Perioperative anticoagulation management

Author(s):  
Abdullah Jibawi ◽  
David Cade

Perioperative anticoagulation management

2018 ◽  
pp. 137-142
Author(s):  
Abdullah Jibawi ◽  
Mohamed Baguneid ◽  
Arnab Bhowmick

Perioperative antithrombotic management is based on risk and benefits in the assessment for thromboembolism versus bleeding. It should be tailored to each patient. Patients with mechanical heart valves who are on warfarin need bridging therapy with heparin to reduce the risk of thrombosis. In addition, to reduce the risk of bleeding during the surgery, it should be managed accordingly prior to surgery. The target INR should be <1.5 on the day of surgery. High-risk patients should be considered for alternate prophylactic measures (e.g. low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH)) when INR drops below 2. Low risk patients do not require bridging therapy or need prophylactic LMWH respectively. The new oral anticoagulation does not require frequent monitoring test but awareness of their pharmacokinetics critical in managing these patients prior to surgery.


Heart Rhythm ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. e47
Author(s):  
Alexander Romanov ◽  
Evgeny Pokushalov ◽  
Denis Losik ◽  
Jonathan S. Steinberg

AORN Journal ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 107 (4) ◽  
pp. 503-508 ◽  
Author(s):  
Courtney Meredith Zukowski ◽  
Jared Peak

2017 ◽  
Vol 32 (10) ◽  
pp. 633-635 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tomomi Nakajima ◽  
Yoshiharu Enomoto ◽  
Maiko Ishigaki ◽  
Yuichi Hasegawa ◽  
Chiho Tokunaga ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 23 (7) ◽  
pp. 869-871 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keiichi Ishida ◽  
Masahisa Masuda ◽  
Hiroki Kohno ◽  
Yusaku Tamura ◽  
Goro Matsumiya

2008 ◽  
Vol 41 (15) ◽  
pp. 34
Author(s):  
WILLIAM E. GOLDEN ◽  
ROBERT H. HOPKINS

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. 512-527 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip Louie ◽  
Garrett Harada ◽  
James Harrop ◽  
Thomas Mroz ◽  
Khalid Al-Saleh ◽  
...  

Study Design: Cross-sectional, international survey. Objectives: This study addressed the global perspectives concerning perioperative use of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis during spine surgery along with its risks and benefits. Methods: A questionnaire was designed and implemented by expert members in the AO Spine community. The survey was distributed to AO Spine’s spine surgeon members (N = 3805). Data included surgeon demographic information, type and region of practice, anticoagulation principles, different patient scenarios, and comorbidities. Results: A total of 316 (8.3% response rate) spine surgeons completed the survey, representing 64 different countries. Completed surveys were primarily from Europe (31.7%), South/Latin America (19.9%), and Asia (18.4%). Surgeons tended to be 35 to 44 years old (42.1%), fellowship-trained (74.7%), and orthopedic surgeons (65.5%) from academic institutions (39.6%). Most surgeons (70.3%) used routine anticoagulation risk stratification, irrespective of geographic location. However, significant differences were seen between continents with anticoagulation initiation and cessation methodology. Specifically, the length of a procedure ( P = .036) and patient body mass index ( P = .008) were perceived differently when deciding to begin anticoagulation, while the importance of medical clearance ( P < .001) and reference to literature ( P = .035) differed during cessation. For specific techniques, most providers noted use of mobilization, low-molecular-weight heparin, and mechanical prophylaxis beginning on postoperative 0 to 1 days. Conversely, bridging regimens were bimodal in distribution, with providers electing anticoagulant initiation on postoperative 0 to 1 days or days 5-6. Conclusion: This survey highlights the heterogeneity of spine care and accentuates geographical variations. Furthermore, it identifies the difficulty in providing consistent perioperative anticoagulation recommendations to patients, as there remains no widely accepted, definitive literature of evidence or guidelines.


2020 ◽  
Vol 26 ◽  
pp. 107602962092591
Author(s):  
Alex C. Spyropoulos ◽  
Dimitrios Giannis ◽  
Jessica Cohen ◽  
Suja John ◽  
Anne Myrka ◽  
...  

Appropriate perioperative management of patients on chronic oral anticoagulation (OAC)—including warfarin and the direct oral anticoagulants—is a poorly defined yet important clinical issue with potentially severe consequences in the postoperative period. We sought to prospectively evaluate the effect of the Management of Anticoagulation in the Periprocedural Period (MAPPP) mobile app as a clinical decision tool in the management of patients on chronic OAC undergoing elective procedures or surgeries. Between January 1, 2018, and January 31, 2019, 642 patients treated in our health system were included. Eligible patients met the following criteria: age >18 years old, creatinine clearance ≥15 mL/min, and on chronic OAC with adequate information regarding baseline characteristics. Our study outcome was patient’s emergency department (ED) visits within 30 days postprocedure. The MAPPP app was integrated into the electronic health record (EHR), and the end user was free to accept or decline recommended evidence-based perioperative anticoagulation management guidance. Analysis revealed that acceptance was more common in younger patients ( P = .0137), patients on oral anticoagulants other than warfarin ( P < .0001), and patients undergoing increased bleeding risk procedures ( P = .0068). Acceptance of the MAPPP app recommendation was significantly associated with fewer ED visits (acceptance group: 4.0% vs rejection group: 8.3%, P = .0205). Logistic regression showed that intervention acceptance and female gender were significantly associated with fewer—while age ≥80 with more—30-day ED visits. Our findings indicate that newer technologies, such as the MAPPP app, integrated into clinical EHR workflow, can significantly augment evidence-based perioperative anticoagulation management and potentially result in a reduction of adverse outcomes.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document