Safety of anticoagulation with uninterrupted warfarin vs. interrupted dabigatran in patients requiring an implantable cardiac device

Interruption of long-term warfarin is not necessary in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty

Introduction

The management of anticoagulation in patients undergoing arthroplasty remains a challenge. Guidelines for perioperative management of long-term warfarin recommend discontinuation of warfarin preoperatively in low risk patients. We hypothesised that patients who had their warfarin continued during the perioperative period would have shorter hospital stay and no significant increase risk of surgical complications compared to patients who had their warfarin interrupted.

Methods

This was a retrospective review of 20 consecutive patients receiving long-term warfarin who underwent total hip replacement without stopping warfarin. As a control group, we collected same data from 20 age and gender matched patients also on long term warfarin but their warfarin was stopped prior to surgery and restarted postoperatively.

Results

There was no significant difference in age, BMI or comorbidities between the 2 groups. There was a statistically significant difference between the two groups in postoperative INR (P < 0.0001) levels. The mean drop in Hb postoperatively was 25.95 g/L in the warfarin group and 35.7 g/L in the control group, which was statistically significant (P = 0.0066). Hospital stay was statistically significant with shorted stay observed in the warfarin group (P = 0.0447). The odds ratio for developing a postoperative complication was 1.5882 which was not statistically significant (P = 0.6346).

Conclusion

Our results support the hypothesis that it is safe to continue warfarin in patients on long term anticoagulation undergoing total hip replacement. Continuation of warfarin was associated with significantly shorter hospital stay and less INR fluctuations. There was no significant increase in the risk of complications or blood transfusion.

Perioperative interruption of direct oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) frequently undergo invasive procedures that require temporary interruption of anticoagulation. There is little evidence to guide the perioperative interruption of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs).

Methods

A systematic literature search including studies that evaluated the perioperative interruption of DOACs for non-emergent invasive procedures in patients with AF was performed. The primary outcomes of interest were the 30-day risk of thromboembolic events and major bleeding. Secondary outcomes of interest included the 30-day risk of minor bleeding and overall mortality. The systematic review protocol and search strategy were registered online (PROSPERO January 27th 2017:CRD42017056124).

Results

A total of 8 publications encompassing 14 446 patients and 17 107 periprocedural interruptions were included in our study. Our analysis revealed a pooled postoperative 30-day thromboembolic complication risk of 0.41% (95% CI 0.29- 0.54), and a pooled 30-day postoperative major bleeding risk of 1.81% (95% CI 0.84-3.13). Pooled 30-day postoperative risks of minor bleeding and overall mortality were 3.08% (95% CI 1.02-6.20) and 0.67% (95% CI 0.29-1.23), respectively. Meta-analysis of the included comparative studies did not reveal any significant differences in these postoperative outcomes following the perioperative interruption of DOACs or vitamin K antagonists.

Conclusions

The perioperative interruption of DOACs in patients with AF was associated with 0.4% thromboembolic and 1.8% major bleeding events at 30 days post surgery. These findings seem reassuring, but require validation in large prospective management studies where pre-operative DOAC levels are measured and compared with clinical outcomes in this patient population.

Perioperative management of antithrombotic therapy in patients receiving cardiovascular implantable electronic devices: a network meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Network meta-analysis (NMA) has advantages including being able to simultaneously compare and rank multiple treatments over traditional meta-analysis. We evaluated by a NMA the optimal antithrombotic strategy during the perioperative period of implantation of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs).

METHODS

We performed a network meta-analysis of observational studies (cohort and case-control studies). The eligible studies tested the following antithrombotic therapy during the CIED placement: aspirin, clopidogrel, warfarin, novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs), and heparin bridging.

RESULTS

Thirty-one observational studies with 119 study arms were included (41,174 patients receiving long-term antithrombotic therapy; median age, 72.6 years; 70.1% males; median follow-up, 3.6 years). Aspirin (4.26 [2.88-7.22]), warfarin (3.37 [2.17-5.23]), and clopidogrel (3.30 [1.49-5.88]) reduced the risk of bleeding as compared with heparin bridging, and there was no significance difference between continued NOACs and heparin bridging (0.67 [0.21-2.18]). The comparison of commonly used protocols in the management of anticoagulant therapy revealed that continued warfarin (0.38 [0.20-0.74]), continued NOACs (0.19 [0.04-0.89]), and heparin bridging therapy (0.01 [0.05-0.21]) increased the risk of bleeding as compared that of control, and continued warfarin (3.74 [1.96-7.16]), interrupted warfarin (4.89 [2.20-10.88]), and interrupted NOACs (12.5 [1.25-100]) reduced the risk of bleeding compared with that of heparin bridging.

CONCLUSIONS

Among various antithrombotic drugs, aspirin had the lowest bleeding risk, followed by warfarin, clopidogrel and NOACs, and heparin, with the greatest bleeding risk. NOACs therapy appears safe and effective, and interrupted NOACs may be the optimal anticoagulation protocol for use during the perioperative period of CIED implantation.

Safety and Efficacy of Rivaroxaban in Patients With Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices: Observations From the ROCKET AF Trial

BACKGROUND

Although implantation of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) in patients receiving warfarin is well studied, limited data are available on the use of oral factor Xa inhibitors in this setting.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Using data from Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared with Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation (ROCKET AF) (n=14 264), we compared baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation randomized to rivaroxaban versus warfarin who did and did not undergo CIED implantation or revision. In this post-hoc, postrandomization, on-treatment analysis, only the first intervention per patient was analyzed. During a median follow-up of 2.2 years, 453 patients (242 rivaroxaban group; 211 warfarin group) underwent de novo CIED implantation (64.2%) or revision procedures (35.8%). Patients who received CIEDs were older, more likely to be male, and more likely to have past myocardial infarction, but had similar stroke risk compared to patients who did not receive CIEDs. Most patients who received a device had study drug interrupted for the procedure and did not receive bridging anticoagulation. During the 30-day postprocedural period, 11 patients (4.55%) in the rivaroxaban group experienced bleeding complications compared with 15 (7.13%) in the warfarin group. Thromboembolic complications occurred in 3 patients (1.26%) in the rivaroxaban group and 1 (0.48%) in the warfarin group. Event rates were too low for formal hypothesis testing.

CONCLUSIONS

Bleeding and thromboembolic events were low in both rivaroxaban- and warfarin-treated patients. Periprocedural use of oral factor Xa inhibitors in CIED implantation requires further study in prospective, randomized trials.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00403767.

Perioperative management of patients on direct oral anticoagulants

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been licensed worldwide for several years for various indications. Each year, 10-15% of patients on oral anticoagulants will undergo an invasive procedure and expert groups have issued several guidelines on perioperative management in such situations. The perioperative guidelines have undergone numerous updates as clinical experience of emergency management has increased and perioperative studies including measurement of residual anticoagulant levels have been published. The high inter-patient variability of DOAC plasma levels has challenged the traditional recommendation that perioperative DOAC interruption should be based only on the elimination half-life of DOACs, especially before invasive procedures carrying a high risk of bleeding. Furthermore, recent publications have highlighted the potential danger of heparin bridging use when DOACs are stopped before an invasive procedure. As antidotes are progressively becoming available to manage severe bleeding or urgent procedures in patients on DOACs, accurate laboratory tests have become the standard to guide their administration and their actions need to be well understood by clinicians. This review aims to provide a systematic approach to managing patients on DOACs, based on recent updates of various perioperative guidance, and highlighting the advantages and limits of recommendations based on pharmacokinetic properties and laboratory tests.

The Nonvitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants and Atrial Fibrillation: Challenges and Considerations

The nonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban are used for the reduction of the risk of stroke or systemic embolism (SEE) in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). The purpose of this review is to highlight the safety and efficacy results of the pivotal NOAC clinical trials for use in NVAF, discuss some of the unique management challenges in the use of NOACs in special populations, summarize data on emerging and novel indications, and address potential future directions.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted and to identify relevant clinical trials and studies regarding the use of NOACs for the prevention of stroke or SEE in patients with atrial fibrillation.

RESULTS

Relative to warfarin, NOACs are as effective or superior in the prevention of stroke or SEE, and are associated with similar or lower rates of major bleeding and significantly decreased rates of intracranial bleeding, but may be associated with a slightly increased risk of gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with AF. The NOACs are not indicated for use and have not been widely tested in AF patients with other cardiovascular conditions. Additional ongoing and planned clinical trials will provide additional information regarding the use of NOACs in these patients. In situations requiring rapid reversal of anticoagulation, the availability of specific antidotes will improve safety and facilitate NOAC use.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of NOACs in clinical practice requires consideration of patient characteristics as well as potentially required procedures.

Pacemaker Implantation in Elderly Patients: Safety of Various Regimens of Anticoagulant Therapy

OBJECTIVE

To study incidence of hemorrhagic complications after pacemaker implantation in elderly patients receiving antithrombotic therapy with warfarin or uninterrupted dabigatran.

METHODS

126 patients aged 83 [82; 85] years who receive continuous antithrombotic therapy after pacemaker implantation, were enrolled in the study. Adverse event data were collected during hospitalization and further 12 weeks.

RESULTS

95 subjects (75.4%) from general number of enrolled patients received elective anticoagulant warfarin therapy and 31 subjects (24.6%) were treated with dabigatran. All patients of dabigatran group received 220 mg/day skipping the last dose before a surgery and resumed the drug intake in 36-48 hours after it. Patients of warfarin group underwent surgery if INR was NMT 3; they didn't stop taking the drug for the duration of operation.No statistically significant differences of hematoma incidence were detected in dabigatran (incidence is 0.065, 95%CI (-0.02-0.15)) and warfarin (incidence is 0.05, 95%CI (0.006-0.01)) groups, p(Fisher)= 0.55. Three cases of nonfatal gastrointestinal bleeding (warfarin group) and 1 similar event in dabigatran group were detected during a follow-up (12 [6; 20] weeks): RR= 0.98 (warfarin group), p(Fisher)=0.68. No statistically significant difference of age, sex composition, history of IHD and diabetes was detected between groups by comparison of individual characteristics of patients whose surgeries were complicated/non-complicated by hematoma formation. Upon that, hematoma formation rate was significantly higher in patients with adjunctive pacemaker muscular fixation: 71.4% vs 31.9% (patients without hematomas), p(Fisher)= 0.045.

CONCLUSION

Incidence of hematoma formation after pacemaker implantation in patients > 75 years receiving warfarin or dabigatran, is the same as in general population of patients treated with anticoagulants. Adjunctive pacemaker muscular fixation is a significant risk factor of hematoma formation.

Use of novel oral anticoagulant agents in venous thromboembolism

New oral anticoagulants (NOAC) serve as alternatives for patients currently using warfarin for the prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolic (VTE) disease. This article provides a brief summary of the clinical use of these drugs as well as a review of the landmark clinical trials which evaluated described their safety and efficacy. As more data becomes available, a fundamental understanding of these medications will be vital to cardiovascular practitioners managing patients with VTE.