Patients requiring interruption of long-term oral anticoagulant therapy: the use of fixed sub-therapeutic doses of low-molecular-weight heparin

Impact of perioperative low-molecular-weight heparin therapy on clinical events of elderly patients with prior coronary stents implanted > 12 months undergoing non-cardiac surgery: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the safety and efficacy of discontinuing antiplatelet therapy via LMWH bridging therapy in elderly patients with coronary stents implanted for > 12 months undergoing non-cardiac surgery. This randomized trial was designed to compare the clinical benefits and risks of antiplatelet drug discontinuation via LMWH bridging therapy.

METHODS

Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive subcutaneous injections of either dalteparin sodium or placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint was cardiac or cerebrovascular events. The primary safety endpoint was major bleeding.

RESULTS

Among 2476 randomized patients, the variables (sex, age, body mass index, comorbidities, medications, and procedural characteristics) and percutaneous coronary intervention information were not significantly different between the bridging and non-bridging groups. During the follow-up period, the rate of the combined endpoint in the bridging group was significantly lower than in the non-bridging group (5.79% vs. 8.42%, p = 0.012). The incidence of myocardial injury in the bridging group was significantly lower than in the non-bridging group (3.14% vs. 5.19%, p = 0.011). Deep vein thrombosis occurred more frequently in the non-bridging group (1.21% vs. 0.4%, p = 0.024), and there was a trend toward a higher rate of pulmonary embolism (0.32% vs. 0.08%, p = 0.177). There was no significant difference between the groups in the rates of acute myocardial infarction (0.81% vs. 1.38%), cardiac death (0.24% vs. 0.41%), stroke (0.16% vs. 0.24%), or major bleeding (1.22% vs. 1.45%). Multivariable analysis showed that LMWH bridging, creatinine clearance < 30 mL/min, preoperative hemoglobin < 10 g/dL, and diabetes mellitus were independent predictors of ischemic events. LMWH bridging and a preoperative platelet count of < 70 × 109/L were independent predictors of minor bleeding events.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed the safety and efficacy of perioperative LMWH bridging therapy in elderly patients with coronary stents implanted > 12 months undergoing non-cardiac surgery. An alternative approach might be the use of bridging therapy with half-dose LMWH.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN65203415.

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.

How reliable is perioperative anticoagulant management? Determining guideline compliance and practice variation by a retrospective patient record review

OBJECTIVES

Surgery in patients on anticoagulants requires careful monitoring and risk assessment to prevent harm. Required interruptions of anticoagulants and deciding whether to use bridging anticoagulation add further complexity. This process, known as perioperative anticoagulant management (PAM), is optimised by using guidelines. Optimal PAM prevents thromboembolic and bleeding complications. The purpose of this study was to assess the reliability of PAM practice in Dutch hospitals. Additionally, the variations between hospitals and different bridging dosages were studied.

DESIGN

A multicentre retrospective patient record review.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Records from 268 patients using vitamin-K antagonist (VKA) anticoagulants who underwent surgery in a representative random sample of 13 Dutch hospitals were reviewed, 259 were analysed.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Our primary outcome measure was the reliability of PAM expressed as the percentage of patients receiving guideline compliant care. Seven PAM steps were included. Secondary outcome measures included different bridging dosages used and an analysis of practice variation on the hospital level.

RESULTS

Preoperative compliance was lowest for timely VKA interruptions: 58.8% (95% CI 50.0% to 67.7%) and highest for timely preoperative assessments: 81% (95% CI 75.0% to 86.5%). Postoperative compliance was lowest for timely VKA restarts: 39.9% (95% CI 33.1% to 46.7%) and highest for the decision to apply bridging: 68.5% (95% CI 62.3% to 74.8%). Variation in compliance between hospitals was present for the timely preoperative assessment (range 41%-100%), international normalised ratio testing (range 21%-94%) and postoperative bridging (range 20%-88%). Subtherapeutic bridging was used in 50.5% of patients and increased with patients' weight.

CONCLUSIONS

Unsatisfying compliance for most PAM steps, reflect suboptimal reliability of PAM. Furthermore, the hospital performance varied. This increases the risk for adverse events, warranting quality improvement. The development of process measures can help but will be complicated by the availability of a strong supporting evidence base and integrated care delivery regarding PAM.

Periprocedural Bridging in Patients with Venous Thromboembolism: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Vitamin K antagonists (VKA) are the most widely used anticoagulants, and bridging is commonly administered during periprocedural VKA interruption. Given the unclear benefits and risks of periprocedural bridging in patients with previous venous thromboembolism, we aimed to assess recurrent venous thromboembolism and bleeding outcomes with and without bridging in this population.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review searching the PubMed and Embase databases from inception to December 7, 2017 for randomized and nonrandomized studies that included adults with previous venous thromboembolism requiring VKA interruption to undergo an elective procedure, and that reported venous thromboembolism or bleeding outcomes. Quality of evidence was graded by consensus.

RESULTS

We included 28 cohort studies (20 being single-arm cohorts) with, overall, 6915 procedures for analysis. In 27 studies reporting perioperative venous thromboembolism outcomes, the pooled incidence of recurrent venous thromboembolism with bridging was 0.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.4%-1.2%) and 0.5% (95% CI, 0.3%-0.8%) without bridging. Eighteen studies reported major or nonmajor bleeding outcomes. The pooled incidence of any bleeding was 3.9% (95% CI, 2.0%-7.4%) with bridging and 0.4% (95% CI, 0.1%-1.7%) without bridging. In bridged patients at high thromboembolic risk, the pooled incidence for venous thromboembolism was 0.8% (95% CI, 0.3%-2.5%) and 7.5% (95% CI, 3.1%-17.4%) for any bleeding. Quality of available evidence was very low, primarily due to a high risk of bias of included studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Periprocedural bridging increases the risk of bleeding compared with VKA interruption without bridging, without a significant difference in periprocedural venous thromboembolism rates.

Follow-up and management of valvular heart disease patients with prosthetic valve: a clinical practice guideline for Indian scenario

PURPOSE

Valvular heart disease (VHD) patients after prosthetic valve implantation are at risk of thromboembolic events. Follow-up care of patients with prosthetic valve has a paramount role in reducing the morbidity and mortality. Currently, in India, there is quintessential need to stream line the follow-up care of prosthetic valve patients. This mandates the development of a consensus guideline for the antithrombotic therapy in VHD patients post prosthetic valve implantation.

METHODS

A national level panel was constituted comprising 13 leading cardio care experts in India who thoroughly reviewed the up to date literature, formulated the recommendations, and developed the consensus document. Later on, extensive discussions were held on this draft and the recommendations in 8 regional meetings involving 79 additional experts from the cardio care in India, to arrive at a consensus. The final consensus document is developed relying on the available evidence and/or majority consensus from all the meetings.

RESULTS

The panel recommended vitamin K antagonist (VKA) therapy with individualized target international normalized ratio (INR) in VHD patients after prosthetic valve implantation. The panel opined that management of prosthetic valve complications should be personalized on the basis of type of complications. In addition, the panel recommends to distinguish individuals with various co-morbidities and attend them appropriately.

CONCLUSIONS

Anticoagulant therapy with VKA seems to be an effective option post prosthetic valve implantation in VHD patients. However, the role for non-VKA oral therapy in prosthetic valve patients and the safety and efficacy of novel oral anticoagulants in patients with bioprosthetic valve need to be studied extensively.

Periprocedural management of patients receiving a vitamin K antagonist or a direct oral anticoagulant requiring an elective procedure or surgery

The periprocedural management of patients receiving chronic therapy with oral anticoagulants (OACs), including vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) such as warfarin and direct OACs (DOACs), is a common clinical problem. The optimal perioperative management of patients receiving chronic OAC therapy is anchored on four key principles: (i) risk stratification of patient-related and procedure-related risks of thrombosis and bleeding; (ii) the clinical consequences of a thrombotic or bleeding event; (iii) discontinuation and reinitiation of OAC therapy on the basis of the pharmacokinetic properties of each agent; and (iv) whether aggressive management such as the use of periprocedural heparin bridging has advantages for the prevention of postoperative thromboembolism at the cost of a possible increase in bleeding risk. Recent data from randomized trials in patients receiving VKAs undergoing pacemaker/defibrillator implantation or using heparin bridging therapy for elective procedures or surgeries can now inform best practice. There are also emerging data on periprocedural outcomes in the DOAC trials for patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. This review summarizes the evidence for the periprocedural management of patients receiving chronic OAC therapy, focusing on recent randomized trials and large outcome studies, to address three key clinical scenarios: (i) can OAC therapy be safely continued for minor procedures or surgeries; (ii) if therapy with VKAs (especially warfarin) needs to be temporarily interrupted for an elective procedure/surgery, is heparin bridging necessary; and (iii) what is the optimal periprocedural management of the DOACs? In answering these questions, we aim to provide updated clinical guidance for the periprocedural management of patients receiving VKA or DOAC therapy, including the use of heparin bridging.

Preventing bleeding and thromboembolic complications in atrial fibrillation patients undergoing surgery

Neurologists feel uneasy when asked about temporary anticoagulant interruption for surgery in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Rational decisions can be made based on current scientific evidence. Method Critical review of international guidelines and selected references pertaining to bleeding and thromboembolism during periods of oral anticoagulant interruption. Results Withholding oral anticoagulants leads to an increased risk of perioperative thromboembolism, depending on factors such as age, renal and liver function, previous ischemic events, heart failure etc. Surgeries are associated with a variable risk of bleeding - from minimal to very high. Individualized decisions about preoperative drug suspension, bridging therapy with heparin and time to restart oral anticoagulants after hemostasis can significantly reduce these opposing risks. Conclusion Rational decisions can be made after discussion with all Health care team professionals involved and consideration of patient fears and expectations. Formal written protocols should help managing antithrombotic treatment during this delicate period.

Bridging Anticoagulation: Primum Non Nocere

Chronic oral anticoagulation frequently requires interruption for various reasons and durations. Whether or not to bridge with heparin or other anticoagulants is a common clinical dilemma. The evidence to inform decision making is limited, making current guidelines equivocal and imprecise. Moreover, indications for anticoagulation interruption may be unclear. New observational studies and a recent large randomized trial have noted significant perioperative or periprocedural bleeding rates without reduction in thromboembolism when bridging is employed. Such bleeding may also increase morbidity and mortality. In light of these findings, physician preferences for routine bridging anticoagulation during chronic anticoagulation interruptions may be too aggressive. More randomized trials, such as PERIOP2 (A Double Blind Randomized Control Trial of Post-Operative Low Molecular Weight Heparin Bridging Therapy Versus Placebo Bridging Therapy for Patients Who Are at High Risk for Arterial Thromboembolism), will help guide periprocedural management of anticoagulation for indications such as venous thromboembolism and mechanical heart valves. In the meantime, physicians should carefully consider both the need for oral anticoagulation interruption and the practice of routine bridging when anticoagulation interruption is indicated.

Perioperative Bridging Anticoagulation in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation

BACKGROUND

It is uncertain whether bridging anticoagulation is necessary for patients with atrial fibrillation who need an interruption in warfarin treatment for an elective operation or other elective invasive procedure. We hypothesized that forgoing bridging anticoagulation would be noninferior to bridging with low-molecular-weight heparin for the prevention of perioperative arterial thromboembolism and would be superior to bridging with respect to major bleeding.

METHODS

We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in which, after perioperative interruption of warfarin therapy, patients were randomly assigned to receive bridging anticoagulation therapy with low-molecular-weight heparin (100 IU of dalteparin per kilogram of body weight) or matching placebo administered subcutaneously twice daily, from 3 days before the procedure until 24 hours before the procedure and then for 5 to 10 days after the procedure. Warfarin treatment was stopped 5 days before the procedure and was resumed within 24 hours after the procedure. Follow-up of patients continued for 30 days after the procedure. The primary outcomes were arterial thromboembolism (stroke, systemic embolism, or transient ischemic attack) and major bleeding.

RESULTS

In total, 1884 patients were enrolled, with 950 assigned to receive no bridging therapy and 934 assigned to receive bridging therapy. The incidence of arterial thromboembolism was 0.4% in the no-bridging group and 0.3% in the bridging group (risk difference, 0.1 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.6 to 0.8; P=0.01 for noninferiority). The incidence of major bleeding was 1.3% in the no-bridging group and 3.2% in the bridging group (relative risk, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.78; P=0.005 for superiority).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with atrial fibrillation who had warfarin treatment interrupted for an elective operation or other elective invasive procedure, forgoing bridging anticoagulation was noninferior to perioperative bridging with low-molecular-weight heparin for the prevention of arterial thromboembolism and decreased the risk of major bleeding. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health; BRIDGE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00786474.).

Bemiparin versus unfractionated heparin as bridging therapy in the perioperative management of patients on vitamin K antagonists: the BERTA study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The management of patients on vitamin K antagonist therapy who require an invasive procedure is problematic. A randomised, controlled, double-blind clinical trial was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of bemiparin, a low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), with unfractionated heparin (UFH) as bridging therapy: the BERTA (BEmiparin Randomised Trial on bridging Anticoagulants) study.

METHODS

Two hundred and six patients on long-term oral anticoagulation therapy (OAT) requiring an invasive procedure were randomized to receive bridging therapy with bemiparin + matching placebo or UFH. OAT was resumed on day 1. The study medication was continued for 5-6 days after the procedure. The primary efficacy endpoint was the combined incidence of arterial and venous thromboembolic events. The primary safety endpoint was the incidence of major bleeding within 10 days after the invasive procedure.

RESULTS

There were no thromboembolic events in the bemiparin group, but two events (2.2 %) occurred in the UFH group. No major bleeding occurred in either group, but minor bleeding occurred in four patients (4.3 %) and six patients (6.1 %) in the bemiparin and UHF groups, respectively. No deaths and no cases of severe thrombocytopenia occurred during the whole study period.

CONCLUSION

Despite its small size, the BERTA study is the first randomised, double-blind clinical trial comparing UFH with a fixed high-risk thromboprophylactic dose of an LMWH as bridging therapy. There were no thromboembolic events and fewer bleeding episodes in the bemiparin group than in the UFH group, hence we suggest that bemiparin is at least as safe as UFH as bridging therapy.

Outcomes of temporary interruption of rivaroxaban compared with warfarin in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: results from the 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)

BACKGROUND

During long-term anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation, temporary interruptions (TIs) of therapy are common, but the relationship between patient outcomes and TIs has not been well studied. We sought to determine reasons for TI, the characteristics of patients undergoing TI, and the relationship between anticoagulant and outcomes among patients with TI.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In the 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), a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy study of rivaroxaban and warfarin in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, baseline characteristics, management, and outcomes, including stroke, non-central nervous system systemic embolism, death, myocardial infarction, and bleeding, were reported in participants who experienced TI (3-30 days) for any reason. The at-risk period for outcomes associated with TI was from TI start to 30 days after resumption of study drug. In 14 236 participants who received at least 1 dose of study drug, 4692 (33%) experienced TI. Participants with TI were similar to the overall ROCKET AF population in regard to baseline clinical characteristics. Only 6% (n=483) of TI incidences involved bridging therapy. Stroke/systemic embolism rates during the at-risk period were similar in rivaroxaban-treated and warfarin-treated participants (0.30% versus 0.41% per 30 days; hazard ratio [confidence interval]=0.74 [0.36-1.50]; P=0.40). Risk of major bleeding during the at-risk period was also similar in rivaroxaban-treated and warfarin-treated participants (0.99% versus 0.79% per 30 days; hazard ratio [confidence interval]=1.26 [0.80-2.00]; P=0.32).

CONCLUSIONS

TI of oral anticoagulation is common and is associated with substantial stroke risks and bleeding risks that were similar among patients treated with rivaroxaban or warfarin. Further investigation is needed to determine the optimal management strategy in patients with atrial fibrillation requiring TI of anticoagulation.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL

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

The current status of bridging anticoagulation

For patients prescribed chronic vitamin K antagonist therapy requiring a surgical or invasive procedure, the question of whether or not to bridge and how to bridge is commonly encountered in clinical practice. Bridging anticoagulation has evolved over the years and the evidence base for current practice is deficient in many areas. Clinical trials currently being completed with conventional anticoagulants should help strengthen the evidence base for future practice. The availability of novel oral anticoagulants is a welcome addition, though their optimal management peri-procedure is yet to be determined. Prospective multi-centre controlled studies that can provide the evidence base for novel oral anticoagulant peri-procedural management are required.

Perioperative management of patients who are receiving a novel oral anticoagulant

The use of novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) is increasing since these drugs are at least as efficacious and safe as vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for the management of patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism. Compared with VKAs, NOACs have a faster onset and offset of action, a predictable and consistent pharmacokinetic profile, fewer drug interactions, and ease of use since anticoagulant monitoring is not required. Current perioperative management will be affected by these characteristics, with the potential to obviate the need for heparin bridging. This review aims to summarize the current evidence of perioperative thromboembolic and bleeding risk during anticoagulant interruption, which is derived predominantly from patients receiving VKA therapy, and early studies involving NOACs which mainly focus on patients who are receiving dabigatran. The role of heparin bridging is discussed. We also provide a practical approach for the perioperative management of patients who are receiving NOAC therapy.

How I treat anticoagulated patients undergoing an elective procedure or surgery

The periprocedural management of patients receiving long-term oral anticoagulant therapy remains a common but difficult clinical problem, with a lack of high-quality evidence to inform best practices. It is a patient's thromboembolic risk that drives the need for an aggressive periprocedural strategy, including the use of heparin bridging therapy, to minimize time off anticoagulant therapy, while the procedural bleed risk determines how and when postprocedural anticoagulant therapy should be resumed. Warfarin should be continued in patients undergoing selected minor procedures, whereas in major procedures that necessitate warfarin interruption, heparin bridging therapy should be considered in patients at high thromboembolic risk and in a minority of patients at moderate risk. Periprocedural data with the novel oral anticoagulants, such as dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban, are emerging, but their relatively short half-life, rapid onset of action, and predictable pharmacokinetics should simplify periprocedural use. This review aims to provide a practical, clinician-focused approach to periprocedural anticoagulant management.

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

BACKGROUND

Periprocedural bridging with unfractionated heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin aims to reduce the risk of thromboembolic events in patients receiving long-term vitamin K antagonists. Optimal periprocedural anticoagulation has not been established.

METHODS AND RESULTS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases (2001-2010) were searched for English-language studies including patients receiving heparin bridging during interruption of vitamin K antagonists for elective procedures. Data were independently collected by 2 investigators (κ=0.90). The final review included 34 studies with 1 randomized trial. Thromboembolic events occurred in 73 of 7118 bridged patients (pooled incidence, 0.9%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.0.0-3.4) and 32 of 5160 nonbridged patients (pooled incidence, 0.6%; 95% CI, 0.0-1.2). There was no difference in the risk of thromboembolic events in 8 studies comparing bridged and nonbridged groups (odds ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.42-1.54). Bridging was associated with an increased risk of overall bleeding in 13 studies (odds ratio, 5.40; 95% CI, 3.00-9.74) and major bleeding in 5 studies (odds ratio, 3.60; 95% CI, 1.52-8.50) comparing bridged and nonbridged patients. There was no difference in thromboembolic events (odds ratio, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.04-2.09) but an increased risk of overall bleeding (odds ratio, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.27-4.08) with full versus prophylactic/intermediate-dose low-molecular-weight heparin bridging. Low-thromboembolic-risk and/or non-vitamin K antagonist patient groups were used for comparison. Study quality was poor with heterogeneity for some analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Vitamin K antagonist-treated patients receiving periprocedural heparin bridging appear to be at increased risk of overall and major bleeding and at similar risk of thromboembolic events compared to nonbridged patients. Randomized trials are needed to define the role of periprocedural heparin bridging.

Perioperative management of antithrombotic therapy: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines

BACKGROUND

This guideline addresses the management of patients who are receiving anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy and require an elective surgery or procedure.

METHODS

The methods herein follow those discussed in the Methodology for the Development of Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis Guidelines. Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines article of this supplement.

RESULTS

In patients requiring vitamin K antagonist (VKA) interruption before surgery, we recommend stopping VKAs 5 days before surgery instead of a shorter time before surgery (Grade 1B). In patients with a mechanical heart valve, atrial fibrillation, or VTE at high risk for thromboembolism, we suggest bridging anticoagulation instead of no bridging during VKA interruption (Grade 2C); in patients at low risk, we suggest no bridging instead of bridging (Grade 2C). In patients who require a dental procedure, we suggest continuing VKAs with an oral prohemostatic agent or stopping VKAs 2 to 3 days before the procedure instead of alternative strategies (Grade 2C). In moderate- to high-risk patients who are receiving acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) and require noncardiac surgery, we suggest continuing ASA around the time of surgery instead of stopping ASA 7 to 10 days before surgery (Grade 2C). In patients with a coronary stent who require surgery, we recommend deferring surgery > 6 weeks after bare-metal stent placement and > 6 months after drug-eluting stent placement instead of undertaking surgery within these time periods (Grade 1C); in patients requiring surgery within 6 weeks of bare-metal stent placement or within 6 months of drug-eluting stent placement, we suggest continuing antiplatelet therapy perioperatively instead of stopping therapy 7 to 10 days before surgery (Grade 2C).

CONCLUSIONS

Perioperative antithrombotic management is based on risk assessment for thromboembolism and bleeding, and recommended approaches aim to simplify patient management and minimize adverse clinical outcomes.

Cancer patients requiring interruption of long-term warfarin because of surgery or chemotherapy induced thrombocytopenia: the use of fixed sub-therapeutic doses of low-molecular weight heparin

No data are available regarding the management of cancer patients requiring interruption of long-term vitamin-K antagonist (VKA) therapy. For this purpose, we tested the efficacy and safety of fixed doses of low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in substitution of VKA because of invasive procedures or chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia. In cancer patients on VKA, therapy was discontinued 5 ± 1 days before surgery or chemotherapy. Heparin was given at prophylactic dosage in patients at low risk and at fixed subtherapeutic doses (3,800 or 4,000 UI anti-FXa, b.i.d.) in those at high-risk for thrombosis. LMWH was reinitiated 12 hr after surgery and VKA the day after. In patients receiving chemotherapy, LMWH was reinitiated 12/24 hr after obtaining a stable platelet count ≥ 30,000 mmc(3) and VKA after a stable platelet count ≥ 50,000 mmc(3) . Thromboembolism and major bleeding events were recorded from the time of VKA suspension to 30 ± 2 days postprocedure or until the next chemotherapy. Overall, 156 patients (56.4% at low risk and 43.5% at high risk for thrombosis) were enrolled; 34.6% underwent major surgery, 40.4% nonmajor surgery, and 25% chemotherapy. Thrombotic events occurred in five patients [3.2%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.41-7.27], four belonging to the high-risk and one to the low-risk group. Major bleeding occurred in five patients (3.2%, 95 CI: 1.41-7.27), all belonging to the high-risk group (three during major surgery and two during chemotherapy). In conclusion, LMWH given at fixed subtherapeutic is a feasible and relatively safe approach for bridging therapy in cancer patients on long-term VKA.

Striking a balance between the risks and benefits of anticoagulation bridge therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation: clinical updates and remaining controversies

Long-term anticoagulation with a vitamin K antagonist (VKA) or the new agent dabigatran is recommended to decrease stroke risk in patients with atrial fibrillation. When patients with atrial fibrillation undergo initiation or interruption of VKA therapy, or experience an isolated subtherapeutic international normalized ratio (INR), bridge therapy with a parenteral anticoagulant may be considered. To describe the literature for anticoagulation bridge therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation, we conducted a MEDLINE search (1966-February 2011) of the English-language literature to identify related studies. Ongoing clinical trials were identified through a search of the ClinicalTrials.gov registry. Major national and international guidelines were gathered and evaluated. Additional literature was obtained through review of relevant references of the identified articles. Bridging is not supported by guidelines or clinical trials for patients starting VKA therapy for atrial fibrillation. A subtherapeutic INR value during long-term VKA therapy may be associated with increased thromboembolic events, but the benefit of bridging has not been demonstrated. When VKA therapy is interrupted for procedures, retrospective and cohort data suggest that the decision to bridge should be based on a patient's thromboembolic and bleeding risks associated with the procedure. Typically, it is recommended to use bridge therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation at high risk for thromboembolism, but the benefit of bridging is less clear in patients at low risk. Not all procedures necessitate anticoagulation interruption. Recent trials suggest that VKAs can be continued when patients are undergoing cardiac device procedures and some types of radiofrequency ablation. Several clinical trials are ongoing that will provide more definitive guidance for perioperative anticoagulation management of patients with atrial fibrillation. Patients taking dabigatran are unlikely to require bridge therapy because of a predictable anticoagulant effect and rapid onset of action. However, evidence for optimal perioperative management of dabigatran is needed.

Perioperative management of patients receiving anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy: a clinician-oriented and practical approach

The management of patients who are receiving warfarin, aspirin, clopidogrel, or combinations of these drugs and require their interruption because of an elective surgical or other invasive procedure is a common and sometimes challenging clinical problem. For the practicing clinician, there are 2 key issues for perioperative anticoagulant management: 1) having an approach to stratify patients according to their risk for thromboembolism when warfarin or antiplatelet drug therapy is interrupted, and also having an approach to stratify patients according to the risk of bleeding associated with the surgery or procedure; and 2) determining which patients may require bridging anticoagulation and, if required, how to administer bridging, typically with a low-molecular-weight heparin, before and after surgery in a manner that minimizes the risk for bleeding. The overall goal is to minimize patients' risk for thromboembolism and bleeding throughout the perioperative period. The objective of this article is to provide an evidence-based but practical approach relating to these 2 key issues in a manner than can be applied to everyday clinical practice.

French clinical practice guidelines on the management of patients on vitamin K antagonists in at-risk situations (overdose, risk of bleeding, and active bleeding)

The present report from several French medical societies in the field and the French National Authority for Health provides an expert consensus for the management of patients on vitamin K antagonists in at-risk situations (overdose, risk of bleeding, and active bleeding). Asymptomatic VKA overdose is defined as an International Normalized Ratio (INR) value above the upper limit of the therapeutic target. In this case, the guidelines describe the rapid reduction of the INR down to the therapeutic range, either by omitting a dose or using vitamin K. Regarding the haemorrhagic complications, the guidelines address the management of these patients according to the severity of bleeding, and especially focus on the use of prothrombin complex concentrate. Finally, the consensus addresses the management of patients in cases of elective or emergency surgery or other invasive procedures, and discusses whether treatment should be continued or not, and whether VKA substitution by heparin--"bridging anticoagulation"--is needed.