Periprocedural Heparin Bridging Research Articles

Thromboembolic and bleeding risk of periprocedural bridging anticoagulation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

The risk and benefit of periprocedural heparin bridging is not completely clarified. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of bridging anticoagulation prior to invasive procedures or surgery. Heparin bridging was associated with lower risks of thromboembolism and bleeding compared to non‐bridging. PubMed, Ovid and Elsevier, and Cochrane Library (2000‐2016) were searched for English‐language studies. Studies comparing interrupted anticoagulation with or without bridging and continuous oral anticoagulation in patients at moderate‐to‐high thromboembolic risk before invasive procedures were included. Primary outcomes were thromboembolic events and bleeding events. Mantel‐Haenszel method and random‐effects models were used to analyze the pooled risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for thromboembolic and bleeding risks. Eighteen studies (six randomized controlled trials and 12 cohort studies) were included (N = 23 364). There was no difference in thromboembolic risk between bridged and non‐bridged patients (RR: 1.26, 95% CI: 0.61‐2.58; RCTs: RR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.23‐2.24; cohorts: RR: 1.45, 95% CI: 0.63‐3.37). However, bridging anticoagulation was associated with higher risk of overall bleeding (RR: 2.83, 95% CI: 2.00‐4.01; RCTs: RR: 2.24, 95% CI: 0.99‐5.09; cohorts: RR: 3.09, 95% CI: 2.07‐4.62) and major bleeding (RR: 3.00, 95% CI: 1.78‐5.06; RCTs: RR: 2.48, 95% CI: 1.29‐4.76; cohorts: RR: 3.22, 95% CI: 1.65‐6.32). Bridging anticoagulation was associated with increased bleeding risk compared to non‐bridging. Thromboembolism risk was similar between two strategies. Our results do not support routine use of bridging during anticoagulation interruption.

Continuous Anticoagulation and Cold Snare Polypectomy Versus Heparin Bridging and Hot Snare Polypectomy in Patients on Anticoagulants With Subcentimeter Polyps

Management of anticoagulants for patients undergoing polypectomy is still controversial. Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) is reported to cause less bleeding than hot snare polypectomy (HSP). To compare outcomes between continuous administration of anticoagulants (CA) with CSP (CA+CSP) and periprocedural heparin bridging (HB) with HSP (HB+HSP) for subcentimeter colorectal polyps. Multicenter, parallel, noninferiority randomized controlled trial. (University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry: UMIN000019355). 30 Japanese institutions. Patients receiving anticoagulant therapy (warfarin or direct oral anticoagulants) who had at least 1 nonpedunculated subcentimeter colorectal polyp. Patients were randomly assigned to undergo HB+HSP or CA+CSP and followed up 28 days after polypectomy. The primary end point was incidence of polypectomy-related major bleeding (based on the incidence of poorly controlled intraprocedural bleeding or postpolypectomy bleeding requiring endoscopic hemostasis). The prespecified inferiority margin was -5% (CA+CSP vs. HB+HSP). A total of 184 patients were enrolled: 90 in the HB+HSP group, 92 in the CA+CSP group, and 2 who declined to participate after enrollment. The incidence of polypectomy-related major bleeding in the HB+HSP and CA+CSP groups was 12.0% (95% CI, 5.0% to 19.1%) and 4.7% (CI, 0.2% to 9.2%), respectively. The intergroup difference for the primary end point was +7.3% (CI, -1.0% to 15.7%), with a 0.4% lower limit of 2-sided 90% CI, demonstrating the noninferiority of CA+CSP. The mean procedure time for each polyp and the hospitalization period were longer in the HB+HSP than in the CA+CSP group. An open-label trial assessing 2 factors (anticoagulation approach and polypectomy procedure type) simultaneously. Patients having CA+CSP for subcentimeter colorectal polyps who were receiving oral anticoagulants did not have an increased incidence of polypectomy-related major bleeding, and procedure time and hospitalization were shorter than in those having HB+HSP. Japanese Gastroenterological Association.

Periprocedural heparin bridging in patients receiving oral anticoagulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundPeriprocedural heparin bridging therapy aims to reduce the risk of thromboembolic events in patients requiring an interruption in their anticoagulation therapy for the purpose of an elective procedure. The efficacy and safety of heparin bridging therapy has not been well established.ObjectivesTo compare through meta-analysis the effects of heparin bridging therapy on the risk of major bleeding and thromboembolic events of clinical significance among patients taking oral anticoagulants.MethodsWe searched PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane library from January 2005 to July 2016. Studies were included if they reported clinical outcomes of patients receiving heparin bridging therapy during interruption of oral anticoagulant for operations. Data were pooled using random-effects modeling.ResultsA total of 25 studies, including 6 randomized controlled trials and 19 observational studies, were finally included in this analysis. Among all the 35,944 patients, 10,313 patients were assigned as heparin bridging group, and the other 25,631 patients were non-heparin bridging group. Overall, compared with patients without bridging therapy, heparin bridging therapy increased the risk of major bleeding (OR = 3.23, 95%CI: 2.06–5.05), minor bleeding (OR = 1.52, 95%CI: 1.06–2.18) and overall bleeding (OR = 2.83, 95%CI: 1.86–4.30).While there was no significant difference in thromboembolic events (OR = 0.99,95%CI: 0.49–2.00), stroke or transient ischemic attack(OR = 1.45, 95%CI: 0.93–2.26,) or all-cause mortality (OR = 0.71, 95%CI: 0.31–1.65).ConclusionsHeparin-bridging therapy increased the risk of major and minor bleeding without decreasing the risk of thromboembolic events and all cause death compared to non-heparin bridging.

GW28-e0925 Periprocedural heparin bridging in patients receiving oral anticoagulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

To perform a meta-analysis to compare the effects of bridging therapy on the risk of major bleeding and thromboembolic events. We searched PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane library from January 2005 to July 2016. Studies were included if they reported clinical outcomes of patients receiving heparin

Perioperative Heparin Bridging in Atrial Fibrillation Patients Requiring Temporary Interruption of Anticoagulation: Evidence from Meta-analysis

Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) often require temporary interruption of warfarin for an elective operation or invasive procedure. However, the safety and efficacy of periprocedural bridging anticoagulation with unfractionated heparin (UH) or low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) are still unclear. We evaluated the safety of periprocedural heparin bridging in AF patients requiring temporary interruption of oral anticoagulation. We searched the literature for trials that compared heparin bridging with no bridging in AF patients for whom warfarin was temporarily interrupted. The incidence of all-cause mortality, thromboembolism, and major and all bleeding was included, and meta-analysis was performed. A total of 13,808 patients with AF were included in 4 observational studies, 1 randomized trial, and 1 subgroup analysis of a randomized trial. The mean CHADS2 score for the no heparin bridging group was 2.49 and that for the heparin bridging group was 2.34. At 30 days and up to 3 months, when compared to the heparin bridging group, the no bridging group did not have any significant difference in mortality (odds ratio [OR], 1.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], .15-11.52; P = .82) or cerebrovascular accidents (OR, .93; 95% CI, .34-2.51; P = .88), but the no bridging group had significantly less major bleeding (OR, .41; 95% CI, .24-.68; P = .0006). Among AF patients with intermediate CHADS2 scores who are anticoagulated with warfarin and who required temporary interruption of warfarin for an elective surgery or procedure, periprocedural bridging with UH or LMWH was associated with a higher rate of major bleeding with no significant difference in mortality or CVA.

Abstract 16339: Heparin Bridging in Atrial Fibrillation Patients After Temporary Interruption of Warfarin: Evidence From Meta-analysis

Background: Patients with atrial fibrillation often require temporary interruption of warfarin for procedures. However, the efficacy of periprocedural heparin bridging in clinical practice is still unclear. Methods: We searched the literature for trials that compared heparin bridging to no bridging in atrial fibrillation patients for whom warfarin was temporarily interrupted. The incidence of all-cause mortality, thromboembolism, and major and all bleeding was included, and meta-analysis was performed. Results: A total of 11,924 patients with atrial fibrillation were included in 4 observational studies and 1 randomized trial. Mean CHADS2 score for the no heparin bridging group is 2.26 vs heparin bridging 2.26. At 30 days and up to 3 months, no bridging group in comparison to bridging group did not show any significant difference in mortality (odds ratio (OR), 1.22; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.04-37.43; P = 0.91) or thromboembolism (OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.12-4.05; P = 0.68), but no bridging group showed significantly less major bleeding (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.21-0.86; P = 0.02) and less all bleeding (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.24-0.79; P = 0.007). Conclusion: Among atrial fibrillation patients anticoagulated with warfarin with an intermediate CHADS2 score requiring temporary interruption of warfarin for a procedure, periprocedural bridging with heparin was associated more with major and all bleeding when compared to no bridging, with no significant difference in mortality and thromboembolism.

Summary of evidence-based guideline: Periprocedural management of antithrombotic medications in patients with ischemic cerebrovascular disease [RETIRED

To assess evidence regarding periprocedural management of antithrombotic drugs in patients with ischemic cerebrovascular disease. The complete guideline on which this summary is based is available as an online data supplement to this article. Systematic literature review with practice recommendations. Clinicians managing antithrombotic medications periprocedurally must weigh bleeding risks from drug continuation against thromboembolic risks from discontinuation. Stroke patients undergoing dental procedures should routinely continue aspirin (Level A). Stroke patients undergoing invasive ocular anesthesia, cataract surgery, dermatologic procedures, transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy, spinal/epidural procedures, and carpal tunnel surgery should probably continue aspirin (Level B). Some stroke patients undergoing vitreoretinal surgery, EMG, transbronchial lung biopsy, colonoscopic polypectomy, upper endoscopy and biopsy/sphincterotomy, and abdominal ultrasound-guided biopsies should possibly continue aspirin (Level C). Stroke patients requiring warfarin should routinely continue it when undergoing dental procedures (Level A) and probably continue it for dermatologic procedures (Level B). Some patients undergoing EMG, prostate procedures, inguinal herniorrhaphy, and endothermal ablation of the great saphenous vein should possibly continue warfarin (Level C). Whereas neurologists should counsel that warfarin probably does not increase clinically important bleeding with ocular anesthesia (Level B), other ophthalmologic studies lack the statistical precision to make recommendations (Level U). Neurologists should counsel that warfarin might increase bleeding with colonoscopic polypectomy (Level C). There is insufficient evidence to support or refute periprocedural heparin bridging therapy to reduce thromboembolic events in chronically anticoagulated patients (Level U). Neurologists should counsel that bridging therapy is probably associated with increased bleeding risks as compared with warfarin cessation (Level B). The risk difference as compared with continuing warfarin is unknown (Level U).

Periprocedural Heparin Bridging in Patients Receiving Vitamin K Antagonists

Background— Periprocedural bridging with unfractionated heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin aims to reduce the risk of thromboembolic events in patients receiving long-term vitamin K antagonists. Optimal periprocedural anticoagulation has not been established. Methods and Results— MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases (2001–2010) were searched for English-language studies including patients receiving heparin bridging during interruption of vitamin K antagonists for elective procedures. Data were independently collected by 2 investigators (κ=0.90). The final review included 34 studies with 1 randomized trial. Thromboembolic events occurred in 73 of 7118 bridged patients (pooled incidence, 0.9%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.0.0–3.4) and 32 of 5160 nonbridged patients (pooled incidence, 0.6%; 95% CI, 0.0–1.2). There was no difference in the risk of thromboembolic events in 8 studies comparing bridged and nonbridged groups (odds ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.42–1.54). Bridging was associated with an increased risk of overall bleeding in 13 studies (odds ratio, 5.40; 95% CI, 3.00–9.74) and major bleeding in 5 studies (odds ratio, 3.60; 95% CI, 1.52–8.50) comparing bridged and nonbridged patients. There was no difference in thromboembolic events (odds ratio, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.04–2.09) but an increased risk of overall bleeding (odds ratio, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.27–4.08) with full versus prophylactic/intermediate-dose low-molecular-weight heparin bridging. Low-thromboembolic-risk and/or non–vitamin K antagonist patient groups were used for comparison. Study quality was poor with heterogeneity for some analyses. Conclusions— Vitamin K antagonist–treated patients receiving periprocedural heparin bridging appear to be at increased risk of overall and major bleeding and at similar risk of thromboembolic events compared to nonbridged patients. Randomized trials are needed to define the role of periprocedural heparin bridging.

Bridging Evidence-Based Practice and Practice-Based Evidence in Periprocedural Anticoagulation

More than 2 million people are currently treated with oral anticoagulation in North America alone.1 Indeed, chronically anticoagulated patients are expected to become more prevalent as the population ages and the incidence of conditions (for example, atrial fibrillation) requiring anticoagulation increases.2 Article see p 1630 Many of these patients may undergo an invasive or operative procedure at some point, and thus their periprocedural management will be a commonly encountered problem. The challenge in periprocedural management of anticoagulated patients focuses on the need to balance risk of thromboembolism (in case of anticoagulation interruption) against the risk of bleeding during the procedure (in case of anticoagulation continuation). Thus, a crucial first step in the management of such patients is estimation of periprocedural bleeding and thrombotic risk, and balancing both. In certain chronic conditions, such as AF, risk stratification scores assist decision making when risk of thrombosis and bleeding needs to be weighed.3–5 However, when an invasive procedure is involved, thrombosis and bleeding scores have been less well validated, and the optimal management of anticoagulated patients remains controversial. For many years, bridging therapy has been practiced when considering an interventional procedure, and anticoagulation was continued with parenteral heparins whenever the vitamin K antagonists (eg, warfarin) had to be interrupted (Figure).6–8 The rationale of a bridging strategy was to replace coumadins by a parenteral agent with short half-life and rapid onset of action that can be discontinued only a few hours before and commenced a few hours after the procedure.8 However, some argue that this empirical approach lacks robust evidence, and therefore this approach has been subject to some debate.9,10 When considering the balance between risk and benefit, supporters of bridging therapy allege low rates of bleeding complications as the reason …