Periprocedural Anticoagulation Management Research Articles

A Tool Integrated into the Electronic Health Record to Guide Proper Decision-Making Regarding Peri-Endoscopic Anticoagulant Management: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Background-Anticoagulants, such as vitamin-K antagonists (VKA) and direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC), are widely used among patients who undergo endoscopic procedures. To balance between bleeding and thromboembolic risks, careful decisions must be made about whether and for how long anticoagulants have to be stopped peri-endoscopically and if bridging is necessary. We created a tool in the electronic health records system (EHR) HIX (Microsoft) for invasive procedures to aid this decision-making. By selecting the anticoagulant indication or thrombo-embolic risk and the bleeding risk of the procedure, the tool automatically generates advice for periprocedural anticoagulant management. Objectives-This study assesses whether the tool is used properly peri-endoscopically. Secondly, it examines how many bleeding and thromboembolic events have occurred since the implementation of the tool. Methods-This retrospective study included all orders placed for endoscopies for patients using VKA or DOAC between 2018 and 2021. Results-In total, 986 endoscopies were included for analysis. In 89%, the tool was used correctly; the main error was selecting the wrong bleeding risk (7.5%). The cumulative incidence for moderate or severe bleeding events for DOAC and VKA was 2 (0.5%) and 0, respectively. The cumulative incidence of thromboembolic events for DOAC and VKA was 1 (0.2%) for each. Conclusions-This study evaluates the use of an EHR-integrated decision-making tool to aid peri-endoscopic anticoagulant management. By analysing the usage of the tool, we formulated several suggestions to improve the tool. Although this study is not a comparative one, we can conclude that the thromboembolic and major bleeding risks were low.

Periprocedural Anticoagulation Management of Patients Undergoing Colonoscopy with Polypectomy.

Introduction/Objective Colonoscopy with polypectomy is an integral component of colorectal cancer screening. There are limited data and consensus on periprocedural anticoagulation management, especially regarding bleeding risk with uninterrupted anticoagulation and thromboembolic risk with interruption. Our aim was to determine the incidence of bleeding and thromboembolic complications among colon screening participants undergoing colonoscopy following implementation of a novel patient care pathway for standardized periprocedural anticoagulation management. Methods We conducted a retrospective study including all participants (age 50-74) on an oral anticoagulant (e.g., vitamin K antagonists, direct oral anticoagulants) referred to the British Columbia Colon Screening Program for colonoscopy following abnormal fecal immunochemical test in a 6-month period (March-August 2022). Data relating to their specific periprocedural anticoagulant management and colonoscopy results including method of polypectomy were obtained. Primary outcomes were major bleeding and arterial or venous thromboembolic events from time of oral anticoagulant interruption until 14 days of postcolonoscopy. Secondary outcomes included nonmajor and minor bleeding, acute coronary syndrome, emergency room visit, hospital admission, and death due to any cause. Results Over the 6-month period, 162 participants completed standardized periprocedural anticoagulation management, colonoscopy ± polypectomy, and 14-day follow-up. One (0.6%) had a major bleeding event and one (0.6%) had an arterial thromboembolic event. Conclusions A novel patient care pathway for standardized periprocedural anticoagulation management with a multidisciplinary team is associated with low rates of major bleeding and thrombotic complications after colonoscopy with polypectomy.

In-Hospital Pulmonary Arterial Embolism after Catheter Ablation of Over 45,000 Cardiac Arrhythmias: Individualized Case Analysis of Multicentric Data.

Data on incidence of in-hospital pulmonary embolisms (PE) after catheter ablation (CA) are scarce. To gain further insights, we sought to provide new findings through case-based analyses of administrative data. Incidences of PE after CA of supraventricular tachycardias (SVT), atrial fibrillation (AF), atrial flutter (AFlu), and ventricular tachycardias (VT) in three German tertiary centers between 2005 and 2020 were determined and coded by the G-DRG (German Diagnosis Related Groups System) and OPS (German Operation and Procedure Classification) systems. An administrative search was performed with a consecutive case-based analysis. Overall, 47,344 ablations were analyzed (10,037 SVT; 28,048 AF; 6,252 AFlu; 3,007 VT). PE occurred in 14 (0.03%) predominantly female (n = 9; 64.3%) patients with a mean age of 55.3 ± 16.9 years, body mass index 26.2 ± 5.1 kg/m2, and left ventricular ejection fraction of 56 ± 13.6%. PE incidences were 0.05% (n = 5) for SVT, 0.02% (n = 5) for AF, and 0.13% (n = 4) for VT ablations. No patient suffered PE after AFlu ablation. Five patients (35.7%) with PE after CA had no prior indication for oral anticoagulation (OAC). Preprocedural international normalized ratio in PE patients was 1.2 ± 0.5. Most patients with PE following CA presented with symptoms the day after the procedure (n = 9) after intraprocedural heparin application of 12,943.2 ± 5,415.5 IU. PE treatment included anticoagulation with either phenprocoumon (n = 5) or non-vitamin K-dependent OAC (n = 9). Two patients with PE died after VT/AF ablation, respectively. The remaining patients were discharged without sequels. Over a 15-year period, incidence of PE after ablation is low, particularly low in patients with ablation for AF/AFlu. This is most likely due to stricter anticoagulation management in these patients compared with those receiving SVT/VT ablation procedures and could argue for continuation of OAC prior to ablation. Optimizing periprocedural anticoagulation management should be subject of further prospective trials.

Management of edoxaban therapy and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing major or nonmajor surgery: a subanalysis of the EMIT-AF/VTE study

BackgroundOptimising periprocedural management of direct oral anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation on chronic treatment undergoing major surgeries is an important aspect of balancing the risk of surgery-related bleeding with the risk of thromboembolic events, which may vary by surgery type.MethodsThis subanalysis of the prospective EMIT-AF/VTE programme assessed periprocedural-edoxaban management, according to physicians’ decisions, and bleeding and thromboembolic event rates in patients who underwent major vs. nonmajor surgeries. Edoxaban interruption and clinical outcomes were compared between major vs. nonmajor surgeries and between renal function subgroups (creatinine clearance [CrCL] ≤ 50 mL/min vs. > 50 mL/min).ResultsWe included 276 major and 512 nonmajor surgeries. The median pre- and postprocedural duration of edoxaban interruption in major vs. nonmajor surgeries was 4 vs. 1 days, whereas median duration of interruption for those with preprocedural-only and postprocedural-only interruption was 2 vs. 1 days and 2 vs. 0 days, respectively (P < 0.0001). Rates of all bleeding and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding were numerically higher in major vs. nonmajor surgeries. Event rates (number of events per 100 surgeries) were low overall (< 6 events per 100 surgeries), independent of renal function subgroups.ConclusionIn this subanalysis of the EMIT-AF/VTE programme, periprocedural-edoxaban interruption was significantly longer in patients undergoing major vs. nonmajor surgery. This clinician-driven approach was associated with low rates of bleeding and thromboembolic events following both major and nonmajor surgeries.Trial registrationNCT02950168, registered October 31, 2016; NCT02951039, registered November 1, 2016.

Periprocedural management of direct oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation and active cancer

BackgroundCancer 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. ObjectivesTo describe patient characteristics, periprocedural management, and clinical outcomes in DOAC-treated patients with AF according to active cancer status. MethodsWe 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. ResultsPatients 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. ConclusionsActive 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.

Thromboembolic and bleeding complications during interruptions and after discontinuation of anticoagulant treatment in patients with atrial fibrillation and active cancer: A daily practice evaluation

Background and aimsCancer provides challenges to the continuity of anticoagulant treatment in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), e.g. through cancer-related surgery or complications. We aimed to provide data on the incidence and reasons for interrupting and discontinuing anticoagulant treatment in AF patients with cancer and to assess its contribution to the risk of thromboembolism (TE) and major bleeding (MB). MethodsThis retrospective study identified AF patients with cancer in two hospitals between 2012 and 2017. Data on anticoagulant treatment, TE and MB were collected during two-year follow-up. Incidence rates (IR) per 100 patient-years and adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) were obtained for TE and MB occurring during on- and off-anticoagulant treatment, during interruption and after resumption, and after permanent discontinuation. Results1213 AF patients with cancer were identified, of which 140 patients permanently discontinued anticoagulants and 426 patients experienced one or more interruptions. Anticoagulation was most often interrupted or discontinued due to cancer-related treatment (n = 441, 62 %), bleeding (n = 129, 18 %) or end of life (n = 36, 5 %). The risk of TE was highest off-anticoagulation and during interruptions, with IRs of 19 (14–25)) and 105 (64–13), and aHRs of 3.1 (1.9–5.0) and 4.6 (2.4–9.0), respectively. Major bleeding risk were not only increased during an interruption, but also in the first 30 days after resumption, with IRs of 33 (12–72) and 30 (17–48), and aHRs of 3.3 (1.1–9.8) and 2.4 (1.2–4.6), respectively. ConclusionsInterruption of anticoagulation therapy harbors high TE and MB risk in AF patients with cancer. The high incidence rates call for better (periprocedural) anticoagulant management strategies tailored to the cancer setting.

Standardizing periprocedural anticoagulation management: a stewardship initiative.

Study data indicates anticoagulant interruption peri-procedurally can increase the risk of anticoagulation-related bleeding and thrombosis. Management of anticoagulated patients during the peri-procedural period poses clinical challenges given the potential for thrombosis and bleeding in this complex, high risk population. As such, there is a need for enhanced emphasis on anticoagulated patient care throughout the peri-procedural period with the goal of optimizing patient safety and efficacy. To operationalize an effective, efficient, comprehensive, and standardized anticoagulation management peri-procedural process housed within the electronic health record (EHR). The IPRO-MAPPP clinical decision support logic was adapted into a nurse-managed protocol to guide anticoagulation therapy use during the elective peri-procedural period at Bassett Medical Center, an Anticoagulation Forum Center of Excellence. A second phase of this initiative endorsed peri-procedural warfarin and bridging management by the Anticoagulation Management Service. Outcomes revealed 30-day hospital or emergency department admissions remained at or below 1% of the surgical patient population, and below the published national standards for both phases of implementation. Further, no emergent anticoagulation reversal agent use was attributed to peri-procedural care during the assessment period. The phased implementation of this Anticoagulation Stewardship initiative in elective peri-procedural anticoagulation management successfully describes the operationalization and demonstration of high-quality care and low provider practice variation from policy. The integration of clinical decision support systems, in consort with effective communication, via the EHR, provides stability, sustainability, and drives high quality care to optimize patient outcomes.

Periprocedural Anticoagulation.

Management of patients taking anticoagulants around the time of a procedure is a common and complex clinical scenario. Providing evidence-based care requires estimation of risk for thrombosis and bleeding, knowledge of commonly used medications, multidisciplinary communication and collaboration, and patient engagement and education. This review provides a standardized, evidence-based approach to periprocedural management of anticoagulation, based on current evidence and expert clinical guidelines.

Outcomes of leadless pacemaker implantation in patients with mechanical heart valves.

Device infections constitute a major complication of transvenous pacemakers. Mechanical heart valves (MHV) increase the risk of infective endocarditis (IE) and pacemaker infection, requiring lifelong vitamin K-antagonists (VKA), which may affect patient management. Leadless pacemakers (LP) are associated with low infection rates, posing an attractive option in MHV patients requiring permanent pacing. This study describes outcomes following LP implantation in patients with MHV. This is a multicenter, observational, retrospective study including consecutive patients implanted with an LP at 5 centers between June 2015 and January 2020. Procedural outcomes, antithrombotic management, complications, performance during follow-up and episodes of bacteremia and IE were compared between patients with and without an MHV (MHV and non-MHV groups). Four hundred fifty-nine patients were included (74 in the MHV group, 16.1%, and 385 in the non-MHV group, 83.9%). Procedural outcomes and acute electrical performance were comparable between groups. Vascular complications and cardiac perforation occurred in 2.7 versus 2.3% (p = 1) and 0% versus 0.8% (p = 1) in the MHV group and non-MHV group. One case of IE occurred in the MHV group and 2 in the non-MHV group. In MHV patients, uninterrupted VKA was used in 83.8%, whereas 16.2% were heparin-bridged. Vascular complication or tamponade occurred in 1 (8.3%) MHV heparin-bridged patient versus 1 (1.6%) MHV uninterrupted VKA patient (p = .3). LP implantation outcomes in MHV patients are comparable to the general LP population. Device-related infections are rare following LP implantation, including in patients with MHV. In the MHV group, periprocedural anticoagulation management was not associated with significantly different rates of tamponade or vascular complication.

Management of anticoagulant treatment in patients who need non-cardiac surgery

The periprocedural management of anticoagulation in patients who require non-cardiac surgery is a common clinical problem due to the aging of the population associated with both an increase in the use of anticoagulants and a higher need for surgery. If surgery is needed in a patient on anticoagulant therapy, regardless of the drug used, it is necessary to consider the urgency of the surgical procedure and the balance between the thromboembolic risk related to the discontinuation of therapy and the hemorrhagic risk related to the surgical procedure itself. Finally, a topic still much discussed that derives from the combined evaluation of these factors is the possible indication of a bridge therapy (“bridging anticoagulation”) to limit the thromboembolic risk related to the discontinuation of treatment. The different strategies in patients under antivitamin K and direct oral anticoagulants are reviewed.

Development of Psoas Hematoma After Lumbar Sympathetic Block in a Patient on Anticoagulants

BACKGROUND: Lumbar sympathetic blocks (LSB) play an important role in the therapeutic management of patients who suffer from neuropathic pain conditions such as complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS). LSB is a generally safe and well-tolerated procedure, however rare complications may occur. While case reports of iliopsoas hematomas related to bleeding disorders, surgical interventions, and trauma are well reported in the literature, similar complications after LSB have not been reported. CASE REPORT: Development of an 18 x 6.1-cm hematoma in the left iliopsoas muscle after a fluoroscopically-guided LSB in an anticoagulated patient despite following recommended periprocedural anticoagulation management guidelines resulted in pain, impaired mobility, and likely femoral neuropathy. CONCLUSION: Pain management physicians should be aware that hematomas are a possible complication of LSB and should weigh the risks and benefits of holding anticoagulation therapy in patients undergoing such procedures. KEY WORDS: Anticoagulation, complex regional pain syndrome, hematoma, lumbar sympathetic block, lumbar sympathetic block complications

Management of patients receiving novel antithrombotic treatment in endodontic practice: Review and clinical recommendations

Cardiovascular diseases are a major component of non-communicable diseases and death, with thrombosis constituting the most common underlying pathosis of the three major cardiovascular disorders: ischaemic heart disease (acute coronary syndrome), stroke and venous thromboembolism (VTE). The introduction of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in recent years has necessitated a more complex approach to periprocedural and perioperative anticoagulation management and the need for revised management strategies and protocols. Currently, patients taking classic oral anticoagulants are advised to stop taking the drugs and have their INR values checked 72h prior to dental surgery (e.g., apical surgery, tooth extraction, and periodontal surgery) and checked again 24h prior to the procedure to ensure it is within the therapeutic range. However, the current incorporation of these novel DOACs in routine medical practice requires changes in the way patients are managed preoperatively in dentistry, and specifically in endodontic surgery. The methodology applied in this review included searching for relevant articles in the PubMed database using keywords listed in the Entree Terms databases. Articles published on human blood clotting mechanism, antithrombotic drugs, as well as treatment guidelines and recommendations for dentistry were retrieved. In addition, textbooks and guidelines that may not have surfaced in the online search were searched manually. The aim of this paper was to review the mechanisms of action of classic and novel antithrombotic medications and their impact on endodontic treatment and the management of local haemostasis in endodontics.

Anticoagulation in special patient populations with atrial fibrillation

Anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) should be guided by considerations of the risk of thromboembolism, stroke, and bleeding as well as the patient's preference. Well-recognized scores have been developed to help the clinician in daily risk assessment, but there are several special patient populations for whom scores are not developed or validated. Furthermore, these patients were not adequately represented in the pivotal randomized trials for non-vitaminK antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs). In patients with cancer, the intrinsic hypercoagulable state has to be balanced against an increased risk of bleeding, and adynamic concept should be applied, taking into account the cancer type, current disease state, therapeutic strategy, and patient-related factors, with NOACs playing an increasingly larger role. In women with planned pregnancy or already pregnant, NOACs should be avoided. However, accidental exposure during pregnancy should not lead to recommendations for pregnancy termination in view of current observational data. Whether patients on dialysis with AF benefit from anticoagulation at all is questionable. But if the decision for anticoagulation is made, NOACs may contribute to amore favorable risk-benefit profile than vitamin-K antagonists. Finally, patients on the ward deserve special considerations regarding periprocedural management of anticoagulation. Although for the majority of procedures ashort discontinuation of oral anticoagulation seems appropriate, there are some low-bleeding-risk procedures that do not require cessation. The aim of the present review is to discuss the major particularities of these four patient subgroups and thus to facilitate the clinical decision-making.

A Simple Quality Initiative Significantly Improves Post-Procedural Documentation of an Anticoagulation Plan After Elective Endoscopy

Anticoagulation therapy increases the risk of bleeding from endoscopic procedures. Clear documentation of a post-procedural anticoagulation plan is essential to reduce bleeding and limit unnecessary interruptions in patients’ anticoagulation. Societal guidelines provide recommendations regarding the management of peri-procedural anticoagulation and consider this a quality metric for endoscopy. In this study, we measured the rate of documentation of a post-procedural anticoagulation plan before and after the implementation of a quality initiative.

Periprocedural anticoagulation management in edxoaban patients undergoing catheter-based cardiovascular procedures: analyses of the noninterventional global EMIT study

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: Private company. Main funding source(s): Daiichi Sankyo Background The optimal periprocedural management of direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC), including edoxaban, in patients undergoing catheter-based cardiovascular procedures is unknown, and mainly based on physician opinion and experience. Purpose To assess real-world management of edoxaban in patients undergoing cardiovascular procedures, and to report their clinical events. Methods Global EMIT-AF/VTE is a prospective study of periprocedural management in edoxaban-treated patients undergoing diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. We report the data from patients undergoing cardiovascular procedures. Timing and duration of edoxaban interruption were at the treating physician’s discretion. Outcomes were collected from 5 days before until 30 days post procedure. Primary outcome was the incidence of major bleeding (MB); secondary outcomes included incidence of clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB) and acute thromboembolic events (ATE). Results Data was collected from 301 and 311 procedures with arterial or venous access, respectively. Baseline characteristics are shown in Table 1. Edoxaban was not interrupted in 36.9% of arterial and 52.7% of venous procedures. Edoxaban was interrupted pre-procedure in 41% of arterial and 32.8% of venous procedures. The median periprocedural interruption was 2 days. The overall incidence of bleeding was very low. Any bleeding was reported in 8 patients undergoing arterial and 10 patients undergoing venous procedures (2.7% and 3.2%). MB or CRNMB occurred in 2 arterial and 3 venous procedures (0.7% and 1.0%) and ATE occurred in 5 arterial and 1 venous procedure (1.7% and 0.3%, Table 1). Conclusions In this study, the periprocedural risks of bleeding and thrombotic events were low. About a third of arterial access procedures and half of venous access procedures were performed without edoxaban interruption. Arterial(n = 301) Venous(n = 311) Baseline characteristics Age, year, mean (SD)Male, n (%)Weight (kg), mean (SD) 71.9 (8.5)211 (70.1%)80.8 (16.7) 64.6 (11.1)215 (69.1%)84.1 (17.4) CrCL (mL/min), mean (SD) CHA2DS2-VASc score, mean (SD)HAS-BLED score, mean (SD) 73.5 (29.8) 3.3 (1.5)2.0 (1.0) 88.9 (35.5) 2.2 (1.5)1.3 (1.0) Edoxaban 60 mg / 30 mg, % 73% / 26% 88% / 26% Coronary heart disease, n (%) Congestive heart failure, n (%) 101 (33.6%) 58 (19.3%) 51 (16.4%) 33 (10.6%) Interruption of edoxaban, n (%) No interruption Pre-procedure only Post-procedure only Pre- and post-procedure 111 (36.9%)125 (41.5%)12 (4.0%)53 (17.6%) 164 (52.7%)102 (32.8%)8 (2.6%)37 (11.9%) Clinical events, n (%) MB or CRNMBACSStroke/Transient ischemic attackCV mortalityAll-cause mortality 2 (0.7%)2 (0.7%)3 (1.0%)1 (0.3%)2 (0.7%) 3 (1.0%) 01 (0.3%)00

Periprocedural Management of Anticoagulation in the Era of Direct Acting Oral Anticoagulants

Periprocedural Management of Anticoagulation in the Era of Direct Acting Oral Anticoagulants

Periprocedural Anticoagulation and Antiplatelet Medications Management for Interventional Radiology Procedures

Periprocedural Anticoagulation and Antiplatelet Medications Management for Interventional Radiology Procedures

Reopening Interventional Pain Practices during the Early Phase of the COVID-19 Global Pandemic.

ObjectiveExamine how interventional pain physicians navigated the early phase of reopening practices during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.MethodsIn June/July 2020, Spine Intervention Society members were queried about practice demographics, perception of COVID-19 prevalence, financial impact, and implementation of new tools and procedures when re-opening practices.ResultsOf the 2,295 members approached, 195 (8%) completed the survey. A majority (71%) reported using risk stratification tools and changing scheduling patterns. Nearly 70% performed initial assessments via telehealth and 87% for follow-up encounters. More than 80% performed symptom/temperature checks upon in-person clinic/facility entrance, and 63% screened patients via phone. Most (58%) did not test patients for COVID-19 for office visits, while 38% tested only if symptomatic. For epidural injections, intra-articular injections, and radiofrequency neurotomy procedures, 43% reported not testing patients, while 36% tested patients only if symptomatic. Most (70%) required patients to wear a mask upon entering the clinic/facility. For nonprocedure encounters, respondents used surgical masks (85%), gloves (35%), face shields/goggles (24%), N95 respirators (15%), and gowns (6%). Some (66%) discussed unique COVID-19 risks/complications and 26% provided written information. Most did not make changes to steroid dosage (67%) or peri-procedural anticoagulation management (97%). The vast majority (81%) estimated that COVID-19 will have a moderate-severe financial impact on their practice.ConclusionsCOVID-19 has dramatically affected interventional pain practices with regard to telehealth, in-clinic precautions, screening/testing protocols, and patient counseling. Practice patterns will continue to evolve as we learn more about the disease and improve methods to provide safe and effective care.

Periprocedural Anticoagulation Management of Patients receiving Warfarin in Qatar: A Prospective Cohort Study

Background: The use of anticoagulant bridging remains controversial. This study was conducted to evaluate our warfarin periprocedural management in Qatar and investigate the associated clinical outcomes with such management. Methods: A prospective cohort study was designed to describe the periprocedural clinical practice in warfarin patients in Qatar and to compare clinical safety and efficacy outcomes between anticoagulant bridging and nonbridging. Results: 103 patients were recruited. Bridging occurred in 82% of the participants. No thromboembolic events were observed, while 39.1% of patients experienced bleeding events during the study period. The incidence of overall bleeding and major bleeding were numerically higher for bridging group compared to nonbridging but did not reach statistical significance ([30.6% vs 22.2%, P = 0.478] and [12.9% vs 5.6%, P = 0.375], respectively). Conclusion: Warfarin interruption and bridging are overwhelmingly used in warfarin-treated patients in Qatar. While bridging was numerically associated with increased bleeding events, there is no statistical difference in reported clinical events between bridging and nonbridging strategies.

Anticoagulation and bone marrow biopsy: is it safe to proceed?

ABSTRACT Background Bone marrow (BM) biopsy is the most common diagnostic procedure in hematology. Bleeding is an expected complication, and its risk is assumed to be increased in patients on anticoagulants. However, the effect of anticoagulation on BM biopsy safety is unclear and guidelines are lacking robust data in this regard. As such, physicians use their clinical judgement to guide periprocedural management of anticoagulation. objective To provide the best available evidence regarding management of anticoagulation in patients who need BM biopsy. Methods We reviewed and summarized available guidelines directing management of periprocedural anticoagulation for BM biopsy, and share our experience and practices with BM biopsy at our institution. Results The incidence of significant hemorrhage after BM biopsy is very low (0.007–1.1%). BM biopsy is classified as having a low to moderate bleeding risk. Interrupting anticoagulation is not consistently recommended. Strategies exist to minimize bleeding risk for anticoagulated patients. Patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms can develop an acquired von Willebrand syndrome which increases their risk for bleeding and therefore require extra vigilance to ensure appropriate hemostasis. Conclusion Withholding anticoagulation prior to BM biopsy is not routinely recommended. Instead, assessment and optimization of bleeding risk factors should be done on a patient by patient basis.