Management Of Antithrombotic Therapy Research Articles

Perioperative Management of Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients Undergoing Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: A Practical Tool Based on Current Guidelines

Introduction: Given the aging population, plastic surgeons are increasingly faced with the challenge of balancing procedural bleeding risk with thromboembolic risk in patients receiving antithrombotic therapies undergoing elective procedures. Guideline recommendations remain unclear in this population, which contributes to heterogeneity in clinical practices. We present a practical approach that summarizes guideline recommendations to facilitate the perioperative management of patients requiring surgery who are already on antithrombotic agents. Methods: Due to the scarcity of plastic surgery-specific guidelines, recommendations were primarily adapted from the 2022 American College of Chest Physicians guidelines on perioperative management of antithrombotic therapy as they are recognized as authoritative and widely used in clinical practice. Results: A clinical practice conceptual framework was adapted based on preexisting guidelines, dividing decision-making into 3 steps: (1) assessing the procedural bleeding risk; (2) assessing the patients’ thromboembolic risk; and (3) determining appropriate management according to antithrombotic agent type. Specific indications are provided for continuing, stopping, and bridging anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents, as well as for consultation with a cardiologist or hematologist. Conclusion: The present framework can be implemented in plastic surgeons’ clinical practice to guide the management of patients on antithrombotic therapies, while minimizing nonessential referrals to the thrombosis service. The lack of plastic surgery-specific guidelines on this topic highlights a need for further research to “bootstrap” the risk categorization of plastic surgical procedures and their appropriate perioperative management.

Inpatient Cardiac Rehabilitation Following Heart Valve Surgey: A Setting for the Tailored Management of Antithrombotic Therapy.

Inpatient Cardiac Rehabilitation Following Heart Valve Surgey: A Setting for the Tailored Management of Antithrombotic Therapy.

Addendum: Treatment of atrial fibrillation.

The Interruption of Anticoagulation section of our article on Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation cited the recommendations of the American College of Chest Physicians on perioperative management of antithrombotic therapy (JD Douketis et al. Chest 2022; 162:e207). A reader suggested that our general statement on when to discontinue an oral anticoagulant would have benefited from inclusion of the recommendations of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (JA Joglar et al. Circulation 2024; 149:e1).

Antithrombotic therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome: similarities and differences between a European expert consensus document and the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines.

Antithrombotic therapy represents the cornerstone of the pharmacological treatment in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The optimal combination and duration of antithrombotic therapy is still matter of debate requiring a critical assessment of patient comorbidities, clinical presentation, revascularization modality, and/or optimization of medical treatment. The 2023 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines for the management of patients with ACS encompassing both patients with and without ST segment elevation ACS have been recently published. Shortly before, a European expert consensus task force produced guidance for clinicians on the management of antithrombotic therapy in patients with ACS as well as chronic coronary syndrome. The scope of this manuscript is to provide a critical appraisal of differences and similarities between the European consensus paper and the latest ESC recommendations on oral antithrombotic regimens in ACS patients.

Perioperative Management of Anticoagulation and Antithrombotic Therapy

The latest updates to the NCCN Guidelines for perioperative management of anticoagulation and antithrombotic therapies reflect significant changes in the use of bridging anticoagulation. For patients with low- to intermediate-risk atrial fibrillation, the standard of care has shifted toward reduced reliance on bridging anticoagulation. The rationale for this shift is based on the BRIDGE trial, which revealed a 3-fold greater risk of major bleeding without significant reduction in thrombotic outcomes in patients receiving bridging therapy. In patients with mechanical heart valves, findings from the PERIOP2 study led to similar conclusions. Both of these studies have contributed to a paradigm shift in perioperative anticoagulation management, pivoting toward personalized therapy based on patient-specific bleeding and thrombotic risks. For emergent or elective surgeries, the NCCN Guidelines provide a framework for more individualized decision-making, emphasizing the need for ongoing cooperation among physicians, surgeons, and patients.

Stroke and Mechanical Circulatory Support in Adults.

Short-term and durable mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices represent life-saving interventions for patients with cardiogenic shock and end-stage heart failure. This review will cover the epidemiology, risk factors, and treatment of stroke in this patient population. Short-term devices such as intra-aortic balloon pump, Impella, TandemHeart, and Venoatrial Extracorporal Membrane Oxygenation, as well as durable continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (LVADs), improve cardiac output and blood flow to the vital organs. However, MCS use is associated with high rates of complications, including ischemic and hemorrhagic strokes which carry a high risk for death and disability. Improvements in MCS technology have reduced but not eliminated the risk of stroke. Mitigation strategies focus on careful management of anti-thrombotic therapies. While data on therapeutic options for stroke are limited, several case series reported favorable outcomes with thrombectomy for ischemic stroke patients with large vessel occlusions, as well as with reversal of anticoagulation for those with hemorrhagic stroke. Stroke in patients treated with MCS is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Preventive strategies are targeted based on the specific form of MCS. Improvements in the design of the newest generation device have reduced the risk of ischemic stroke, though hemorrhagic stroke remains a serious complication.

Rational peri-operative management of antithrombotic therapy in patients undergoing radical cystectomy: A 30-day morbidity analysis based on the updated European Association of Urology guidelines for standardized complication reporting

BackgroundRadical cystectomy (RC) in bladder cancer patients with cardiovascular comorbidity poses challenges due to the need for antithrombotic therapy and high perioperative risk. We aimed to assess 30-day complications after RC in patients receiving antithrombotic therapy. Patients and methodsRetrospective study of 416 bladder cancer patients (2009–2017) undergoing open RC with pelvic lymph node dissection, with or without antithrombotic therapy. Antithrombotic therapy and complication reporting followed European guidelines. Procedure-specific 30-day complications were cataloged, graded (Clavien-Dindo), and quantified using the 30-day Comprehensive Complication Index. Multivariable regressions evaluated antithrombotic therapy's independent effect on key morbidity outcomes. ResultsMedian age was 70 years, 78% were male. Patients on antithrombotic therapy were mostly male, had higher comorbidity burden, worse kidney function, more frequent incontinent diversion, and shorter operative time (all p ≤ 0.027). Bleeding complications occurred in 135 patients (32%; 95%CI = 28–37%), more prevalent with antithrombotic therapy (46% vs. 29%; p = 0.004). Thromboembolic complications occurred in 18 patients (4.3%; 95%CI = 2.6–6.8%), no difference between patients with and without antithrombotic therapy (8.4% vs. 3.3%; p = 0.063). Prevalence of myocardial infarction, new-onset hypertension, acute congestive heart failure, and angina pectoris showed no difference (all p ≥ 0.3). Multivariable analyses indicated no association between antithrombotic therapy and cardiac complications, 30-day major complications, or cumulative morbidity (all p ≥ 0.2). Antithrombotic therapy was associated with bleeding complications (OR = 1.92; 95%CI = 1.07–3.45; p = 0.028), predominantly transfusion-related (75% of 152 bleeding complications). Limitations include retrospective data assessment with biases. ConclusionsRC in patients on antithrombotic therapy exhibits a higher incidence of adverse events due to underlying comorbidities. Adherence to thromboprophylaxis guidelines enables safe RC in patients with significant comorbidities, without substantial increase in major bleeding or severe thromboembolic events.

The implications of antithrombotic agents on subdural hematoma evacuation: what does "reversal" truly entail?

The optimal perioperative management of antithrombotic therapy (ATT) in patients requiring urgent neurosurgical intervention for subdural hematoma (SDH) is poorly understood. The delicate equilibrium of effective hemostasis while preventing thrombosis is complex and relies on numerous factors such as indication for and type of ATT, medical comorbidities, and extent of neurological injury. This study aimed to analyze the impact of ATT and reversal strategies on surgical outcomes to highlight current challenges in the management of these high-risk patients. The authors performed a retrospective surgical cohort analysis of 100 patients undergoing urgent SDH evacuation at a level I trauma center between March 2020 and May 2021. The patients were first stratified into two cohorts based on preoperative ATT use and then further segregated by receipt of reversal agents. Statistical analysis included the chi-square test, Welch two-sample t-test, and multivariate logistic regression. The primary outcome was mortality. Secondary endpoints included radiographic SDH reexpansion, revision surgery, improvement in preoperative neurological deficits, and incidence of thromboembolism. A crossover cohort was secondarily analyzed in patients for whom ATT was interrupted for a minimum duration equal to effective drug metabolism. Finally, ATT reinitiation patterns were examined. Of 100 patients, 48% received ATT, 54.2% of whom were given reversal agents. ATT use was significantly associated with decreased rates of postoperative neurological improvement (p = 0.023) with trends toward increased mortality (p = 0.078), SDH reexpansion (p = 0.12), and need for revision surgery (p = 0.10). Patient crossover revealed a 4 times greater likelihood of death in patients without ATT interruption prior to surgery (p = 0.040) without an observable impact on secondary outcomes. ATT reversal contributed no improvement in outcomes other than a decreased intensive care unit length of stay when adjusted for in-hospital mortality (p = 0.014). The rate of postoperative thromboembolism following ATT reversal was 11.5%. ATT reinitiation was highly variable, occurring in 59.5% of patients, with median times of 17 and 15 days for antiplatelets and anticoagulants, respectively. Use of preoperative ATT portends poor clinical outcomes following nonelective SDH evacuation regardless of attempts to reverse these medications with replacement blood products. This study further reinforces the critical need for judicious use of ATT and optimization of reversal strategies in high-risk patient populations as best guided by multidisciplinary teams and evolving clinical practice guidelines.

Antiplatelet and Anti-Coagulation Therapy for Left-Sided Catheter Ablations: What Is beyond Atrial Fibrillation?

Aim: International guidelines on the use of anti-thrombotic therapies in left-sided ablations other than atrial fibrillation (AF) are lacking. The data regarding antiplatelet or anticoagulation strategies after catheter ablation (CA) procedures mainly derive from AF, whereas for the other arrhythmic substrates, the anti-thrombotic approach remains unclear. This survey aims to explore the current practices regarding antithrombotic management before, during, and after left-sided endocardial ablation, not including atrial fibrillation (AF), in patients without other indications for anti-thrombotic therapy. Material and Methods: Electrophysiologists were asked to answer a questionnaire containing questions on antiplatelet (APT) and anticoagulation therapy for the following left-sided procedures: accessory pathway (AP), atrial (AT), and ventricular tachycardia (VT) with and without structural heart disease (SHD). Results: We obtained 41 answers from 41 centers in 15 countries. For AP, before ablation, only four respondents (9.7%) used antiplatelets and two (4.9%) used anticoagulants. At discharge, APT therapy was prescribed by 22 respondents (53.7%), and oral anticoagulant therapy (OAC) only by one (2.4%). In patients with atrial tachycardia (AT), before ablation, APT prophylaxis was prescribed by only four respondents (9.7%) and OAC by eleven (26.8%). At discharge, APT was recommended by 12 respondents (29.3%) and OAC by 24 (58.5%). For VT without SHD, before CA, only six respondents (14.6%) suggested APT and three (7.3%) suggested OAC prophylaxis. At discharge, APT was recommended by fifteen respondents (36.6%) and OAC by five (12.2%). Regarding VT in SHD, before the procedure, eight respondents (19.5%) prescribed APT and five (12.2%) prescribed OAC prophylaxis. At discharge, the administration of anti-thrombotic therapy depended on the LV ejection fraction for eleven respondents (26.8%), on the procedure time for ten (24.4%), and on the radiofrequency time for four (9.8%), with a cut-off value from 1 to 30 min. Conclusions: Our survey indicates that the management of anti-thrombotic therapy surrounding left-sided endocardial ablation of patients without other indications for anti-thrombotic therapy is highly variable. Further studies are necessary to evaluate the safest approach to these procedures.

What Surgeons Need to Know About the Recent Updates to the CHEST Guidelines on Antithrombotic Therapy for Venous Thromboembolic Disease and Perioperative Management of Antithrombotic Therapy.

*Department of Surgery †Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Virginia School of Medicine The authors report no conflicts of interest. [email protected]

Antithrombotic therapy in the management of hospitalised patients with COVID-19.

Hospitalised patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are at a significantly higher risk of having thromboembolic events while in hospital and in the immediate post-hospital discharge period. Based on early data from observational studies, multiple high quality randomised controlled trials have been conducted worldwide to evaluate optimal thromboprophylaxis regimens to reduce thromboembolism and other COVID-19-related adverse outcomes in hospitalised patients. The International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis has published evidence-based guideline recommendations using established methodology for the management of antithrombotic therapy of COVID-19 patients, both in-hospital and in the immediate post-hospital discharge period. A good clinical practice statement supplemented these guidelines based on topics for which there was no or limited high-quality evidence. This review summarises the main recommendations of these documents to serve as a quick access tool for hospital doctors to use in their everyday practice when treating COVID-19 patients.

Management of Antithrombotic Drugs in Patients with Isolated Traumatic Brain Injury: An Intersociety Consensus Document.

All available recommendations about the management of antithrombotic therapies (ATs) in patients who experienced traumatic brain injury (TBI) are mainly based on expert opinion because of the lack of strength in the available evidence-based medicine. Currently, the withdrawal and the resumption of AT in these patients is empirical, widely variable, and based on the individual assessment of the attending physician. The main difficulty is to balance the thrombotic and hemorrhagic risks to improve patient outcome. Under the endorsement of the Neurotraumatology Section of Italian Society of Neurosurgery, the Italian Society for the Study about Haemostasis and Thrombosis, the Italian Society of Anaesthesia, Analgesia, Resuscitation, and Intensive Care, and the European Association of Neurosurgical Societies, a working group (WG) of clinicians completed two rounds of questionnaires, using the Delphi method, in a multidisciplinary setting. A table for thrombotic and bleeding risk, with a dichotomization in high risk and low risk, was established before questionnaire administration. In this table, the risk is calculated by matching different isolated TBI (iTBI) scenarios such as acute and chronic subdural hematomas, extradural hematoma, brain contusion (intracerebral hemorrhage), and traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage with patients under active AT treatment. The registered indication could include AT primary prevention, cardiac valve prosthesis, vascular stents, venous thromboembolism, and atrial fibrillation. The WG proposed a total of 28 statements encompassing the most common clinical scenarios about the withdrawal of antiplatelets, vitamin K antagonists, and direct oral anticoagulants in patients who experienced blunt iTBI. The WG voted on the grade of appropriateness of seven recommended interventions. Overall, the panel reached an agreement for 20 of 28 (71%) questions, deeming 11 of 28 (39%) as appropriate and 9 of 28 (32%) as inappropriate interventions. The appropriateness of intervention was rated as uncertain for 8 of 28 (28%) questions. The initial establishment of a thrombotic and/or bleeding risk scoring system can provide a vital theoretical basis for the evaluation of effective management in individuals under AT who sustained an iTBI. The listed recommendations can be implemented into local protocols for a more homogeneous strategy. Validation using large cohorts of patients needs to be developed. This is the first part of a project to update the management of AT in patients with iTBI.

Perioperative Management of Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients Who Undergo Dental Procedures: A Systematic Review of the Literature and Network Meta-Analysis

The surgical dental treatment of subjects admitted for anticoagulants therapy represents a consistent risk for peri-operative bleeding. The aim of the present study was to investigate the clinical findings of dental surgery operative management of the patients under anticoagulants drugs protocol. The literature screening was performed using Pubmed/Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane library, considering only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) papers. No limitations about the publication's period, follow-up time or clinical parameters were considered. A total of eight RCTs were included for the qualitative synthesis. No thromboembolic complications were reported in any studies. Several bleeding episodes associated with anticoagulant drugs in dental surgery were mild and generally happened on the first day after the treatment. The use of local haemostatic measures is generally effective for bleeding control with no further pharmacological drug management or suspension.

Prospective observational registry of perioperative and periprocedural management of antithrombotic therapy in “real world”: the REQXAA study

Introduction and objectivesThere is scarce real-world evidence on the management of perioperative antithrombotic treatment according to current recommendations. The aim of this study was to analyze the management of antithrombotic treatment in patients undergoing surgery or another invasive intervention and to assess the consequences of this management on the occurrence thrombotic or bleeding events. MethodsThis prospective, observational, multicenter and multispecialty study analyzed patients receiving antithrombotic therapy who underwent surgery or another invasive intervention. The primary endpoint was defined as the incidence of adverse (thrombotic and/or hemorrhagic) events after 30 days of follow-up with respect to management of perioperative antithrombotic drugs. ResultsWe included 1266 patients (male: 63.5%; mean age 72.6 years). Nearly half of the patients (48.6%) were under chronic anticoagulation therapy (mainly for atrial fibrillation; CHA2DS2-VASC: 3.7), while 53.3% of the patients were under chronic antiplatelet therapy (mainly for coronary artery disease). Low ischemic and hemorrhagic risk was found in 66.7% and 51.9%, respectively. Antithrombotic therapy management was in line with current recommendations in only 57.3% of the patients. Inappropriate management of antithrombotic therapy was an independent risk factor for both thrombotic and hemorrhagic events. ConclusionsThe implementation of recommendations on the perioperative/periprocedural management of antithrombotic therapy in real-world patients is poor. Inappropriate management of antithrombotic treatment is associated with an increase in both thrombotic and hemorrhagic events.

Practice Patterns of Antithrombotic Therapy during the Early Postoperative Course of Cardiac Surgery

The current practices regarding the management of antithrombotic therapy during the early postoperative course of cardiac surgery are not well described. An online survey with multiple-choice questions was sent to cardiac anesthesiologists and intensivists from France. The response rate was 27% (n = 149), with 2/3 of the respondents having less than 10 years of experience. A total of 83% of the respondents reported using an institutional protocol for antithrombotic management. A total of 85% (n = 123) of the respondents regularly used low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) during the immediate postoperative course. For 23%, 38%, 9%, and 22% of the physicians, LMWH administration was initiated between the 4th and 6th hour, between the 6th and 12th hour, between the 12th and 24th hour, and on postoperative day 1, respectively. The main reasons for not using LMWH (n = 23) were a perceived increased risk of perioperative bleeding (22%), poor reversal compared with unfractionated heparin (74%), local habits and the refusal of surgeons (57%), and its overly complex management (35%). The modalities of LMWH use were widely varied among the physicians. Chest drains were mostly removed within 3 days of surgery with an unchanged dose of antithrombotic therapy. Regarding temporary epicardial pacing wire removal anticoagulation, 54%, 30%, and 17% of the respondents left the dose unchanged, suspended the anticoagulation, or lowered the anticoagulation dose, respectively. LMWH was inconsistently used after cardiac surgery. Further research is warranted to provide high-quality evidence regarding the benefits and safety of LMWH use early after cardiac surgery.

Registro observacional prospectivo sobre la utilización del tratamiento antitrombótico durante el periodo perioperatorio y periprocedimiento en el «mundo real»: estudio REQXAA

Introduction and objectivesThere is scarce real-world evidence on the management of perioperative antithrombotic treatment according to current recommendations. The aim of this study was to analyze the management of antithrombotic treatment in patients undergoing surgery or another invasive intervention and to assess the consequences of this management on the occurrence thrombotic or bleeding events. MethodsThis prospective, observational, multicenter and multispecialty study analyzed patients receiving antithrombotic therapy who underwent surgery or another invasive intervention. The primary endpoint was defined as the incidence of adverse (thrombotic and/or hemorrhagic) events after 30 days of follow-up with respect to management of perioperative antithrombotic drugs. ResultsWe included 1266 patients (male: 63.5%; mean age 72.6 years). Nearly half of the patients (48.6%) were under chronic anticoagulation therapy (mainly for atrial fibrillation; CHA2DS2-VASC: 3.7), while 53.3% of the patients were under chronic antiplatelet therapy (mainly for coronary artery disease). Low ischemic and hemorrhagic risk was found in 66.7% and 51.9%, respectively. Antithrombotic therapy management was in line with current recommendations in only 57.3% of the patients. Inappropriate management of antithrombotic therapy was an independent risk factor for both thrombotic and hemorrhagic events. ConclusionsThe implementation of recommendations on the perioperative/periprocedural management of antithrombotic therapy in real-world patients is poor. Inappropriate management of antithrombotic treatment is associated with an increase in both thrombotic and hemorrhagic events.

Is Continued Perioperative Antithrombotic Therapy Safe When Performing Open Tracheostomy?

To date, there are no specific guidelines on antithrombotic therapy (ATT) management, which includes both anticoagulation and antiplatelet medications, for open tracheostomy. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether the use of perioperative antithrombotic medication during open tracheostomy influences the incidence of perioperative or postoperative complications. A retrospective review was conducted of all patients who underwent open tracheostomies at a tertiary care medical center from January 2015 to December 2019. Charts were reviewed for demographics, comorbidities, indication for tracheostomy, ATT use, operative details, and complications. A total of 217 tracheostomies were evaluated for this study, of which 148 (68.2%) were not on ATT and 69 (31.8%) were on ATT during surgery. No significant difference was observed based on ATT status in perioperative bleeding (P = .983), postoperative bleeding (P = .24), or median days to decannulation (P = .5986). ATT patients were 2.67 times more likely to experience 30-day mortality than those non-ATT patients (P = .035). There was only one death due to hemorrhage in the ATT group. This was unrelated to the tracheostomy. This compares to 2 hemorrhage-related deaths in those not on ATT. There was no significant difference in perioperative or postoperative bleeding based on ATT use. Patients on ATT were significantly more likely to experience 30-day mortality, however only one death was due to hemorrhage in the ATT group and was unrelated to tracheostomy. Therefore, continued perioperative ATT use appears to be safe when performing open tracheostomy. 4.

Management of Anticoagulation Therapy in ECMO-Associated Ischemic Stroke and Intracranial Hemorrhage.

Despite the common occurrence of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO)-associated acute ischemic stroke (AIS) and intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), there are little data to guide optimal anticoagulation management. We sought to describe antithrombotic therapy management after stroke and outcomes. A retrospective analysis was conducted of venoarterial (VA) and venovenous (VV) ECMO patients treated at a tertiary care center from June 2016 to February 2021. Patients with image-confirmed diagnosis of AIS or ICH while receiving ECMO were included for study with data collected regarding anticoagulation management and clinical outcomes. Overall, 216 patients (153 VA-ECMO, 63 VV-ECMO) were included in this study. Of the 153 patients on VA-ECMO, 13 (8.4%) had AIS and 6 (3.9%) had ICH. Of the 63 patients on VV-ECMO, none had AIS and 5 (7.9%) had ICH. One patient (9%) received anticoagulation reversal after ICH. Anticoagulation was discontinued and later resumed in all 5 ICH survivors (median cessation time, 30 h) and 1 of 2 (50%) AIS survivors (median cessation time, 96 h). While off anticoagulation, 2 of 11 patients (18%) had thromboembolic events and none had new AIS. Upon resumption, there were no cases of hemorrhagic transformation of AIS or ICH expansion. There was no difference in in-hospital mortality between patients with ICH and those without in both the VA-ECMO and VV-ECMO cohorts nor between VA-ECMO patients with AIS and those without. Early cessation and judicious resumption of anticoagulation appeared feasible in the cohort of patients with ECMO-associated AIS and ICH.

International alliance of Urolithiasis (IAU) guideline on percutaneous nephrolithotomy

The International Alliance of Urolithiasis (IAU) would like to release the latest guideline on percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and to provide a clinical framework for surgeons performing PCNL. These recommendations were collected and appraised from a systematic review and assessment of the literature covering all aspects of PCNLs from the PubMed database between January 1, 1976, and July 31, 2021. Each generated recommendation was graded using a modified GRADE methodology. The quality of the evidence was graded using a classification system modified from the Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence. Forty-seven recommendations were summarized and graded, which covered the following issues, indications and contraindications, stone complexity evaluation, preoperative imaging, antibiotic strategy, management of antithrombotic therapy, anesthesia, position, puncture, tracts, dilation, lithotripsy, intraoperative evaluation of residual stones, exit strategy, postoperative imaging and stone-free status evaluation, complications. The present guideline on PCNL was the first in the IAU series of urolithiasis management guidelines. The recommendations, tips and tricks across the PCNL procedures would provide adequate guidance for urologists performing PCNLs to ensure safety and efficiency in PCNLs.

Antithrombotic therapy and digestive endoscopy.

Antithrombotic therapy and digestive endoscopy Antithrombotic therapy comprises anticoagulation and antiplatelet treatment. The number of patients treated with various forms of antithrombotic therapy is growing. Procedures of digestive endoscopy are very frequently indicated by general practitioners and doctors of various specialisations. Interdisciplinary cooperation and mutual understanding are required in order for digestive endoscopy to be effective and safe. Hence, we present an overview based on recent European, British (1), and North American guidelines (2) for endoscopic procedures, with respect to guidelines for perioperative care in general (3). Antithrombotic therapy management in patients undergoing digestive endoscopy procedures is based on individual consideration of postprocedural bleeding (particularly a delayed one) on one hand, and thromboembolic risk on the other hand, ideally in cooperation with the physician prescribing antithrombotic therapy. Despite all efforts, patients taking antithrombotic medication are at a higher risk of postprocedural bleeding in comparison with those without this risk; this fact should be accepted by attending physicians and patients should be informed of it. Postprocedural bleeding is mostly manageable with a subsequent endoscopic procedure. By contrast, cerebral and cardiovascular thromboembolic complications are often life-threatening and not uncommonly disabling. One should always consider postponing an elective procedure in a patient with temporary antithrombotic therapy (after pulmonary embolism or after coronary stent insertion). Basic principles of administration of antithrombotic therapy in the context of an endoscopic procedure are described in Table 1. Digestive endoscopy procedures can be categorized according to postprocedural bleeding risk (Table 2). Postprocedural bleeding risk can be specifically reduced in some procedures (ERCP with papillary balloon dilation instead of sphincterotomy, mechanical securing of polypectomy base, etc.). Acetylsalicylic acid administered as secondary prevention (primary preventive indications are very narrow nowadays) should not be discontinued perioperatively (discontinuation is associated with an approximately threefold increase in thrombotic complications!). The riskiest procedures are the only exception in which discontinuation is explicitly requested by the digestive endoscopist. Reduction of dual antiplatelet therapy is better abandoned in high-risk patients - particularly those with recently implanted coronary stents (Table 3) - and postponement of an elective procedure should always be considered. Bridging of warfarin with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is not indicated routinely (in some cases, this practice increases the bleeding risk). Bridging with LMWH is appropriate in patients with high (or moderate) thromboembolic risk (Table 5). Furthermore, LMWH therapy carries specific risks, particularly in patients with renal function impairment (Table 4). In patients with a high thromboembolic risk, a statement of the physician indicating anticoagulation is always appropriate before an elective procedure (Table 6). Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) should not be administered on the day of the procedure, not even in one with a low risk (e.g., biopsy); a longer withdrawal is recommended in high-risk procedures (this cessation should not be bridged with LMWH given the rapid onset and elimination half-time) (Table 7). Recommencement of antithrombotic therapy after a high-risk endoscopic procedure should always be determined by the endoscopist and the recommended intervals should be considered minimal: 1-2 days after the procedure in the case of P2Y12 inhibitors; 2-3 days after the procedure in the case of DOACs; in the evening of the day of the procedure for warfarin with a maintenance (not saturation) dose; and 48 hours after the procedure in the case of LMWH at a therapeutic dose. Earlier administration of a lower-than-therapeutic dose of LMWH (twice a day per weight) can be considered in this context: prophylactic (once a day) or higher prophylactic (once a day per weight) doses. In general, a full anticoagulation effect should not be achieved earlier than approximately 48 hours after the procedure. The patient should be properly informed of the course of antithrombotic therapy before and after the endoscopic procedure, including a written form (a calendar can be downloaded online for this purpose).