Abstract
Introduction
More and more patients undergoing atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation are anticoagulated with direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC). In order to balance the peri-procedural risk of bleeding with the risk of stroke, an important clinical question is whether to continue an interrupted DOAC administration or minimal interrupt by skipping the last one or two doses before the procedure. Dealing with rare events, the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) looking at this question have not been sufficiently powered to give a definitive answer.
Purpose
To do a systematic review of the literature comparing an uninterrupted DOAC strategy to minimally interrupted (1-2 doses) strategy in the setting of AF ablation in terms of peri-procedural stroke and bleeding.
Methods
PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched for RCTs comparing a strategy of uninterrupted versus minimally interrupted DOAC administration for atrial fibrillation ablation. The primary endpoint was a composite of clinically significant adverse events: ischemic stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), systemic embolism, and major or minor bleeding events. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed on the resulting trials. The systematic review protocol was pre-registered in the PROSPERO database. The study selection process followed the PRISMA statement.
Results
After checking and removing duplicates, 188 articles were screened by reading the title and abstract. 8 of them were selected for a full text screening. Because 3 were not randomized, finally, 5 RCTs met the inclusion criteria. A total of 1 769 patients were included in the meta-analysis, and the sample size of the individual RCTs ranged from 97 to 846 patients. The overall prevalence of paroxysmal AF varied from 54% to 100%. The mean age of patients ranged from 63,5 to 70 years, and 21,6% to 32,8% of the trial populations were women. Comorbidities, such as hypertension, dyslipidemia, and diabetes, were common. Most patients had CHA2DS2-VASc < 3; range from 1,7 to 2,7We found consistently low rates of strokes, TIAs, systemic embolisms and bleedings across all trials and both arms (RR = 0.98, 95% CI 0.69 – 1.38, I-squared = 0%, p = 0.874).
Conclusion
We found no evidence in favor of a difference between uninterrupted and interrupted administration of NOACs regarding the primary outcome of clinical thromboembolic and bleeding.
Abstract Figure. Meta-analysis of the primary outcome
Prevalence and prevention of oesophageal injury during atrial fibrillation ablation: a systematic review and meta-analysis
