucosal defect.

Results

Delayed bleeding was observed in three swine (75%) in the heparin-treated group, who had a maximum ACT of >220 s before the start of continuous heparin administration. In the non-treated group (n = 3), no prolonged ACT or delayed bleeding was observed at 24 h.

Conclusion

An animal model of delayed bleeding after an endoscopic procedure in the gastrointestinal tract was established using a single dose of heparin and continuous heparin administration after confirming an ACT of 220 s.

Rates and risk factors of bleeding after gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection with continuous warfarin or 1-day withdrawal of direct oral anticoagulants

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The 2017 Japanese guidelines recommend continuing warfarin therapy during the perioperative period or discontinuing direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) only on the day of endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer. However, their safety has not been sufficiently explored. This study aimed to validate this management method.

METHODS

This retrospective, multicenter study analyzed the characteristics and outcomes of patients who underwent gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection between July 2017 and June 2019. The patients were categorized according to the use of warfarin or DOACs.

RESULTS

Among the 62 eligible patients, 53 (85%) were male (median age, 76 years). Warfarin was used in 10 patients (16%) and DOACs in 52 patients (84%). Fourteen patients taking DOACs (27%) used concomitant antiplatelet agents, with seven patients (13%) continuing treatment at the time of the endoscopic procedure. No postprocedural bleeding occurred in patients receiving warfarin (0%), whereas 10 cases (19%) of bleeding occurred in patients receiving DOACs: rivaroxaban, 0% (0/22); dabigatran, 0% (0/2); edoxaban, 43% (6/14); and apixaban, 29% (4/14). The type of anticoagulant (P < 0.01) and continuation of antiplatelet therapy (P = 0.02) were risk factors for postprocedural bleeding in patients receiving DOACs. Intraprocedural bleeding requiring transfusion or symptomatic thromboembolic events were not reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Continuous warfarin therapy is preferred. DOAC withdrawal 1 day before a procedure is associated with a high bleeding rate, which may differ for different types of anticoagulants. The continuation of antiplatelet medications in patients receiving DOACs carries a high risk of bleeding and is a future challenge.

Potential of Direct Oral Anticoagulant in Bleeding After Gastric Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

An increasing number of patients are undergoing gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) with active prescriptions of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Only a few reports have described the effects of DOAC intake on postoperative bleeding. We aimed to investigate the bleeding risk associated with DOACs after gastric ESD.

METHODS

Clinical studies published up to April 2022 showing bleeding rates after gastric ESD in patients taking DOACs were identified using electronic searches. The primary outcome was the rate of bleeding after gastric ESD in patients receiving DOACs compared to those not receiving antithrombotic therapy. In this meta-analysis, odds ratios (ORs) were calculated and pooled using a random effects model. The secondary outcome was the difference in the bleeding rate between patients treated with DOACs and those treated with warfarin and antiplatelet drugs.

RESULTS

Seven studies were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled analysis showed that DOACs had a higher bleeding rate than non-thrombotic therapy (17.0% vs. 3.4%; OR 5.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.33-7.54; I2 = 0%). The bleeding risk associated with DOAC administration was similar to that associated with warfarin (17.0% vs. 20.0%; OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.59-1.18; I2 = 0%), whereas it was higher than that associated with antiplatelet administration (16.9% vs. 11.0%; OR 1.63; 95% CI 1.14-2.34; I2 = 8%).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis reveals that the bleeding risk of DOACs is higher than that of non-antithrombotics and antiplatelets, whereas it is comparable to that of warfarin. Gastric ESD in patients on anticoagulants requires careful postoperative management.

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.

Potential for replacing warfarin with a direct oral anticoagulant for endoscopic mucosal resection in the colorectum: A multicenter, open‐label, randomized controlled trial

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Bleeding After Gastric Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Focused on Management of Xa Inhibitors

Purpose

The use of direct oral Xa inhibitors (DXaIs) to prevent venothrombotic events is increasing. However, gastrointestinal bleeding, including that related to endoscopic resection, is a concern. In this study, we evaluated bleeding and coagulation times during the perioperative period of gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD).

Materials and Methods

Patients who consecutively underwent gastric ESD from August 2016 to December 2018 were analyzed. Bleeding rates were compared among the 3 groups (antiplatelet, DXaIs, and control). DXaI administration was discontinued on the day of the procedure. Prothrombin time (PT), activated partial thromboplastin time, and the ratio of inhibited thrombin generation (RITG), which was based on dilute PT, were determined before and after ESD.

Results

During the study period, 265 gastric ESDs were performed in 239 patients, where 23 and 50 patients received DXaIs and antiplatelets, respectively. Delayed bleeding occurred in 17 patients (7.4%) and 21 lesions (7.1%). The bleeding rate in the DXaI group was significantly higher than that in the other groups (30.4%, P<0.01), and the adjusted odds ratio of bleeding was 5.7 (95% confidence interval, 1.4–23.7; P=0.016). In patients using DXaIs, there was a significant (P=0.046) difference in the median RITG between bleeding cases (18.6%) and non-bleeding cases (3.8%).

Conclusions

A one-day cessation of DXaIs was related to a high incidence of bleeding after gastric ESD, and monitoring of residual coagulation activity at trough levels might enable the predicted risk of delayed bleeding in patients using DXaIs.

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.

Postpolypectomy bleeding of colorectal polyps in patients with continuous warfarin and short-term interruption of direct oral anticoagulants

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Postpolypectomy bleeding (PPB) is the most common adverse event after colorectal polypectomy. Use of anticoagulants is an important risk factor for PPB. This study aimed to evaluate PPB in patients receiving treatment with warfarin and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs).

METHODS

Between August 2017 and July 2019, 5449 patients with 12,601 polyps who underwent endoscopic snare resection of colorectal polyps were enrolled. Endoscopic snare resection was performed in patients receiving continuous warfarin (C-warfarin) and in patients who experienced 1 day cessation of (O-) of DOACs in accordance with the Japanese Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society guidelines.

RESULTS

The PPB rate in the group receiving anticoagulants was statistically higher than that in the group without anticoagulants (8.5% [33/387] vs 1.2% [63/5,062], respectively; P < .001). By multivariate logistic regression analysis, male gender (odds ratio [OR], 2.17; P = .007), warfarin (OR, 4.64; P < .001), DOACs (OR, 6.59; P < .001), and multipolyp removal (OR, 1.77; P = .007) were significant risk factors for PPB. PPB was observed in 9 and 21 patients in the C-warfarin and O-DOACs groups, respectively: C-warfarin (8.0% [9/113]), O-dabigatran (6.1% [2/33]), O-rivaroxaban (14.8% [9/61]), O-apixaban (9.8% [9/92]), and O-edoxaban (1.8% [1/56]). The PPB rate with the O-edoxaban group was significantly lower than that with the O-rivaroxaban group (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Use of anticoagulant therapy was an independent risk factor for PPB. The rates of PPB in patients receiving C-warfarin and O-DOACs were also higher than those in patients not receiving anticoagulants. Edoxaban may be safe through short-term withdrawal in patients undergoing endoscopic snare resection of colorectal polyps.

Platelet Inhibition and Anticoagulation in Visceral Interventions

BACKGROUND

Platelet inhibition and anticoagulation are widely used therapeutic approaches in many patients. Despite their undoubted cardiovascular benefits, they may cause gastrointestinal harm either spontaneously or as part of endoscopic procedures. Strategies which harmonize both aspects are, therefore, of clinical interest.

METHOD

The websites of the German (DGVS), European (ESGE), and American (ASGE) Societies of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy were searched for guidelines on antithrombotic agents and endoscopic procedures. Over and beyond this, PubMed was analyzed for originals and reviews by using the keywords "hemostasis affecting drugs," "antithrombotic drugs," "platelet inhibition," "anticoagulation," AND endoscopy.

CONCLUSION

If elective endoscopy is planned, we should consider postponing the procedure in cases of temporally restricted platelet inhibition therapy or anticoagulation. Urgent endoscopy must balance the procedural risk against the risk of continuing or stopping the medication, with respect to thromboembolic events on the one hand and gastrointestinal bleeding on the other. There are decision criteria which facilitate individual risk stratification as a basis for diagnostic and therapeutic algorithms.

KEY MESSAGE

If endoscopic interventions under platelet inhibition and/or anticoagulation cannot be postponed for a limited period of time, diagnostic and therapeutic strategies have to be performed against the background of well-defined decision criteria. These include the procedural risk (low vs. high) and the risk of thromboembolic events occurring (low vs. high) if the medication is stopped. In cases where both risks are considered to be high, an interdisciplinary approach should be favored.

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

Background/Aims

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Safety of Cold Polypectomy for Colorectal Polyps in Patients on Antithrombotic Medication

BACKGROUND

The cold polypectomy (CP) technique has been increasingly used in recent years. However, there have been few studies about post-polypectomy bleeding (PPB) in patients who underwent CP and who were on antithrombotic drugs. The objective of this study was to determine the safety of CP in patients on antithrombotic medication.

METHODS

The subjects were patients who underwent CP in our hospital between April 2014 and March 2016. PPB rates were examined in relation to the use of antithrombotic medication.

RESULTS

CP was performed to remove 2,466 polyps in 1,003 patients. There were 549 polyps (22.3%) in186 patients in the antithrombotic group and 1,917 polyps (77.7%) in 817 patients in the non-antithrombotic group. PPB occurred in 0.55% (3/549) of patients in the antithrombotic group and in 0.10% (2/1,917) of patients in the non-antithrombotic group, showing no significant difference (p = 0.07). Patients in the antithrombotic group in whom PPB occurred included 1 aspirin user with 1 polyp and 1 aspirin plus clopidogrel user with 2 polyps. No PPB occurred in patients on other antithrombotic agents or receiving heparin bridging. There was no significant difference between PPB rates in patients with small polyps (6-9 mm) in the antithrombotic and non-antithrombotic groups, but there was a significant difference between PPB rates in the 2 groups for patients with diminutive group (1-5 mm).

CONCLUSION

CP is a safe procedure even in patients on antithrombotic medication.

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

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

Use of anticoagulants increases risk of bleeding after colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Japanese guidelines for gastroenterological endoscopy have recommended temporary withdrawal of anticoagulants (warfarin, direct oral anticoagulants [DOAC], or heparin) to prevent hemorrhagic complications during endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for colorectal neoplasias (CRNs). However, serious thrombosis might occur during temporary withdrawal of anticoagulants. The current study aimed to evaluate outcomes with anticoagulants in patients undergoing ESD for CRNs.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

 This study was a single-institution retrospective cohort study based on clinical records. We assessed 650 consecutive patients with 698 CRNs who underwent ESD at Hiroshima University Hospital between December 2010 and June 2016. The patients were divided into three groups: the warfarin group (19 patients with 19 CRNs), DOAC group (7 patients with 9 CRNs), and no-antithrombotics group (624 patients with 670 CRNs). We replaced warfarin with heparin 3 to 5 days before endoscopy. Although DOAC was suspended on the morning of endoscopy, we did not replace heparin.

RESULTS

 Bleeding after the procedure occurred in 26.3 % (5/19), 22.0 % (2/9), and 2.7 % (18/670) of patients in the warfarin, DOAC, and no-antithrombotics groups, respectively. In the warfarin group, four patients who bled after the procedure took not only warfarin but also other antiplatelets. En bloc resection rates were 94.7 % (18/19), 100 % (9/9), and 96.6 % (647/670) in the warfarin, DOAC, and no-antithrombotics groups, respectively. No patients experienced ischemic events in the perioperative period.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients undergoing ESD for CRNs, risk of bleeding was higher among patients who took anticoagulants than among those who did not. In particular, careful attention to patients who took antiplatelets in addition to warfarin before ESD for CRNs is warranted.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Replacement of warfarin with a novel oral anticoagulant in endoscopic mucosal resection: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial

Introduction

This randomised controlled trial aims to compare the efficacy of warfarin replacement with apixaban without postoperative resumption of heparin with that of conventional heparin bridging in patients taking warfarin and scheduled to undergo endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR): specifically, by checking for reduction in proportion of postoperative bleeding following EMR.

Methods and analysis

The multicentre, open-label randomised parallel-group, controlled intervention study regards patients taking warfarin who are scheduled to undergo colon EMR. Enrolled patients have been taking oral warfarin for non-valvular atrial fibrillation or venous thrombosis on an outpatient basis, and have been found to have a colorectal polyp (including adenoma or early-stage cancer) for which EMR was indicated. They are assigned to one of two groups.

The primary endpoint is proportion of postoperative bleeding. The secondary endpoints are hospital stay length, therapeutic endoscopy outcomes such as proportion of en bloc resection, proportion of perforation, proportion of intraoperative bleeding, incidence of cerebral infarction/systemic embolism events, incidence of adverse events and serious adverse events, and proportion of postoperative therapeutic endoscopy.

Ethics and dissemination

This trial was approved by the National Hospital Organization Central Review Board for Clinical Trials (19 April 2016).

Discussion

The paucity of reports with high evidence levels was considered problematic when the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society’s gastroenterological endoscopy guidelines were revised in 2012. The results of this trial will have high medical significance, as its data could serve as the basis for revisions in the next edition of the guidelines.

Trial registration number

This trial was registered in the University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN-CTR) accepted from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). UMIN000021947; Pre-results.

Continuation of antithrombotic therapy may be associated with a high incidence of colonic post-polypectomy bleeding

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Post-polypectomy bleeding (PPB) is the most common complication of endoscopic procedures. To reduce the risk of thromboembolic incidents, Japanese guidelines for gastroenterological endoscopy were revised to indicate that antithrombotic agents were not to be discontinued for endoscopic treatment. However, carrying out endoscopic procedures under antithrombotic medication potentially increases the incidence of hemorrhagic complications. The present study investigated the impact of the revised guidelines on the frequency of complications after colonoscopic procedures.

METHODS

The surveillance period comprised the year before the initiation of the new guidelines (2012), which served as a control period, and 2 years after initiation of the new guidelines (2013 and 2014). During the control period, 3955 cases were examined colonoscopically and 1601 lesions were treated endoscopically. During the 2-year period under the new guidelines, 8749 colonoscopies and 3768 endoscopic treatments were carried out. Changes in treatment methods and rates of complications were compared.

RESULTS

PPB rate was not significantly different before and after the revision (0.87% vs 1.01%). With the new guidelines, PPB rates in antithrombotic non-users and users were 0.60% and 3.13%, respectively (OR 5.11, P = 0.000). Multivariable analysis showed that the risks for PPB were as follows: heparin bridging therapy (OR 6.34, P = 0.0002); low-dose aspirin (LDA) continuation (OR 5.30, P = 0.0079); and lesion size (OR 1.06, P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

The present study showed that the overall PPB rate under the new guidelines was not significantly higher when compared with the previous data obtained before the new guidelines were introduced.

Heparin-bridging therapy is associated with a high risk of post-polypectomy bleeding regardless of polyp size

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Evidence regarding safety and efficacy of heparin-bridging therapy for colonoscopic polypectomy remains scarce. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the risk of post-polypectomy bleeding (PPB) in patients receiving heparin-bridging therapy.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the database of patients who underwent colonoscopic polypectomy with prophylactic clip closure between January 2007 and December 2014 at our institution. We evaluated patients receiving heparin-bridging therapy (HB group) compared with those who did not receive antithrombotic therapy (No-HB group).

RESULTS

A total of 1421 polypectomies were carried out on 773 patients; 45 patients were in the HB group and 728 patients were in the No-HB group. The incidence of PPB per patient was significantly higher in the HB group (22.2% vs 1.9%, P < 0.0001), and multivariate analysis showed that heparin-bridging therapy was an independent risk factor for PPB (OR 9.80, 95% CI 4.23-22.3, P < 0.0001). In the HB group, the polyp size was not a risk factor for PPB (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.19-2.26, P = 0.55); the incidence of PPB in lesions of <10 mm and ≥10 mm in size was 14.6% and 10.2% respectively. In contrast, that was a significant risk factor in the No-HB group (OR 4.71, 95% CI 1.41-21.3, P = 0.011). Activated partial thromboplastin time and international normalized ratio were in or under the therapeutic range in the HB group when PPB occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Heparin-bridging therapy is associated with a high risk of PPB regardless of polyp size.

Bleeding risk of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in patients undergoing antithrombotic therapy

OBJECTIVES

Bleeding events related to endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) are rare. However, for patients treated with antithrombotic agents, the bleeding risk of EUS-FNA is uncertain. Hence, the aim of this study was to assess the bleeding event rate associated with EUS-FNA in patients receiving antithrombotic treatment.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted in 742 consecutive patients who underwent EUS-FNA for solid lesions between 2008 and 2015. We compared the bleeding event rates among patients who were not administered antithrombotic agents, those whose agent use was discontinued, those who continued treatment with aspirin or cilostazol, and those who were administered heparin as a replacement.

RESULTS

There were 131 patients (17.7 %) treated with antithrombotic agents. Seven experienced bleeding events, and the overall bleeding event rate was 0.9 % (7/742). All bleeding events were intraoperative; there were no postoperative bleeding episodes. Subgroup analysis by antithrombotic agent revealed bleeding event rates of 1.0 % (6/611), 0 % (0/62), 1.6 % (1/61), and 0 % (0/8) for the non-administration, discontinuation of agents, continuation of aspirin or cilostazol, and heparin replacement groups, respectively. Only one severe bleeding event necessitated hemostatic treatment (1/742; 0.1 %); this occurred in a patient in the non-administration group, and there were no severe bleeding events in patients receiving antithrombotic treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study found a low incidence of EUS-FNA-related bleeding in patients receiving antithrombotic treatment. The bleeding event rate was low even in patients who underwent EUS-FNA while continuing aspirin or cilostazol.

A prospective, multicenter survey on the validity of shorter periendoscopic cessation of antithrombotic agents in Japan

BACKGROUND

The management of antithrombotic agents for endoscopic procedures has recently focused on preventing periprocedural thrombosis in Western countries. However, this focus on shorter cessation of antithrombotic agents needs to be examined for its implications for post-procedural bleeding, with potential risk factors for such bleeding clarified in real-world clinical settings in Japan.

METHODS

A Sapporo consensus group convened and developed a consensus document on the criteria for cessation of antithrombotic agents. In the multicenter, prospective, observational study that followed to validate the criteria in a real-world clinical setting, of all patients ≥20 years of age receiving antithrombotic agents and undergoing endoscopic procedures, all consenting patients were enrolled. All participating facilities were followed up on their adherence to the criteria and clinical outcomes, such as the occurrence of post-procedural bleeding and thrombosis.

RESULTS

A total of 5250 patients, who accounted for 6944 endoscopic procedures, were enrolled from 19 study sites. The consensus criteria, which proved to be nearly consistent with the JSGE criteria revised in 2012, had been adhered to in a total of 6531 procedures performed in 4921 patients. Bleeding and thrombosis were reported in 53 (0.76 %) and two (0.03 %) patients, respectively, among those receiving antithrombotic agents. Post-procedural bleeding was significantly associated with high-bleeding-risk procedures, a high thromboembolic risk with heparin bridging, and the presence of renal failure/dialysis.

CONCLUSIONS

With the new criteria in place for cessation of antithrombotic agents focused on prevention of periprocedural thrombosis, endoscopic procedures may be safely performed without substantially increasing bleeding in clinical practice in Japan.

Clinical problems with antithrombotic therapy for endoscopic submucosal dissection for gastric neoplasms

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is minimally invasive and thus has become a widely accepted treatment for gastric neoplasms, particularly for patients with comorbidities. Antithrombotic agents are used to prevent thrombotic events in patients with comorbidities such as cardio-cerebrovascular diseases and atrial fibrillation. With appropriate cessation, antithrombotic therapy does not increase delayed bleeding in low thrombosis-risk patients. However, high thrombosis-risk patients are often treated with combination therapy with antithrombotic agents and occasionally require the continuation of antithrombotic agents or heparin bridge therapy (HBT) in the perioperative period. Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), a representative combination therapy, is frequently used after placement of drug-eluting stents and has a high risk of delayed bleeding. In patients receiving DAPT, gastric ESD may be postponed until DAPT is no longer required. HBT is often required for patients treated with anticoagulants and has an extremely high bleeding risk. The continuous use of warfarin or direct oral anticoagulants may be possible alternatives. Here, we show that some antithrombotic therapies in high thrombosis-risk patients increase delayed bleeding after gastric ESD, whereas most antithrombotic therapies do not. The management of high thrombosis-risk patients is crucial for improved outcomes.