Heparin bridging in warfarin anticoagulation therapy initiation could increase bleeding in non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients: a multicenter propensity-matched analysis

Management of severe peri-operative bleeding: Guidelines from the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care: Second update 2022

BACKGROUND

Management of peri-operative bleeding is complex and involves multiple assessment tools and strategies to ensure optimal patient care with the goal of reducing morbidity and mortality. These updated guidelines from the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care (ESAIC) aim to provide an evidence-based set of recommendations for healthcare professionals to help ensure improved clinical management.

DESIGN

A systematic literature search from 2015 to 2021 of several electronic databases was performed without language restrictions. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies and to formulate recommendations. A Delphi methodology was used to prepare a clinical practice guideline.

RESULTS

These searches identified 137 999 articles. All articles were assessed, and the existing 2017 guidelines were revised to incorporate new evidence. Sixteen recommendations derived from the systematic literature search, and four clinical guidances retained from previous ESAIC guidelines were formulated. Using the Delphi process on 253 sentences of guidance, strong consensus (>90% agreement) was achieved in 97% and consensus (75 to 90% agreement) in 3%.

DISCUSSION

Peri-operative bleeding management encompasses the patient's journey from the pre-operative state through the postoperative period. Along this journey, many features of the patient's pre-operative coagulation status, underlying comorbidities, general health and the procedures that they are undergoing need to be taken into account. Due to the many important aspects in peri-operative nontrauma bleeding management, guidance as to how best approach and treat each individual patient are key. Understanding which therapeutic approaches are most valuable at each timepoint can only enhance patient care, ensuring the best outcomes by reducing blood loss and, therefore, overall morbidity and mortality.

CONCLUSION

All healthcare professionals involved in the management of patients at risk for surgical bleeding should be aware of the current therapeutic options and approaches that are available to them. These guidelines aim to provide specific guidance for bleeding management in a variety of clinical situations.

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.

Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients with Recent Stroke and Atrial Fibrillation

:

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common arrhythmia which carries a significant risk of stroke. Secondary prevention, particularly in the acute phase of stroke with anti-thrombotic therapy, has not been validated. The aim of this review is to evaluate the available evidence on the use of antithrombotic therapy in patients with recent stroke who have AF, and suggest a treatment algorithm for the various time points, taking into account both the bleeding and thrombosis risks posed at each stage.

Antithrombotic treatment for secondary prevention of stroke and other thromboembolic events in patients with stroke or transient ischemic attack and non-valvular atrial fibrillation: A European Stroke Organisation guideline

Patients with ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack and non-valvular atrial fibrillation have a high risk of recurrent stroke and other vascular events. The aim of this guideline is to provide recommendations on antithrombotic medication for secondary prevention of stroke and other vascular outcomes in these patients. The working group identified questions and outcomes, graded evidence, and developed recommendations according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach and the European Stroke Organisation (ESO) standard operating procedure for guidelines. The guideline was reviewed and approved by the ESO guideline board and the ESO executive committee. In patients with atrial fibrillation and previous stroke or transient ischemic attack, oral anticoagulants reduce the risk of recurrence over antiplatelets or no antithrombotic treatment. Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants are preferred over vitamin K antagonists because they have a lower risk of major bleeding and death. Recommendations are weak regarding timing of treatment, (re-)starting oral anticoagulants in patients with previous intracerebral haemorrhage, and treatment in specific patient subgroups of those of older age, with cognitive impairment, renal failure or small vessel disease, because of a lack of strong evidence. In conclusion, for patients with atrial fibrillation and ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack, non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants are the preferred treatment for secondary prevention of recurrent stroke or thromboembolism. Further research is required to determine the best timing for initiating oral anticoagulants after an acute ischemic stroke, whether or not oral anticoagulants should be (re)started in patients with a history of intracerebral haemorrhage, and the best secondary preventive treatment in specific subgroups.

Mind the gap: results of a multispecialty survey on coordination of care for peri-procedural anticoagulation

To understand how physicians from various specialties perceive coordination of care when managing peri-procedural anticoagulation. Cross-sectional survey of cardiologists, gastroenterologists, and primary care physicians (PCPs) in an integrated health system (N = 251). The survey began with a vignette of a patient with atrial fibrillation co-managed by his PCP, cardiologist, and an anticoagulation clinic who must hold warfarin for a colonoscopy. Respondents' experiences and opinions around responsibilities and institutional support for managing peri-procedural anticoagulation were elicited using multiple choice questions. We examined differences in responses across specialties using Chi square analysis. The response rate was 51% (n = 127). 52% were PCPs, 28% cardiologists, and 21% gastroenterologists. Nearly half (47.2%) of respondents believed that the cardiologist should be primarily responsible for managing peri-procedural anticoagulation, while fewer identified the PCP (25.2%), anticoagulation clinic (21.3%), or gastroenterologist (6.3%; p = 0.09). Respondents across specialties had significantly different approaches to deciding how to manage the clinical case presented (p < 0.001). Most cardiologists (60.0%) would decide whether to offer bridging without consulting with other providers or clinical resources, while most PCPs would decide after consulting clinical resources (57.6%). Gastroenterologists would most often (46.2%) defer the decision to another provider. A majority of all three specialties agreed that their institution could do more to help manage peri-procedural anticoagulation, and there was broad support (88.1%) for anticoagulation clinics' managing all aspects of peri-procedural anticoagulation. Providers across specialties agree that their institution could do more to help manage peri-procedural anticoagulation, and overwhelmingly support anticoagulation clinics' taking responsibility.

Periprocedural heparin bridging in patients receiving oral anticoagulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Periprocedural heparin bridging therapy aims to reduce the risk of thromboembolic events in patients requiring an interruption in their anticoagulation therapy for the purpose of an elective procedure. The efficacy and safety of heparin bridging therapy has not been well established.

OBJECTIVES

To compare through meta-analysis the effects of heparin bridging therapy on the risk of major bleeding and thromboembolic events of clinical significance among patients taking oral anticoagulants.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane library from January 2005 to July 2016. Studies were included if they reported clinical outcomes of patients receiving heparin bridging therapy during interruption of oral anticoagulant for operations. Data were pooled using random-effects modeling.

RESULTS

A total of 25 studies, including 6 randomized controlled trials and 19 observational studies, were finally included in this analysis. Among all the 35,944 patients, 10,313 patients were assigned as heparin bridging group, and the other 25,631 patients were non-heparin bridging group. Overall, compared with patients without bridging therapy, heparin bridging therapy increased the risk of major bleeding (OR = 3.23, 95%CI: 2.06-5.05), minor bleeding (OR = 1.52, 95%CI: 1.06-2.18) and overall bleeding (OR = 2.83, 95%CI: 1.86-4.30).While there was no significant difference in thromboembolic events (OR = 0.99,95%CI: 0.49-2.00), stroke or transient ischemic attack(OR = 1.45, 95%CI: 0.93-2.26,) or all-cause mortality (OR = 0.71, 95%CI: 0.31-1.65).

CONCLUSIONS

Heparin-bridging therapy increased the risk of major and minor bleeding without decreasing the risk of thromboembolic events and all cause death compared to non-heparin bridging.

Timing of anticoagulation therapy in patients with acute ischaemic stroke and atrial fibrillation

In patients with acute stroke and atrial fibrillation (AF), the risk of early recurrence has been reported to range between 0.1% and 1.3% per day. Anticoagulants are the most effective therapy for the prevention of recurrent ischaemic stroke in these patients, but randomised clinical trials have failed to produce any evidence supporting the administration of heparin within 48 hours from stroke onset as it has been associated with a non-significant reduction in the recurrence of ischaemic stroke, no substantial reduction in death and disability, and an increase in intracranial bleeding. As early haemorrhagic transformation is a major concern in the acute phase of stroke patients with AF, determining the optimal time to start anticoagulant therapy is essential. This review which focuses on the epidemiology of recurrent ischaemic stroke and haemorrhagic transformation in patients with acute ischaemic stroke and AF, proposes a model for decision making on optimal timing for initiating anticoagulation, based on currently available evidence.

Use of dabigatran vs. warfarin with low-molecular-weight heparin bridging in catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation patients with a low CHADS2 score

The purpose of the present study was to compare the efficacy and safety of dabigatran and interrupted warfarin with low-molecular-weight heparin bridging in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) catheter ablation. Previously, there has been concerns that bridging therapy increases bleeding events without the benefit of stroke prevention. It has been suggested that bridging therapy should be considered only for patients at high-risk of thrombosis. Nevertheless, bridging therapy in AF patients with a low CHADS2 score may be safe and effective. The authors performed a prospective, observational study that included consecutive 240 patients undergoing AF ablation in P.R. China. A total of 139 patients received 110 mg dabigatran twice daily and 101 patients took dose-adjusted warfarin that had been bridged with low-molecular-weight heparin. The mean patient age was 55.48 years with 72.1% being men and 74.2% having paroxysmal AF. One thromboembolic complication occurred in the dabigatran group compared to none in the warfarin group. Both the groups presented a similar major bleeding rate, total bleeding rate, and bleeding and thromboembolic complications. In patients undergoing AF ablation, the risk of bleeding or thromboembolic complications was similar for both dabigatran and interrupted warfarin with bridging therapy. Bridging therapy appeared to be safe and effective for the low-risk population.

Short-Term Risk of Bleeding During Heparin Bridging at Initiation of Vitamin K Antagonist Therapy in More Than 90 000 Patients With Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation Managed in Outpatient Care

Background

Several studies have recently examined the risks of bleeding and of ischemic stroke and systemic embolism associated with perioperative heparin bridging anticoagulation in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. However, few studies have investigated bridging risks during vitamin K antagonist initiation in outpatient settings.

Methods and Results

A retrospective cohort study was conducted on individuals starting oral anticoagulation between January 2010 and November 2014 for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation managed in outpatient care and identified from French healthcare insurance. Bleeding and ischemic stroke and systemic embolism events were identified from the hospitalization database. Adjusted hazard ratios with 95% CI were estimated using Cox models during the first and 2 following months of anticoagulation. Of 90 826 individuals, 30% had bridging therapy. A total of 318 (0.35%) cases of bleeding and 151 (0.17%) ischemic stroke and systemic embolism cases were identified during the first month of follow‐up and 231 (0.31%) and 122 (0.16%) during the 2 following months, respectively. At 1 month of follow‐up, the incidence of bleeding was higher in the bridged group compared with the nonbridged group (0.47% versus 0.30%; P<0.001), and this increased risk persisted after adjustment for covariates (hazard ratio=1.60; 95% CI, 1.28–2.01). This difference disappeared after the first month of treatment (0.93; 0.70–1.23). No significant difference in the occurrence of ischemic stroke and systemic embolism was observed either at 1 month of follow‐up or later.

Conclusions

At vitamin K antagonist initiation for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation managed in ambulatory settings, bridging therapy is associated with a higher risk of bleeding and a similar risk of arterial thromboembolism compared with no bridging therapy.

Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Dental Patients Including the Frail Elderly Population

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have led to a paradigm shift in the field of anticoagulation, providing safe and convenient anticoagulation without the need for regular blood testing. Currently, there are three major DOACs available-Factor Xa inhibitors (apixaban and rivaroxaban) and direct thrombin inhibitors (dabigatran)-that are available for use in atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism. While these agents have been shown to be as effective as warfarin, with a similar or better bleeding profile, there remains some concern of the use of these drugs in vulnerable populations, such as the frail elderly patients; particularly since reversal agents and drug monitoring are not routinely available. We aim to provide a review of the use of DOACs and the impact of DOACs on dental treatment in the elderly population.