Search

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.

Purpose of Review: This review aims to describe the current evidence and consensus recommendations around antiplatelet and anticoagulant management in three common clinical scenarios in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR): (1) recent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) preceding TAVR, (2) atrial fibrillation (AF) management in patients undergoing TAVR, and (3) bioprosthetic valve thrombosis management in TAVR., Recent Findings: Several small clinical trials have evaluated the use of single vs. dual antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing TAVR, with most recent data favoring single antiplatelet therapy. There are several trials currently enrolling and in follow-up that evaluate the use of anticoagulants in combination with single and dual antiplatelet therapy for patients with AF undergoing TAVR, but as yet, there is no data to support a clear strategy. The use of DAPT after PCI continues to potentially shorten in patients undergoing elective PCI, thus prolonged DAPT may not be necessary post TAVR for the sake of PCI. Bioprosthetic valve thrombosis occurs more commonly than previously thought, but has uncertain clinical significance. In observational studies, antiplatelet therapy has little effect on bioprosthetic valve thrombosis, whereas anticoagulation is effective in both prevention and treatment of thrombosis. DAPT is currently recommended for 1-6 months for all patients without an indication for oral anticoagulation who undergo TAVR; however, there is a growing amount of evidence for single antiplatelet therapy. In the special situation of patients who have recently undergone PCI, the length of DAPT will depend on stent selection (BMS vs. DES), but may not be significantly prolonged unless the patient experienced an acute coronary syndrome prior to TAVR. There is no clear, optimal antithrombotic strategy for patients with AF who undergo TAVR, but avoidance of triple therapy by using OAC and low-dose ASA seems to be reasonable. OAC, not DAPT, is now known to prevent bioprosthetic valve thrombosis in TAVR and SAVR patients; however, the optimal therapy remains unknown. For patients who develop bioprosthetic valve thrombosis, OAC for 3-6 months, and repeat imaging is recommended to document resolution.

Background: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are surpassing warfarin as the anticoagulant of choice for stroke prevention in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. DOAC outcomes in elective periprocedural settings have not been well elucidated and remain a source of concern for clinicians. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the periprocedural safety and efficacy of DOACs versus warfarin in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation., Methods: We reviewed the literature for data from phase III randomized controlled trials comparing DOACs with warfarin in the periprocedural period among patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Substudies from 4 trials (RE-LY [Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulation Therapy], ROCKET AF [Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibitor Compared with Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation], ARISTOTLE [Apixaban for the Prevention of Stroke in Subjects With Atrial Fibrillation], and ENGAGE-AF [Effective Anticoagulation With Factor xA Next Generation in Atrial Fibrillation]) were included in the meta-analysis. DOACs as a group and warfarin were compared in terms of the 30-day pooled risk for stroke/systemic embolism, major bleeding, and death, according to whether the study drug was interrupted or not periprocedurally. The overall relative risk (RR) was estimated with a random-effects model. The I 2 test was used to assess heterogeneity in RR among the studies., Results: In the uninterrupted anticoagulant strategy, there were no differences in the rates of stroke/systemic embolism (pooled risk, 0.6% [29 events/4519 procedures] versus 1.1% [31/2971]; RR, 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41-1.18) and death (1.4% versus 1.8%; RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.53-1.12) between DOACs and warfarin and significantly fewer major bleeding events (2.0% versus 3.3%; RR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.47-0.82) with DOACs compared to warfarin. Under an interrupted strategy, there was no significant difference between DOACs versus warfarin for stroke/systemic embolism (0.4% [41/9260] versus 0.5% [31/7168]; RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.59-1.55), major bleeding (2.1% versus 2.0%; RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.85-1.30), and death (0.7% versus 0.6%; RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.76-2.04). The studies were homogeneous ( I 2 =0.0%) for all calculated pooled associations except for the RR of death in the interrupted strategy ( I 2 =26.3%)., Conclusions: The short-term safety and efficacy of DOACs and warfarin are not different in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation periprocedurally. Under an uninterrupted anticoagulation strategy, DOACs are associated with a 38% lower risk of major bleeding compared with warfarin.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate incidence, care patterns, and clinical outcomes in patients developing new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)., Background: Pre-procedural AF has been associated with adverse outcomes in patients undergoing TAVR, but the incidence of new-onset AF, associated anticoagulant management, and subsequent clinical outcomes are unclear., Methods: Using the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology TVT (Transcatheter Valve Therapy) Registry linked with Medicare claims, patients undergoing TAVR from 2011 to 2015 who developed post-procedural AF were evaluated. Patients with known AF prior to TAVR were excluded. Outcomes of interest included in-hospital mortality and stroke and all-cause mortality, stroke, and bleeding at 12 months. Multivariate adjustment was then performed to determine differences in 1-year outcomes among those with and without new post-procedural AF, stratified by anticoagulation status., Results: We identified 1,138 of 13,556 patients (8.4%) who developed new onset AF (4.4% of transfemoral [TF]-access patients, 16.5% of non-TF-access patients). Patients developing AF were older, more likely female, had higher Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk scores, and were often treated using non-TF access. Despite having a median CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score of 5 (25th and 75th percentile: 5 to 6), only 28.9% of patients with new AF were discharged on oral anticoagulation. In-hospital mortality (7.8% vs. 3.4%; p < 0.01) and stroke (4.7% vs. 2.0%; p < 0.01) were higher among patients who developed post-procedural AF compared with those who did not. At 1 year, rates of death (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 1.37; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.19 to 1.59), stroke (adjusted HR: 1.50; 95% CI: 1.14 to 1.98), and bleeding (adjusted HR: 1.24; 95% CI: 1.10 to 1.40) were higher among patients with new-onset AF. One-year mortality rates were highest among patients who developed new-onset AF but were not discharged on anticoagulation., Conclusions: Post-TAVR AF occurred in 8.4% of patients (4.4% with TF access, 16.5% with non-TF access), with fewer than one-third of patients receiving anticoagulation at discharge, and was associated with increased risk for in-hospital and 1-year mortality and stroke. Given the clinical significance of post-TAVR AF, additional studies are necessary to delineate the optimal management strategy in this high-risk population., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objectives: The authors assessed the use of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) and outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) during the ROCKET AF (Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared with Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation)., Background: The frequency, patterns, and outcomes when adding DAPT to non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants in the setting of PCI in patients with AF are largely unknown., Methods: The study population included all patients in the treatment group of the ROCKET AF trial divided by the receipt of PCI during follow-up. Clinical characteristics, PCI frequency, and rates of DAPT were reported. Clinical outcomes were adjudicated independently as part of the trial., Results: Among 14,171 patients, 153 (1.1%) underwent PCI during a median 806 days of follow-up. Patients treated with rivaroxaban were significantly less likely to undergo PCI compared with warfarin-treated patients (61 vs. 92; p = 0.01). Study drug was continued during PCI in 81% of patients. Long-term DAPT (≥30 days) was used in 37% and single antiplatelet therapy in 34%. A small number switched from DAPT to monotherapy within 30 days of PCI (n = 19 [12.3%]) and 15% of patients received no antiplatelet therapy after PCI. Rates of stroke/systemic embolism and major bleeding events were high in post-PCI patients (4.5/100 patient-years and 10.2/100 patient-years) in both treatment groups., Conclusions: In patients with AF at moderate to high risk for stroke, PCI occurred in <1% per year. DAPT was used in a variable manner, with the majority of patients remaining on study drug after PCI. Rates of both thrombotic and bleeding events were high after PCI, highlighting the need for studies to determine the optimal antithrombotic therapy., (Copyright © 2016 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is a common complication of oral anticoagulation., Objectives: This study evaluated GI bleeding in patients who received at least 1 dose of the study drug in the on-treatment arm of the ROCKET AF (Rivaroxaban Once-daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared with Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation) trial., Methods: The primary outcome was adjudicated GI bleeding reported from first to last drug dose + 2 days. Multivariable modeling was performed with pre-specified candidate predictors., Results: Of 14,236 patients, 684 experienced GI bleeding during follow-up. These patients were older (median age 75 years vs. 73 years) and less often female. GI bleeding events occurred in the upper GI tract (48%), lower GI tract (23%), and rectum (29%) without differences between treatment arms. There was a significantly higher rate of major or nonmajor clinical GI bleeding in rivaroxaban- versus warfarin-treated patients (3.61 events/100 patient-years vs. 2.60 events/100 patient-years; hazard ratio: 1.42; 95% confidence interval: 1.22 to 1.66). Severe GI bleeding rates were similar between treatment arms (0.47 events/100 patient-years vs. 0.41 events/100 patient-years; p = 0.39; 0.01 events/100 patient-years vs. 0.04 events/100 patient-years; p = 0.15, respectively), and fatal GI bleeding events were rare (0.01 events/100 patient-years vs. 0.04 events/100 patient-years; 1 fatal events vs. 5 fatal events total). Independent clinical factors most strongly associated with GI bleeding were baseline anemia, history of GI bleeding, and long-term aspirin use., Conclusions: In the ROCKET AF trial, rivaroxaban increased GI bleeding compared with warfarin. The absolute fatality rate from GI bleeding was low and similar in both treatment arms. Our results further illustrate the need for minimizing modifiable risk factors for GI bleeding in patients on oral anticoagulation., (Copyright © 2015 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have rapidly emerged as an alternative therapy to warfarin. Several recent phase 3 randomized control trials have demonstrated the efficacy and safety of the NOACs in the treatment for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. As the NOACs are incorporated in clinical practice, questions have begun to arise concerning their optimal use in commonly encountered situations. In this review, we provide a summary of the available evidence from the phase 3 randomized control trials specifically with regard to 1 such scenario, the periprocedural management of NOACs, with a goal of providing guidance for practicing clinicians., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Temporary interruption of oral anticoagulation for procedures is often required, and some propose using bridging anticoagulation. However, the use and outcomes of bridging during oral anticoagulation interruptions in clinical practice are unknown., Methods and Results: The Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (ORBIT-AF) registry is a prospective, observational registry study of US outpatients with atrial fibrillation. We recorded incident temporary interruptions of oral anticoagulation for a procedure, including the use and type of bridging therapy. Outcomes included multivariable-adjusted rates of myocardial infarction, stroke or systemic embolism, major bleeding, cause-specific hospitalization, and death within 30 days. Of 7372 patients treated with oral anticoagulation, 2803 overall interruption events occurred in 2200 patients (30%) at a median follow-up of 2 years. Bridging anticoagulants were used in 24% (n=665), predominantly low-molecular-weight heparin (73%, n=487) and unfractionated heparin (15%, n=97). Bridged patients were more likely to have had prior cerebrovascular events (22% versus 15%; P=0.0003) and mechanical valve replacements (9.6% versus 2.4%; P<0.0001); however, there was no difference in CHA2DS2-VASc scores (scores ≥ 2 in 94% versus 95%; P=0.5). Bleeding events were more common in bridged than nonbridged patients (5.0% versus 1.3%; adjusted odds ratio, 3.84; P<0.0001). The incidence of myocardial infarction, stroke or systemic embolism, major bleeding, hospitalization, or death within 30 days was also significantly higher in patients receiving bridging (13% versus 6.3%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.94; P=0.0001)., Conclusions: Bridging anticoagulation is used in one quarter of anticoagulation interruptions and is associated with higher risk for bleeding and adverse events. These data do not support the use of routine bridging, and additional data are needed to identify best practices concerning anticoagulation interruptions., Clinical Trial Registration Url: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01165710., (© 2014 The Authors.)

Objectives: This study sought to report additional safety results from the ROCKET AF (Rivaroxaban Once-daily oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared with Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation)., Background: The ROCKET AF trial demonstrated similar risks of stroke/systemic embolism and major/nonmajor clinically relevant bleeding (principal safety endpoint) with rivaroxaban and warfarin., Methods: The risk of the principal safety and component bleeding endpoints with rivaroxaban versus warfarin were compared, and factors associated with major bleeding were examined in a multivariable model., Results: The principal safety endpoint was similar in the rivaroxaban and warfarin groups (14.9 vs. 14.5 events/100 patient-years; hazard ratio: 1.03; 95% confidence interval: 0.96 to 1.11). Major bleeding risk increased with age, but there were no differences between treatments in each age category (<65, 65 to 74, ≥75 years; pinteraction = 0.59). Compared with those without (n = 13,455), patients with a major bleed (n = 781) were more likely to be older, current/prior smokers, have prior gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, mild anemia, and a lower calculated creatinine clearance and less likely to be female or have a prior stroke/transient ischemic attack. Increasing age, baseline diastolic blood pressure (DBP) ≥90 mm Hg, history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or GI bleeding, prior acetylsalicylic acid use, and anemia were independently associated with major bleeding risk; female sex and DBP <90 mm Hg were associated with a decreased risk., Conclusions: Rivaroxaban and warfarin had similar risk for major/nonmajor clinically relevant bleeding. Age, sex, DBP, prior GI bleeding, prior acetylsalicylic acid use, and anemia were associated with the risk of major bleeding. (An Efficacy and Safety Study of Rivaroxaban With Warfarin for the Prevention of Stroke and Non-Central Nervous System Systemic Embolism in Patients With Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation: NCT00403767)., (Copyright © 2014 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Atrial fibrillation is a common arrhythmia. One of the important aspects of the management of atrial fibrillation is stroke prevention. Warfarin has been the longstanding anticoagulant used for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation. There are now three novel oral anticoagulants, which have been studied in randomized controlled trials and subsequently approved by the Federal Drug Administration for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation. Special patient populations, including renal insufficiency, elderly, prior stroke, and extreme body weights, were represented to varying degrees in the clinical trials of the novel oral anticoagulants. Furthermore, there is variation in the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of each anticoagulant, which affect the patient populations differently. Patients and clinicians are faced with the task of selecting among the available anticoagulants, and this review is designed to be a tool for clinical decision-making.

Background: The American College of Chest Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline on the Perioperative Management of Antithrombotic Therapy addresses 43 Patients-Interventions-Comparators-Outcomes (PICO) questions related to the perioperative management of patients who are receiving long-term oral anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy and require an elective surgery/procedure. This guideline is separated into four broad categories, encompassing the management of patients who are receiving: (1) a vitamin K antagonist (VKA), mainly warfarin; (2) if receiving a VKA, the use of perioperative heparin bridging, typically with a low-molecular-weight heparin; (3) a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC); and (4) an antiplatelet drug.Methods: Strong or conditional practice recommendations are generated based on high, moderate, low, and very low certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology for clinical practice guidelines.Results: A multidisciplinary panel generated 44 guideline recommendations for the perioperative management of VKAs, heparin bridging, DOACs, and antiplatelet drugs, of which two are strong recommendations: (1) against the use of heparin bridging in patients with atrial fibrillation; and (2) continuation of VKA therapy in patients having a pacemaker or internal cardiac defibrillator implantation. There are separate recommendations on the perioperative management of patients who are undergoing minor procedures, comprising dental, dermatologic, ophthalmologic, pacemaker/internal cardiac defibrillator implantation, and GI (endoscopic) procedures.Conclusions: Substantial new evidence has emerged since the 2012 iteration of these guidelines, especially to inform best practices for the perioperative management of patients who are receiving a VKA and may require heparin bridging, for the perioperative management of patients who are receiving a DOAC, and for patients who are receiving one or more antiplatelet drugs. Despite this new knowledge, uncertainty remains as to best practices for the majority of perioperative management questions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The American College of Chest Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline on the Perioperative Management of Antithrombotic Therapy addresses 43 Patients-Interventions-Comparators-Outcomes (PICO) questions related to the perioperative management of patients who are receiving long-term oral anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy and require an elective surgery/procedure. This guideline is separated into four broad categories, encompassing the management of patients who are receiving: (1) a vitamin K antagonist (VKA), mainly warfarin; (2) if receiving a VKA, the use of perioperative heparin bridging, typically with a low-molecular-weight heparin; (3) a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC); and (4) an antiplatelet drug.Methods: Strong or conditional practice recommendations are generated based on high, moderate, low, and very low certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology for clinical practice guidelines.Results: A multidisciplinary panel generated 44 guideline recommendations for the perioperative management of VKAs, heparin bridging, DOACs, and antiplatelet drugs, of which two are strong recommendations: (1) against the use of heparin bridging in patients with atrial fibrillation; and (2) continuation of VKA therapy in patients having a pacemaker or internal cardiac defibrillator implantation. There are separate recommendations on the perioperative management of patients who are undergoing minor procedures, comprising dental, dermatologic, ophthalmologic, pacemaker/internal cardiac defibrillator implantation, and GI (endoscopic) procedures.Conclusions: Substantial new evidence has emerged since the 2012 iteration of these guidelines, especially to inform best practices for the perioperative management of patients who are receiving a VKA and may require heparin bridging, for the perioperative management of patients who are receiving a DOAC, and for patients who are receiving one or more antiplatelet drugs. Despite this new knowledge, uncertainty remains as to best practices for the majority of perioperative management questions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]