Periprocedural Anticoagulation Management Research Articles

Periprocedural Anticoagulation Management of Patients With Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation

Periprocedural Anticoagulation Management of Patients With Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation

EVALUATION AND TREATMENT OF PATIENTS WITH SUSPECTED NORMAL PRESSURE HYDROCEPHALUS ON LONG-TERM WARFARIN ANTICOAGULATION THERAPY

Long-term anticoagulation is often considered a contraindication to shunt surgery for elderly patients with normal pressure hydrocephalus (NPH). However, no studies have investigated this question. We evaluated 25 patients who were taking warfarin for NPH between 2001 and 2004 with a protocol of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) pressure monitoring and controlled CSF drainage via spinal catheter. Warfarin was stopped 5 to 7 days before lumbar puncture or shunt surgery and restarted 3 to 5 days after operation or at the time of discharge from the hospital. Programmable shunts with antisiphon devices set at the high-pressure range were preferentially used and adjusted in small increments. After CSF drainage, 16 patients showed improvement and 15 underwent shunt surgery. Thirteen (87%) out of these 15 patients showed significant improvement in at least one symptom during a mean follow-up period of 8.2 months (range, 1-70 mo) after shunt surgery. There were two bleeding complications. One patient (6.7%) with cirrhosis who developed a subdural hematoma 13 days after operation had the shunt removed; another patient who developed an abdominal subcutaneous hematoma 5 days after operation required surgical evacuation and shunt revision surgery. Otherwise, 14 (93.3%) out of the 15 patients had no subdural hematoma during the follow-up period and there were no thromboembolic complications while the patients were not taking warfarin. Elderly patients on long-term warfarin anticoagulation can be safely evaluated and treated for NPH using a protocol of continuous CSF drainage via spinal catheter for diagnosis, cautious periprocedural management of anticoagulation, and use of programmable shunts with antisiphon devices. The risk of subdural hematoma is not higher than reported series. Long-term anticoagulation with warfarin is not a contraindication per se for shunt surgery in NPH.

Adherence to American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guidelines for the Management of Anticoagulation in Patients With Mechanical Valves Undergoing Elective Outpatient Procedures

This study sought to establish the practice patterns of a diverse group of academic physicians, in the management of periprocedural anticoagulation for patients with mechanical heart valves, to study adherence to American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines. Physicians (n = 140) were surveyed to assess strategies for the periprocedural anticoagulation of patients with bileaflet mechanical heart valves undergoing 2 common outpatient procedures. Six patient scenarios with graded risk profiles were presented for each valve location (mitral and aortic). In >90% of high-risk patient scenarios, for which the ACC/AHA guidelines recommend periprocedural anticoagulation, anticoagulation was recommended, with minimal differences between physician specialties. However, periprocedural anticoagulation was also recommended in >70% of non-high-risk scenarios, for which the ACC/AHA guidelines recommend no periprocedural anticoagulation. Noncardiologists recommended anticoagulation more often in non-high-risk patients (p <0.01), especially for patients with aortic valve prostheses. Thus, academic physicians appropriately recommend periprocedural anticoagulation for high-risk patients with mechanical heart valves who undergo elective procedures. However, these data specifically suggest variability in practice for non-high-risk patients that are discordant with current ACC/AHA guidelines, with differences by treating specialty especially notable in this risk subset.

Therapy Insight: management of urology patients taking long-term warfarin anticoagulation therapy

Chronic warfarin anticoagulation is commonly used to prevent thromboembolism in patients with atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism, and in the management of patients with mechanical heart valves. Interruption of long-term anticoagulation therapy for elective, planned urologic procedures in these patients creates a complex situation in which competing risks of thrombosis and hemorrhage must be managed; when anticoagulation is withheld patients are at risk of thrombosis, and when it is restarted they are at risk of hemorrhage. Patients at a high risk of thrombosis are typically given bridging therapy with heparin to reduce the amount of time without anticoagulation. Outcomes from bridging therapy are influenced by patient characteristics, including the risk of thromboembolism from underlying medical conditions and the risk of perioperative bleeding, and by characteristics of the procedures themselves. The safety and efficacy of different approaches are not well documented. Data regarding periprocedural anticoagulation management of urology patients is limited and principally describes outcomes related to transurethral prostate surgery. Results from these studies indicate that various strategies of anticoagulation interruption and bridging therapy result in low frequencies of thromboembolism, but variable rates of hemorrhage. Patients on anticoagulation therapy who are due to undergo invasive urologic procedures that have a low risk of developing thromboembolism can discontinue warfarin 4-5 days before the procedure, and resume it postprocedure. Bridging therapy to prevent thrombosis is necessary for patients at a higher risk of developing thromboembolism. Future research should develop strategies to maintain low rates of thrombosis but reduce the frequency of postoperative hemorrhage.

Periprocedural Management of Anticoagulation in Patients on Extended Warfarin Therapy

Patients receiving chronic anticoagulation therapy pose a clinical challenge when therapy needs to be interrupted for surgical or invasive procedures. Maintaining anticoagulation places them at risk of serious bleeding complications, whereas discontinuing anticoagulation puts them at risk of thromboembolic complications. The main patient groups that may require a periprocedural alternative to oral anticoagulation include patients with prosthetic heart valves, atrial fibrillation, and hypercoagulable states and those with chronic venous thrombosis undergoing surgery. Currently, there is little consensus on appropriate perioperative management of patients on long-term warfarin therapy. This article is an attempt to bring together all the available data on periprocedural bridging to assess the available options for patients undergoing surgical procedures and to provide a rationale for using low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) while individualizing the risks versus benefits in a given patient population.

Determinants of the still-face phenomenon by 2 to 6-month-olds

Chronic oral anticoagulation frequently requires interruption for various reasons and durations. Whether or not to bridge with heparin or other anticoagulants is a common clinical dilemma. The evidence to inform decision making is limited, making current guidelines equivocal and imprecise. Moreover, indications for anticoagulation interruption may be unclear. New observational studies and a recent large randomized trial have noted significant perioperative or periprocedural bleeding rates without reduction in thromboembolism when bridging is employed. Such bleeding may also increase morbidity and mortality. In light of these findings, physician preferences for routine bridging anticoagulation during chronic anticoagulation interruptions may be too aggressive. More randomized trials, such as PERIOP2 (A Double Blind Randomized Control Trial of Post-Operative Low Molecular Weight Heparin Bridging Therapy Versus Placebo Bridging Therapy for Patients Who Are at High Risk for Arterial Thromboembolism), will help guide periprocedural management of anticoagulation for indications such as venous thromboembolism and mechanical heart valves. In the meantime, physicians should carefully consider both the need for oral anticoagulation interruption and the practice of routine bridging when anticoagulation interruption is indicated.