Dataset Information

Perioperative Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Receiving a Direct Oral Anticoagulant.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who use a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) and request elective surgery or procedure present a common clinical situation yet perioperative management is uncertain.

Objective

To investigate the safety of a standardized perioperative DOAC management strategy.

Design, setting, and participants

The Perioperative Anticoagulation Use for Surgery Evaluation (PAUSE) cohort study conducted at 23 clinical centers in Canada, the United States, and Europe enrolled and screened patients from August 1, 2014, through July 31, 2018. Participants (n = 3007) had AF; were 18 years of age or older; were long-term users of apixaban, dabigatran etexilate, or rivaroxaban; were scheduled for an elective surgery or procedure; and could adhere to the DOAC therapy interruption protocol.

Interventions

A simple standardized perioperative DOAC therapy interruption and resumption strategy based on DOAC pharmacokinetic properties, procedure-associated bleeding risk, and creatinine clearance levels. The DOAC regimens were omitted for 1 day before a low-bleeding-risk procedure and 2 days before a high-bleeding-risk procedure. The DOAC regimens were resumed 1 day after a low-bleeding-risk procedure and 2 to 3 days after a high-bleeding-risk procedure. Follow-up of patients occurred for 30 days after the operation.

Main outcomes and measures

Major bleeding and arterial thromboembolism (ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, and transient ischemic attack) and the proportion of patients with an undetectable or minimal residual anticoagulant level (<50 ng/mL) at the time of the procedure.

Results

The 3007 patients with AF (mean [SD] age of 72.5 [9.39] years; 1988 men [66.1%]) comprised 1257 (41.8%) in the apixaban cohort, 668 (22.2%) in the dabigatran cohort, and 1082 (36.0%) in the rivaroxaban cohort; 1007 patients (33.5%) had a high-bleeding-risk procedure. The 30-day postoperative rate of major bleeding was 1.35% (95% CI, 0%-2.00%) in the apixaban cohort, 0.90% (95% CI, 0%-1.73%) in the dabigatran cohort, and 1.85% (95% CI, 0%-2.65%) in the rivaroxaban cohort. The rate of arterial thromboembolism was 0.16% (95% CI, 0%-0.48%) in the apixaban cohort, 0.60% (95% CI, 0%-1.33%) in the dabigatran cohort, and 0.37% (95% CI, 0%-0.82%) in the rivaroxaban cohort. In patients with a high-bleeding-risk procedure, the rates of major bleeding were 2.96% (95% CI, 0%-4.68%) in the apixaban cohort and 2.95% (95% CI, 0%-4.76%) in the rivaroxaban cohort.

Conclusions and relevance

In this study, patients with AF who had DOAC therapy interruption for elective surgery or procedure, a perioperative management strategy without heparin bridging or coagulation function testing was associated with low rates of major bleeding and arterial thromboembolism.

SUBMITTER: Douketis JD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6686768 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background:Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are indicated for prevention of stroke and embolism in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). These agents have been shown to be non-inferior to warfarin in terms of efficacy and safety. However, their uptake in practice has been variable, and prescribed dosages may be inconsistent with manufacturer recommendations. Objectives:To evaluate patterns of oral anticoagulant use in patients with NVAF, including determination of patient characteristics associated with the prescribing of warfarin or DOACs and whether prescribed dosages of DOACs were concordant with manufacturer recommendations. Methods:This retrospective chart review was conducted from April to September 2017 at Abbotsford Regional Hospital, Abbotsford, British Columbia. Patients at least 18 years of age with NVAF and CHADS-65 score of 1 or higher were included. Patients with contraindications to oral anticoagulants, those with reversible atrial fibrillation, and those undergoing renal dialysis were excluded. The dosage of DOACs was categorized as too low, too high, or correct in relation to manufacturer recommendations for the Canadian product. Results:A total of 120 patients were included. At discharge, 83 (69%) of the patients had a prescription for DOAC, 25 (21%) had a prescription for warfarin, and 12 (10%) had no prescription for an oral anticoagulant. There were no statistically significant differences between the warfarin and DOAC groups with respect to patient characteristics. Among the 56 patients for whom a full DOAC dose was indicated, 7 (13%) received a dose that was too low. Among the 23 patients for whom a full DOAC dose was not indicated, 4 (17%) received a dose that was too high. Conclusions:At the study hospital, most patients with NVAF and CHADS-65 score of at least 1 had a discharge prescription for DOAC. Patient characteristics appeared to be similar between the warfarin and DOAC groups. For a notable proportion of patients who received a DOAC, the dosage was incorrect. Appropriate prescribing of oral anticoagulants could be further improved by education for prescribers and involvement of hospital pharmacists.

Project description:Background Reduced time in international normalized ratio therapeutic range (TTR) limits warfarin safety and effectiveness. In patients switched from warfarin to direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), patient factors associated with low TTR could also increase risk of DOAC nonadherence. We investigated the relationship between warfarin TTR and DOAC adherence in warfarin-treated patients with atrial fibrillation switched to DOAC. Methods and Results Using data from the Veterans Health Administration, we identified patients with atrial fibrillation switched from warfarin to DOAC (switchers) or treated with warfarin alone (non-switchers). Logistic regression was used to evaluate association between warfarin TTR and DOAC adherence. We analyzed 128 605 patients (age, 71±9; 1.6% women; CHA2DS2-VASc 3.5±1.6); 32 377 switchers and 96 228 non-switchers. In 8016 switchers with international normalized ratio data to calculate 180-day TTR before switch, TTR was low (median 0.45; IQR, 0.26-0.64). Patients with TTR <0.5 were more likely to be switched to DOAC (odds ratio [OR],1.68 [95% CI,1.62-1.74], P<0.0001), as were those with TTR <0.6 or TTR <0.7. Proportion of days covered ≥0.8 was achieved by 76% of switchers at 365 days. In low-TTR individuals, proportion of days covered ≥0.8 was achieved by 70%, 72%, and 73% of switchers with TTR <0.5, 0.6, and 0.7, respectively. After multivariable adjustment, TTR <0.5 decreased odds of achieving 365-day proportion of days covered ≥0.8 (OR, 0.49; 0.43-0.57, P<0.0001), with similar relationships for TTR <0.6 and TTR <0.7. In non-switchers with TTR <0.5, long-term TTR remained low. Conclusions In patients with atrial fibrillation switched from warfarin to DOAC, most achieved adequate DOAC adherence despite low pre-switch TTRs. However, TTR trajectories remained low in non-switchers. Patients with low warfarin TTR more consistently achieved treatment targets after switching to DOACs, although adherence-oriented interventions may be beneficial.

Project description:ImportanceThe underuse of oral anticoagulation in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) is a major issue that is not well understood.ObjectiveTo understand the lack of anticoagulation by assessing the perceptions of patients with AF who are not receiving anticoagulation and their physician's about the risk of stroke and the benefits and risks of anticoagulation.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study included patients with nonvalvular AF and a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 2 or more (calculated as congestive heart failure, hypertension, age 75 years and older, diabetes, stroke or transient ischemic attack, vascular disease, age 65 to 74 years, and sex category) who were not receiving anticoagulation and were enrolled from 19 sites within the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence Registry (PINNACLE Registry) between January 18, 2017, and May 7, 2018. Data were collected from January 18, 2017, to September 30, 2019, and analyzed from April 2022 to March 2023.ExposureEach patient enrolled in the study completed a survey, and their treating physician then conducted a clinical review of their care.Main outcomes and measuresAssessment of willingness for anticoagulation treatment and its appropriateness after central review by a panel of 4 cardiologists. Use of anticoagulation at 1 year follow-up was compared vs similar patients at other centers in the PINNACLE Registry.ResultsOf the 817 patients enrolled, the median (IQR) age was 76.0 (69.0-83.0) years, 369 (45.2%) were women, and the median (IQR) CHA2DS2-VASc score was 4.0 (3.0-6.0). The top 5 reasons physicians cited for no anticoagulation were low AF burden or successful rhythm control (278 [34.0%]), patient refusal (272 [33.3%]), perceived low risk of stroke (206 [25.2%]), fall risk (175 [21.4%]), and high bleeding risk (167 [20.4%]). After rereview, 221 physicians (27.1%) would reconsider prescribing oral anticoagulation as compared with 311 patients (38.1%), including 67 (24.6%) whose physician cited patient refusal. Of 647 patients (79.2%) adjudicated as appropriate or may be appropriate for anticoagulation, physicians would reconsider anticoagulation for only 177 patients (21.2%), while 527 patients (64.5%) would either agree to starting anticoagulation (311 [38.1%]) or were neutral (216 [27.3%]) to starting anticoagulation. Upon follow-up, 119 patients (14.6%) in the BOAT-AF study were prescribed anticoagulation, as compared with 55 879 of 387 975 similar patients (14.4%) at other centers in the PINNACLE Registry.Conclusions and relevanceThe findings of this cohort study suggest that patients with AF who are not receiving anticoagulation are more willing to consider anticoagulation than their physicians. These data emphasize the need to revisit any prior decision against anticoagulation in a shared decision-making manner.