Dataset Information

Nation-Wide Use of Periprocedural Bridging Anticoagulation in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation.

ABSTRACT: The randomized, controlled BRIDGE trial established a lack of efficacy for use of bridging anticoagulation in warfarin-treated patients who underwent surgical procedures. A large nation-wide insurance claims database was used to perform a retrospective interrupted time series cohort study of adult patients with atrial fibrillation treated with warfarin who underwent surgical procedures. Patients were assessed for the use of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) use as a periprocedural bridging anticoagulant between July 2015 and November 2017. The interrupted time series regression model was used to estimate the reduction in use of bridging LMWH following the publication of the BRIDGE trial in July 2015. The cohort consisted of 9,278 warfarin-treated patients with atrial fibrillation. Use of bridging LMWH declined by an estimated 6.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.1% to 11.3%) to 13.0% following publication of the BRIDGE trial. The decline in bridging LMWH use was numerically larger for patients with a moderate- or high risk of stroke (8.9% decline, 95% CI 0.4% to 17.4%) than for patients at low risk for stroke (6.2% decline, 95% CI 0.7% to 11.5%). Significant predictors of bridging LMWH use include younger age and no co-morbid diabetes. In conclusion, this nation-wide, claims-based study identified a significant reduction in the use of bridging LMWH following the publication of the BRIDGE trial for warfarin-treated patients with AF.

SUBMITTER: Barnes GD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6825891 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Nation-Wide Use of Periprocedural Bridging Anticoagulation in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation.

Barnes Geoffrey D GD Seiler Kristian K Brady Patrick P Kamdar Neil N

The American journal of cardiology 20190823 10

The randomized, controlled BRIDGE trial established a lack of efficacy for use of bridging anticoagulation in warfarin-treated patients who underwent surgical procedures. A large nation-wide insurance claims database was used to perform a retrospective interrupted time series cohort study of adult patients with atrial fibrillation treated with warfarin who underwent surgical procedures. Patients were assessed for the use of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) use as a periprocedural bridging ant ...[more]

PMID: 31543215

Similar Datasets

Project description: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.).

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.

Dataset Information

Nation-Wide Use of Periprocedural Bridging Anticoagulation in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation.

Publications

Nation-Wide Use of Periprocedural Bridging Anticoagulation in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets