Dataset Information

Perioperative Bridging Anticoagulation in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation.

ABSTRACT: 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.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.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).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.).

SUBMITTER: Douketis JD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4931686 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Perioperative Bridging Anticoagulation in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation.

Douketis James D JD Spyropoulos Alex C AC Kaatz Scott S Becker Richard C RC Caprini Joseph A JA Dunn Andrew S AS Garcia David A DA Jacobson Alan A Jaffer Amir K AK Kong David F DF Schulman Sam S Turpie Alexander G G AG Hasselblad Vic V Ortel Thomas L TL

The New England journal of medicine 20150622 9

<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>We per ...[more]

PMID: 26095867

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundBridging anticoagulation is commonly prescribed to patients with atrial fibrillation who are initiating warfarin or require interruption of anticoagulation. Current guidelines recommend bridging for patients at high risk of stroke. Among patients with atrial fibrillation and one or more risk factors for ischemic stroke, the recently published BRIDGE trial found forgoing bridging during interruption to be, on average, noninferior to bridging with respect to ischemic complications, with significantly fewer hemorrhagic complications.ObjectiveWe sought to examine the benefits and harms of bridging anticoagulation across the spectrum of ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke risk and thereby enable more nuanced, risk-stratified decision-making when bridging is considered during initiation or interruption of vitamin K antagonists.DesignA Monte Carlo simulation, using a combination of literature-derived estimates, registry data, and trial data.Main measuresNet clinical benefit, weighting for ischemic strokes, intracranial hemorrhages, and extracranial major hemorrhages.Key resultsThe benefits and harms of bridging anticoagulation vary according to underlying patient risk profiles for both thromboembolic stroke and major intracranial bleeding. Patients at high risk of ischemic stroke and low risk of hemorrhage derive benefit from bridging during initiation or interruption of warfarin therapy. Patients at similarly high or low risk of both outcomes may receive benefit from bridging during initiation and bridging during interruption, but this was sensitive to underlying assumptions. The need for stratification along both axes of risk was robust to a wide range of parameters.ConclusionsBridging anticoagulation may provide benefit to patients at high risk of ischemic stroke and low risk of intracranial hemorrhage who are initiating or interrupting warfarin therapy, while patients at high or low risk of both complications may be harmed. The use of bridging anticoagulation in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation should be considered only after stratification by risk of ischemic and hemorrhagic complications.

Project description:Three target-specific oral anticoagulants (TSOACs)-dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban-have been approved by the FDA to reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation; however, no agents are currently approved to reverse the anticoagulant effects of these TSOACs in cases of active bleeding. This review discusses the benefits and risks of these TSOACs from a clinician's perspective, with a focus on the interruption of treatment for either elective or emergent surgery, monitoring, and reversal of anticoagulation. Available coagulation assays are not ideal for monitoring the effects of TSOACs and do not provide reliable quantitative measurement of their anticoagulant effects. When necessary, activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) may provide qualitative information on dabigatran, and prothrombin time (PT) may provide qualitative assessment of the presence of the factor Xa inhibitors, rivaroxaban and apixaban. Current recommendations for reversal of TSOACs are based largely on limited and sometimes conflicting data from in vitro or in vivo animal models, and clinical experience with these recommendations is also limited. Methods that have been investigated for effectiveness for reversal of the pharmacodynamic effects of the TSOACs include dialysis, activated charcoal, prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC), and recombinant activated factor VII. It is important to note that even within a class of anticoagulant drugs, compounds respond differently to reversal agents; therefore, recommendations for one agent should not be extrapolated to another, even if they are from the same therapeutic class. New antidotes are being explored, including a mouse monoclonal antibody to dabigatran; andexanet alfa, a potential universal factor Xa inhibitor reversal agent; and a synthetic small molecule (PER977) that may be effective for the reversal of factor Xa inhibitors and direct thrombin inhibitors. Given the short half-lives of TSOACs, watchful waiting, rather than reversal, may be the best approach in some circumstances.

Dataset Information

Perioperative Bridging Anticoagulation in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation.

Publications

Perioperative Bridging Anticoagulation in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets