Bridging Therapy: A Challenging Area in the Management of Patients with Atrial Fibrillation

Author(s):  
Yutao Guo ◽  
Gregory Y.H. Lip ◽  
Stavros Apostolakis
Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 424-424 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J. Kovacs ◽  
Marc Rodger ◽  
Philip S. Wells ◽  
Shannon M. Bates ◽  
Clive Kearon ◽  
...  

Abstract Background It remains uncertain if patients with atrial fibrillation or mechanical heart valves requiring interruption of warfarin for procedures benefit from post-procedure anticoagulant bridging therapy. Methods In order to determine the efficacy and safety of postoperative LMWH bridging, we conducted a multicenter randomized double-blind controlled trial of patients with atrial fibrillation or a mechanical heart valve who require interruption of warfarin for a planned procedure. We excluded patients with active bleeding within 30 days, platelet count <100 x10⁹/L, spinal, cardiac or neurosurgery, life expectancy <3months, creatinine clearance <30ml/min, multiple mechanical valves or a Starr-Edwards valve, mechanical valve with history of stroke or TIA, or a history of heparin induced thrombocytopenia. The last dose of warfarin was given 6 days prior to the procedure. All patients received pre-procedure bridging therapy with dalteparin 200 IU per kilogram (max 18,000 IU) subcutaneously in the morning day-3 and day-2 then dalteparin 100 IU per kilogram (max 18,000 IU) subcutaneously 24 hours pre-procedure. Warfarin was resumed in the evening of the procedure at twice the usual dose for the first two days and then titrated according to INR. After the procedure (same day or next day), when hemostasis had been achieved, patients were randomized to receive dalteparin or placebo for at least 4 days and until the INR was greater than 1.9. Randomization was stratified by presence of a mechanical valve, by the post-procedure risk for major bleeding, and by centre. For patients at high risk for post-procedure major bleeding, dalteparin or placebo was administered at a fixed daily dose of 5000 IU. For patients at low risk for post-procedure major bleeding, dalteparin or placebo was administered at a daily dose of 200 IU per kilogram (max 18,000 IU). The primary analysis was a comparison of the proportion of patients who had major thromboembolism (stroke, proximal DVT, PE, MI, peripheral embolism) over 90 days by Chi-squared test according to the intention to treat principle. Secondary outcomes were major bleeding, all cause mortality and a composite outcome of major thromboembolism and major bleeding. Results Starting in October 2006 we randomized a total of 1471 patients of whom 1167 had atrial fibrillation (without mechanical heart valves) and 304 had mechanical valves (99 also had atrial fibrillation). Last follow up was completed in May 2016. Baseline characteristics were similar between the LMWH and the placebo groups (see Table 1). Due to a randomization program system error at two centres more atrial fibrillation patients were randomized to dalteparin rather than to placebo. Major thromboembolism occurred in 6/820 (0.71%) dalteparin patients and 7/650 (1.11%) placebo patients. Major post-procedure bleeding occurred in 12 (1.46%) dalteparin patients and 16 (2.46%) placebo patients. Findings were similar in patients with atrial fibrillation alone and in patients with mechanical heart valves (with or without atrial fibrillation) (Table 2). Conclusions In patients with atrial fibrillation and/or mechanical heart valves who had warfarin interrupted for a procedure there was no benefit from post-procedure LMWH bridging. Disclosures Kovacs: Bayer: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo Pharma Development: Research Funding. Wells:Janssen: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Honoraria. Schulman:Boehringer-Ingelheim: Honoraria, Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria.


Author(s):  
Matthew W. Sherwood ◽  
Jonathan P. Piccini ◽  
DaJuanicia N. Holmes ◽  
Karen S. Pieper ◽  
Benjamin A. Steinberg ◽  
...  

Background: Patients with atrial fibrillation on oral anticoagulation (OAC) undergoing cardiac catheterization face risks for embolic and bleeding events, yet information on strategies to mitigate these risks in contemporary practice is lacking. Methods: We aimed to describe the clinical/procedural characteristics of a contemporary cohort of patients with atrial fibrillation on OAC who underwent cardiac catheterization. Use of bleeding avoidance strategies and bridging therapy were described and outcomes including death, stroke, and major bleeding at 30 days and 1 year were compared by OAC type. Results: Of 13 404 patients in the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation II Registry from 2013 to 2016, 741 underwent cardiac catheterization (139 with percutaneous coronary intervention) in the setting of OAC. The patients’ median age was 71, 61.8% were male, white (87.2%), had hypertension (83.7%), hyperlipidemia (72.1%), diabetes mellitus (31.6%), and chronic kidney disease (28.2%); 20.2% received warfarin while 79.8% received direct acting oral anticoagulant. One third of patients underwent radial artery access, and bivalirudin was used in 4.6%. Bridging therapy was used more often in patients on warfarin versus direct acting oral anticoagulant (16.7% versus10.0%). OAC was interrupted in 93.8% of patients. Patients on warfarin versus direct acting oral anticoagulant were equally likely to restart OAC (58.0% versus 60.7%), had similar use of antiplatelet therapy (44.0% versus 41.3%) after catheterization, and had similar rates of myocardial infarction and death at 1 year, but higher rates of major bleeding (43.3 versus 12.9 events/100 patient years) and stroke (4.9 versus 1.9 events/100 patient years). Conclusions: In a real-world registry of patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing cardiac catheterization, most cases are elective, performed by femoral access, with interruption of OAC. Bleeding avoidance strategies such as radial artery access and bivalirudin were used infrequently and use of bridging therapy was uncommon. Nearly 40% of patients did not restart OAC postprocedure, exposing patients to risk for stroke. Further research is necessary to optimize the management of patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing cardiac catheterization.


2015 ◽  
Vol 73 (8) ◽  
pp. 704-713 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles André

Neurologists feel uneasy when asked about temporary anticoagulant interruption for surgery in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Rational decisions can be made based on current scientific evidence. Method Critical review of international guidelines and selected references pertaining to bleeding and thromboembolism during periods of oral anticoagulant interruption. Results Withholding oral anticoagulants leads to an increased risk of perioperative thromboembolism, depending on factors such as age, renal and liver function, previous ischemic events, heart failure etc. Surgeries are associated with a variable risk of bleeding - from minimal to very high. Individualized decisions about preoperative drug suspension, bridging therapy with heparin and time to restart oral anticoagulants after hemostasis can significantly reduce these opposing risks. Conclusion Rational decisions can be made after discussion with all Health care team professionals involved and consideration of patient fears and expectations. Formal written protocols should help managing antithrombotic treatment during this delicate period.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document