Dataset Information

Thromboembolic and bleeding risk of periprocedural bridging anticoagulation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: The risk and benefit of periprocedural heparin bridging is not completely clarified. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of bridging anticoagulation prior to invasive procedures or surgery. Heparin bridging was associated with lower risks of thromboembolism and bleeding compared to non-bridging. PubMed, Ovid and Elsevier, and Cochrane Library (2000-2016) were searched for English-language studies. Studies comparing interrupted anticoagulation with or without bridging and continuous oral anticoagulation in patients at moderate-to-high thromboembolic risk before invasive procedures were included. Primary outcomes were thromboembolic events and bleeding events. Mantel-Haenszel method and random-effects models were used to analyze the pooled risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for thromboembolic and bleeding risks. Eighteen studies (six randomized controlled trials and 12 cohort studies) were included (N = 23?364). There was no difference in thromboembolic risk between bridged and non-bridged patients (RR: 1.26, 95% CI: 0.61-2.58; RCTs: RR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.23-2.24; cohorts: RR: 1.45, 95% CI: 0.63-3.37). However, bridging anticoagulation was associated with higher risk of overall bleeding (RR: 2.83, 95% CI: 2.00-4.01; RCTs: RR: 2.24, 95% CI: 0.99-5.09; cohorts: RR: 3.09, 95% CI: 2.07-4.62) and major bleeding (RR: 3.00, 95% CI: 1.78-5.06; RCTs: RR: 2.48, 95% CI: 1.29-4.76; cohorts: RR: 3.22, 95% CI: 1.65-6.32). Bridging anticoagulation was associated with increased bleeding risk compared to non-bridging. Thromboembolism risk was similar between two strategies. Our results do not support routine use of bridging during anticoagulation interruption.

SUBMITTER: Kuo HC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7244304 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Thromboembolic and bleeding risk of periprocedural bridging anticoagulation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Kuo Hsien-Cheng HC Liu Feng-Lin FL Chen Jui-Tai JT Cherng Yih-Giun YG Tam Ka-Wai KW Tai Ying-Hsuan YH

Clinical cardiology 20200116 5

The risk and benefit of periprocedural heparin bridging is not completely clarified. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of bridging anticoagulation prior to invasive procedures or surgery. Heparin bridging was associated with lower risks of thromboembolism and bleeding compared to non-bridging. PubMed, Ovid and Elsevier, and Cochrane Library (2000-2016) were searched for English-language studies. Studies comparing interrupted anticoagulation with or without bridging and continuous oral a ...[more]

PMID: 31944351

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the strength of evidence supporting an accentuated bleeding risk when patients with CHADS(2) risk factors (chronic heart failure, hypertension, advanced age, diabetes, and prior stroke/transient ischemic attack) receive warfarin.MethodsA systematic literature search of MEDLINE (January 1, 1950, through December 22, 2009) and Cochrane CENTRAL (through December 22, 2009) was conducted to identify studies that reported multivariate results on the association between CHADS(2) covariates and risk of bleeding in patients receiving warfarin. Each covariate was evaluated for its association with a specific type of bleeding. Individual evaluations were rated as good, fair, or poor using methods consistent with those recommended by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The strength of the associations between each CHADS(2) covariate and a specific type of bleeding was determined using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria as insufficient, very low, low, moderate, or high for the entire body of evidence.ResultsForty-one studies were identified, reporting 127 multivariate evaluations of the association between a CHADS(2) covariate and bleeding risk. No CHADS(2) covariate had a high strength of evidence for association with any bleeding type. For the vast majority of evaluations, the strength of evidence between covariates and bleeding was low. Advanced age was the only covariate that had a moderate strength of evidence for association; this was the strongest independent positive predictor for major bleeding. Similar findings were observed regardless of whether all included studies, or only those evaluating patients with atrial fibrillation, were assessed.ConclusionThe associations between CHADS(2) covariates and increased bleeding risk were weak, with the exception of age. Given the known association of the CHADS(2) score and stroke risk, the decision to prescribe warfarin should be driven more by patients' risk of stroke than by the risk of bleeding.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess whether corticosteroids are associated with increased risk of gastrointestinal bleeding or perforation.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomised, double-blind, controlled trials comparing a corticosteroid to placebo for any medical condition or in healthy participants. Studies with steroids given either locally, as a single dose, or in crossover studies were excluded.Data sourcesLiterature search using MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews between 1983 and 22 May 2013.Outcome measureOutcome measures were the occurrence of gastrointestinal bleeding or perforation. Predefined subgroup analyses were carried out for disease severity, use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or gastroprotective drugs, and history of peptic ulcer.Results159 studies (N=33?253) were included. In total, 804 (2.4%) patients had a gastrointestinal bleeding or perforation (2.9% and 2.0% for corticosteroids and placebo). Corticosteroids increased the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding or perforation by 40% (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.66). The risk was increased for hospitalised patients (OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.66). For patients in ambulatory care, the increased risk was not statistically significant (OR 1.63, 95% CI 0.42 to 6.34). Only 11 gastrointestinal bleeds or perforations occurred among 8651 patients in ambulatory care (0.13%). Increased risk was still present in subgroup analyses (studies with NSAID use excluded; OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.71, peptic ulcer as an exclusion criterion excluded; OR 1.47, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.78, and use of gastroprotective drugs excluded; OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.67).ConclusionsCorticosteroid use was associated with increased risk of gastrointestinal bleeding and perforation. The increased risk was statistically significant for hospitalised patients only. For patients in ambulatory care, the total occurrence of bleeding or perforation was very low, and the increased risk was not statistically significant.

Dataset Information

Thromboembolic and bleeding risk of periprocedural bridging anticoagulation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Thromboembolic and bleeding risk of periprocedural bridging anticoagulation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets