Search

Importance: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), comprising apixaban, rivaroxaban, edoxaban, and dabigatran, are commonly used medications to treat patients with atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism. Decisions about how to manage DOACs in patients undergoing a surgical or nonsurgical procedure are important to decrease the risks of bleeding and thromboembolism., Observations: For elective surgical or nonsurgical procedures, a standardized approach to perioperative DOAC management involves classifying the risk of procedure-related bleeding as minimal (eg, minor dental or skin procedures), low to moderate (eg, cholecystectomy, inguinal hernia repair), or high risk (eg, major cancer or joint replacement procedures). For patients undergoing minimal bleeding risk procedures, DOACs may be continued, or if there is concern about excessive bleeding, DOACs may be discontinued on the day of the procedure. Patients undergoing a low to moderate bleeding risk procedure should typically discontinue DOACs 1 day before the operation and restart DOACs 1 day after. Patients undergoing a high bleeding risk procedure should stop DOACs 2 days prior to the operation and restart DOACs 2 days after. With this perioperative DOAC management strategy, rates of thromboembolism (0.2%-0.4%) and major bleeding (1%-2%) are low and delays or cancellations of surgical and nonsurgical procedures are infrequent. Patients taking DOACs who need emergent (<6 hours after presentation) or urgent surgical procedures (6-24 hours after presentation) experience bleeding rates up to 23% and thromboembolism as high as 11%. Laboratory testing to measure preoperative DOAC levels may be useful to determine whether patients should receive a DOAC reversal agent (eg, prothrombin complex concentrates, idarucizumab, or andexanet-α) prior to an emergent or urgent procedure., Conclusions and Relevance: When patients who are taking a DOAC require an elective surgical or nonsurgical procedure, standardized management protocols can be applied that do not require testing DOAC levels or heparin bridging. When patients taking a DOAC require an emergent, urgent, or semiurgent surgical procedure, anticoagulant reversal agents may be appropriate when DOAC levels are elevated or not available.

Introduction: Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing elective procedures are at risk for Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events (MACE) and symptomatic bleeding. We aimed to identify risk factors to guide perioperative risk stratification., Methods: We conducted a post-hoc analysis of the "Bridging Anticoagulation in Patients who Require Temporary Interruption of Warfarin Therapy for an Elective Invasive Procedure or Surgery" randomized trial. The primary outcomes were MACE and symptomatic bleeding. Our statistical approach encompassed standard univariate analysis, logistic stepwise regression, and Cox regression models. Additional interaction analyses evaluated the interplay between low-molecular-weight heparin bridge therapy and other identified risk factors., Results: Among a total of 1,813 participants (mean age 71.6 ± 8.8, 73.3 % male), MACE occurred in 25 (1.4 %) individuals, with pre-procedure clopidogrel use (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 7.73, 95 % CI 2.63-22.72, p < 0.001) and CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score ≥ 5 (aHR 2.89, 95 % CI 1.26-6.63, p = 0.012) identified as risk factors. Symptomatic bleeding occurred in 57 (3.1 %) individuals, with bridge therapy (aHR 1.84, 95 % CI 1.07-3.19, p = 0.029), renal disease (aHR 2.50, 95 % CI 1.34-4.67, p = 0.004), post-procedure aspirin use (aHR 2.86, 95 % CI 1.66-4.91, p < 0.001), post-procedure nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use excluding aspirin (aHR 3.40, 95 % CI 1.22-9.43, p = 0.019), and major surgery (aHR 3.94, 95 % CI 2.26-6.85, p < 0.001) identified as risk factors. The interactions between risk factors and bridging therapy on MACE and symptomatic bleeding outcomes were not significant (p > 0.05)., Conclusion: We identified predictors for MACE and symptomatic bleeding in AF patients undergoing elective procedures. These insights may help guide perioperative decisions to reduce the risk of adverse outcomes., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest All authors have completed and submitted the appropriate disclosure forms. Further details regarding potential conflicts of interest can be found in the submitted forms., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Clinically important perioperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) is a common cardiac complication after noncardiac surgery. Little is known about how patients with POAF are managed acutely and whether practices have changed over time., Methods: We conducted an observational substudy of patients who had POAF, were at elevated cardiovascular risk, and were enrolled in the PeriOperative Ischemic Evaluation (POISE)-1, 2 and 3 trials between 2002 and 2021. POAF was defined as new, clinically important atrial fibrillation occurring within 30 days after surgery. We assessed the use of rhythm-control and anticoagulation treatment in response to POAF, at hospital discharge and at 30 days after surgery. We assessed for temporal trends using multivariable logistic regression., Results: Of the 27,896 patients included, 545 (1.9%) developed clinically important POAF. Patients received rhythm-control treatment in 48.6% of cases. The level of use of rhythm-control treatment increased over the course of the trials (POISE-1 vs POISE-2 vs POISE-3; 40.9% vs 49.5% vs 59.1%). A later randomization date was associated independently with use of rhythm-control treatment (odds ratio, 1.05 per year; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.09). Anticoagulation treatment was prescribed in 21% of POAF cases. The level of anticoagulation treatement use was higher in POISE-3, compared to that in the 2 previous trials (POISE-1 vs POISE-2 vs POISE-3-16.4% vs 16.5% vs 33.6%). A later randomization date was associated independently with use of anticoagulation treatment (odds ratio, 1.06 per year; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.11)., Conclusions: Despite the absence of randomized controlled trials, the level of use of rhythm-control and anticoagulation treatment for POAF is rising. High-quality trials are needed urgently to determine whether these interventions are safe and effective in this population., (© 2024 The Authors.)

Background: No study has investigated the perioperative management and clinical outcomes in patients who are receiving rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice a day and acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) 81 to 100 mg daily., Objective: To assess perioperative management and outcomes in patients who are receiving low-dose rivaroxaban, 2.5 mg twice-daily, and low-dose ASA, 81 to 100 mg daily. To assess perioperative management and outcomes in patients who are receiving low-dose rivaroxaban, 2.5 mg twice-daily, and low-dose ASA, 81 to 100 mg daily., Methods: Subanalysis of the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) trial was performed to assess perioperative management and clinical outcomes in patients with stable coronary or peripheral artery disease who were randomized to receive rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice a day plus ASA 100 mg daily, rivaroxaban 5 mg twice a day, or ASA 100 mg daily. Patients studied required a surgery/procedure during the trial. The study outcomes, which included myocardial infarction, angina, stroke, acute limb ischemia, bleeding, and death, were assessed according to treatment allocation., Results: There were 2632 patients studied (mean age, 68 years; 80% male) who had a surgery/procedure, comprising percutaneous coronary interventions (∼43%), carotid or other arterial angioplasty (∼15%), pacemaker or internal cardiac defibrillator implantation (∼9%), and coronary artery bypass graft surgery (∼7%). Perioperative study drug management varied, with about one-third of patients not interrupting study drug and the remainder interrupting it between 1 and ≥10 days preprocedure. The incidences of adverse outcomes across treatment groups were 12.7% to 15.3% for myocardial ischemia, 0.8% to 1.2% for stroke, 0.1% to 0.2% for venous thromboembolism, and 3.1% to 4.2% for any bleeding. There was no statistically significant difference in outcome rates across treatment groups., Conclusion: In patients in the COMPASS trial who required a surgery/procedure, there was no significant difference in perioperative adverse outcomes whether patients were receiving rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice a day and ASA 100 mg daily, rivaroxaban 5 mg twice a day, or ASA alone., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interests There was no funding provided for the development and for any other aspect of the work in this manuscript. J.D.D. reports consulting and lecture honoraria from Servier Canada, Leo Pharma, Pfizer, and Fresinius Kabi. Q.L. reports no disclosures. D.L.B. reports advisory for Angiowave, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardax, CellProthera, Cereno Scientific, Elsevier Practice Update Cardiology, High Enroll, Janssen, Level Ex, McKinsey, Medscape Cardiology, Merck, MyoKardia, NirvaMed, Novo Nordisk, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Regado Biosciences, and Stasys and research funding from Abbott, Acesion Pharma, Afimmune, Aker Biomarine, Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beren, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cardax, CellProthera, Cereno Scientific, Chiesi, CinCor, CSL Behring, Eisai, Ethicon, Faraday Pharmaceuticals, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Forest Laboratories, Fractyl, Garmin, HLS Therapeutics, Idorsia, Ironwood, Ischemix, Janssen, Javelin, Lexicon, Lilly, Medtronic, Merck, Moderna, MyoKardia, NirvaMed, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Owkin, Pfizer, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Recardio, Regeneron, Reid Hoffman Foundation, Roche, Sanofi, Stasys, Synaptic, The Medicines Company, Youngene, and 89Bio. E.M. reports being employed as a global clinical lead by Bayer AG, Germany. M.K.W. reports no disclosures. S.C. reports grants from Bayer AG and personal fees from BMS, Pfizer, Portola, Boehringer Ingelheim, Servier, Daiichi Sankyo, and Medtronic. S.Y. reports grants and personal fees from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Cadila. A.P.M. reports receiving personal fees from Bayer, AstraZeneca, and Novartis. J.W.E. reports grants and/or personal fees from Anthos, Bayer AG, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, Idorsia, Janssen, Astra Zeneca, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKlein, and Sanofi Aventis., (Copyright © 2024 International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Cancer and atrial fibrillation (AF) are common concurrent disorders. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are prescribed to prevent stroke in patients with AF. Patients with cancer often undergo invasive procedures for diagnostic or therapeutic purposes, necessitating interruption of anticoagulation. There are limited data to guide best periprocedural anticoagulation management practices in the setting of active cancer., Objectives: To describe patient characteristics, periprocedural management, and clinical outcomes in DOAC-treated patients with AF according to active cancer status., Methods: We conducted descriptive and comparative analyses using data from the PAUSE study. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine whether active cancer status was an independent risk factor for bleeding outcomes. Covariates were selected a priori based on biological rationale and preexisting knowledge., Results: Patients with active cancer were older (P < .001), more likely to be thrombocytopenic (P = .026), have moderate renal dysfunction (P = .005), and more likely to receive low-dose DOAC therapy (P < .001). A greater proportion of patients with active cancer underwent a high-bleed-risk procedure (P < .001), with longer periprocedural DOAC-interruption intervals (P <.001) and lower preprocedural residual DOAC levels (P = .002). Active cancer was an independent predictor for surgical major bleeding (OR = 2.45; 95% CI, 1.08-5.14) after adjusting for study center, procedure category and bleed risk, thrombocytopenia, hypertension, and the use of a P2Y12 inhibitor., Conclusions: Active cancer status is associated with an increased risk of surgical major bleeding among DOAC-treated patients with AF undergoing interruption of anticoagulation for elective invasive procedures., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interests J.R. Shaw has received in-kind laboratory support from Diagnostica Stago. T-F. Wang reports research funding from Leo Pharma and advisory honoraria from Valeo Pharma. Dr. Spyropoulos has received research support from Boehringer Ingelheim and Janssen, and consulting fees from Janssen, Bristol-Meyer Squibb/Pfizer Alliance, Sanofi, Alexion, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Roche Diagnostics. M. Carrier has received research funding from Leo Pharma and Pfizer, in addition to honoraria from BMS, Valeo Pharma, Leo Pharma, Sanofi, and Servier. J. Douketis has conducted consultancy/advisory board work for AstraZeneca, Cytosorb, PhaseBio, Servier, Leo Pharma and Pfizer. N. Li, J. Abdulrehman, S. Frosi Stella, M. St John, J. Nixon and S. Schulman declare no relevant conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Source Citation: Villiger R, Juillard P, Darbellay Farhoumand P, et al. Prediction of in-hospital bleeding in acutely ill medical patients: external validation of the IMPROVE bleeding risk score. Thromb Res. 2023;230:37-44. 37634309., Competing Interests: Disclosures: Disclosures can be viewed at www.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=J23-0104.