Uninterrupted Warfarin Therapy Research Articles

Renal function and periprocedural complications in patients undergoing left atrial catheter ablation: A comparison between uninterrupted direct oral anticoagulants and phenprocoumon administration.

Data regarding uninterrupted oral anticoagulation in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) during catheter ablation for left atrial arrhythmias is limited. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of periprocedural uninterrupted direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) compared with uninterrupted phenprocoumon in patients with CKD undergoing left atrial catheter ablation. We conducted a retrospective single-center study of patients who underwent left atrial catheter ablation between 2016 and 2019 with underlying chronic kidney disease (glomerular filtration rate (GFR) between 15 and 45ml/min). The primary objective of this study was to investigate whether direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) therapy or warfarin presents a superior safety profile in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) undergoing left atrial catheter ablation. We compared periprocedural complications (arteriovenous fistula, aneurysm, significant hematoma (> 5cm)) and/or bleeding (drop in hemoglobin of >2g/dl, pericardial effusion, retroperitoneal bleeding, other bleeding, stroke) between patients receiving either uninterrupted DOAC or warfarin therapy. Secondary analysis included patient baseline characteristics as well as procedural data. A total of 188 patients (female n = 108 (57%), mean age 75.3 ± 8.1years, mean GFR 36.8 ± 6ml/min) were included in this study. Underlying arrhythmias were atrial fibrillation (n = 104, 55.3%) and atypical atrial flutter (n = 84, 44.7%). Of these, n = 132 patients (70%) were under a DOAC medication, and n = 56 (30%) were under phenprocoumon. Major groin complications including pseudoaneurysm and/or AV fistula occurred in 8.9% of patients in the phenprocoumon group vs. 11.3% of patients in the DOAC group, which was not statistically significant (p = 0.62). Incidence of cardiac tamponade (2.3% vs. 0%; p = 0.55) and stroke (0% vs. 0%) were low in both DOAC and phenprocoumon groups with similar post-procedural drops in hemoglobin levels (1.1±1g/dl vs 1.1±0.9g/dl; p= 0.71). The type of anticoagulation had no significant influence on bleeding or thromboembolic events as well as groin complications in this retrospective study. Despite observing an increased rate of groin complications, the uninterrupted use of DOAC or phenprocoumon during left atrial catheter ablation in patients with CKD appears to be feasible and effective.

Abstract 6932: Safety of Left Atrial Appendage Closure on Uninterrupted Warfarin Therapy

Introduction: Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) device for stroke prevention is a safe and effective alternative to oral anticoagulation (OAC) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). The safety of performing LAAC on uninterrupted warfarin (UW) compared to interrupted warfarin (IW) is currently unknown. Hypothesis: Complication rates of performing LAAC on UW vs. IW will be similar. Methods: We reviewed the data from the second half of PROTECT-AF trial, PREVAIL trial, CAP and CAP2 registries. Patients were categorized to the UW group if INR on the day of the procedure was ≥2 and to the IW group if INR was <2. Procedural complications within 7 days of LAAC were reviewed. An association between complications and AC strategy was analyzed. Results: Data from 1580 patients were reviewed and 294 patients (18.6%) received LAAC on UW. The UW group had a mean INR of 2.4±0.4 and IW group had a mean INR of 1.3±0.3. There were several differences in baseline characteristics: lower BMI in the UW group (28.6±5.3 vs 29.5±6.0, p=0.01), fewer patients with hypertension in the UW group (87.1% vs 91.1%, p=0.04), lower HAS-BLED score in the UW group (2.0±1.0 vs 2.1±1.0, p<0.01), and more patients with persistent AF in the UW group (37.1% vs 26.4%, p<0.01). Overall, there were no significant differences in total or individual complication rates between the two groups (UW 5.1% vs IW 6.1%, p=0.59). Although not statistically significant, lower event rates were noted in the UW group for the following: stroke (0% vs 0.3%, p>0.99), pericardial effusion requiring intervention (1.7% vs 1.8%, p>0.99), pseudoaneurysm (0% vs 0.4%, p=0.59), hematoma (0% vs 0.2%, p>0.99), and device embolism (0% vs 0.2%, p=1.0). The UW group had statistically insignificant higher events rates of AV fistula (0.3% vs 0%, p=0.19) and major bleeding requiring transfusion (1% vs 0.5%, p=0.38). In addition, there was no significant difference in periprocedural ischemic stroke (0% vs 0.3%, p>0.99). Conclusion: In this retrospective analysis, no significant difference was observed in procedural complication rates when performing LAAC on UW vs. IW. These results suggest that LAAC can be safely performed without interruption of OAC.

Periprocedural anticoagulation in AF cryoballoon ablation in a nationwide registry: no difference in complication rates between strategies

Abstract Background Standard treatment for patients with atrial fibrillation is pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). There are two widely adopted methods for PVI - cryoballon ablation (CBA) and radiofrequency (RF) ablation. There are several randomized studies evaluating different periprocedural anticoagulation strategies in patients undergoing PVI, and those mainly related to RF ablation procedures. However, there is a lack of data on safety of different anticoagulation strategies in CBA. Purpose To analyze the current anticoagulation approaches in patients undergoing cryoballoon ablation, the incidence and types of hemorrhagic and thromboembolic periprocedural events. The analysis was performed on data from the National cryoballoon AF ablation registry (NCT03040037). Methods Nineteen centers prospectively entered data into a web-based platform. The full data on AC therapy was available in 719 subjects. The specialists evaluated ischemic events clinically, and those included stroke, transient ischemic attack, pulmonary embolism or extracranial systemic embolism. Major bleedings were registered and classified according to the ISTH criteria. Results The mean CHA2DS2-VASc score was 2.0±1.4; mean BMI 29.5±4.8; mean GFR 92±28.9 ml/min. Periprocedurally, 574 (79.8%) subjects received direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), 113 (15.7%) anti-vitamin K drugs (mainly warfarin); 16 (2%) patients received antiplathelet therapy. Uninterrupted DOAC therapy was used in 251 (34.9%) cases. Uninterrupted warfarin therapy was used in 36 (2%) patients. Bridging therapy was used in 325 (45.2%) patients. The total number of major adverse events was 25 (3.5%): 24 of them hemorrhagic and 1 transient ischemic attack (1 female patient on rivaroxaban with bridging). Five (0.7%) patients had hemopericardium: 3 - on uninterrupted rivaroxaban, 1 – rivaroxaban with bridging, 1 – interrupted apixaban. Seventeen (2.5%) patients had groin vascular complications and 1 -hemoptysis. Three patients died within 30 days following CBA from non-cardiovascular causes. There were no statistically significant differences in complications between patients receiving different periprocedural anticoagulation. Conclusions About 45% of patients referred for CBA receive bridging anticoagulation therapy in the periprocedural period. Although this is not in line with the current guidelines, we found no meaningful difference in complication rates between different anticoagulation approaches. CBA might be associated with different from RF ablation safety profile and requires randomized trials on periprocedural anticoagulation. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: Other. Main funding source(s): RF President's council grant

Safety and Efficacy of Minimally Interrupted Dabigatran vs Uninterrupted Warfarin Therapy in Adults Undergoing Atrial Fibrillation Catheter Ablation

Uninterrupted dabigatran therapy reduces stroke risk in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) undergoing ablation and is associated with a lower bleeding risk than uninterrupted warfarin therapy. Minimally interrupted direct oral anticoagulant therapy is widely used, but data from controlled studies are insufficient. To compare the safety and efficacy of minimally interrupted dabigatran vs uninterrupted warfarin therapy in patients undergoing catheter ablation for NVAF. The ABRIDGE-J (ABlation peRIoperative DabiGatran in use Envisioning in Japan) trial is a open-label, randomized clinical trial performed in 28 Japanese treatment centers. A total of 504 patients scheduled for NVAF ablation were enrolled; 500 were randomized to the study treatments; 499 received at least 1 dose of dabigatran etexilate (n = 248) or warfarin potassium (n = 251); and 442 underwent ablation (220 in the dabigatran group and 222 in the warfarin group). Data were collected from May 1, 2014, through September 14, 2015, and analyzed from March 7, 2017, through January 28, 2019. Appropriate dose anticoagulation was administered 4 weeks before and at least 3 months after ablation in all patients. Dabigatran therapy was interrupted before catheter ablation (holding of 1-2 doses) and resumed after ablation. Primary end points were the incidence of embolism during the perioperative period and atrial thrombus just before the ablation. The main secondary end point was the incidence of major bleeding events until 3 months after ablation. Of the 442 patients who underwent ablation, 74.9% were men and the median age was 66 years (interquartile range, 59-71 years). Before ablation, 1 cerebral infarction and 1 thrombus in the left atrium occurred in the warfarin group, but no events occurred in the interrupted dabigatran group. After ablation, the mean (SD) incidence of major bleeding events was significantly lower with dabigatran (3 patients [1.4% {0.8%}; 95% CI, 0.4%-4.2%]) vs warfarin (11 patients [5.0% {1.5%}; 95% CI, 2.8%-8.8%]; P = .03). No thromboembolic events occurred after ablation in the dabigatran group; 1 (0.5%) occurred in the warfarin group. In patients undergoing ablation for NVAF, anticoagulation with minimally interrupted dabigatran therapy did not increase thromboembolic events and was associated with fewer bleeding complications than uninterrupted warfarin therapy. umin.ac.jp Identifier: UMIN000013129.

Transvenous lead extraction during uninterrupted warfarin therapy: Feasibility and outcomes

Uninterrupted anticoagulation is important for patients at high risk for thromboembolism. Bridging with heparin/enoxaparin increases the risk of hematoma and infection. There are no published data on the feasibility of transvenous lead extraction (TLE) during uninterrupted anticoagulation. The purpose of this study was to examine the feasibility and safety of TLE during uninterrupted warfarin therapy with therapeutic international normalized ratio (INR). We performed a retrospective study of patients undergoing TLE while receiving uninterrupted warfarin therapy with INR ≥2.0 at a high-volume center. Between March 2011 and December 2016, 1212 patients underwent TLE. Of these patients, 62 underwent TLE during uninterrupted warfarin therapy with therapeutic INR (mean 2.5 ± 0.5; range 2.0-4.5). The cohort was 85% male, mean age 65 years, CHA2DS2-VASc score 3.4 ± 1.6, and left ventricular ejection fraction 41% ± 16%. A total of 114 of 116 leads were completely removed. These include 45 (38.4%) defibrillator leads of average age 7.8 ± 3.7 years, 65 (55.6%) pace-sense leads of average age 10.5 ± 6.6 years, and 6 (5.2%) coronary sinus lead of average age 5.5 ± 3.4 years. There was a 98.4% procedural and clinical success rate. Two patients had procedure-related complications: 1 small pericardial effusion that resolved spontaneously, and 1 femoral vein tear due to extraction of a large mass of a disrupted implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead requiring vascular repair. TLE during uninterrupted warfarin therapy with therapeutic INR may be considered in patients at high risk for thromboembolism if performed by experienced operators at high-volume centers.

Left Atrium and Left Atrial Appendage Screening Prior to Atrial Fibrillation Ablation: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature.

In the past decade, certain patient groups have been observed to have a presumptive lower incidence of left atrial (LA)/LA appendage (LAA) thrombus, particularly those who have no or minimal comorbidities. This has led to the question of whether a preprocedural evaluation of the LA/LAA is necessary in every patient, or if it can be avoided in certain patient populations. The answer to this is further complicated by the possibility of newer anticoagulation approaches affecting the incidence of intracardiac thrombus, including uninterrupted warfarin therapy and uninterrupted novel oral anticoagulant (NOAC) therapy, both of which are becoming more common. In this study, we conducted a comprehensive review of the literature addressing these questions in an attempt to summarize current approaches to evaluating the LA/LAA prior to ablation in order to elucidate the strategies that are currently being employed, to determine which strategies are becoming more favorable for use, and to identify what topics can or should be targeted for future study. In addition, this paper seeks to address the following specific questions: is ruling out LA/LAA thrombus necessary in all patients prior to atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation? Are there any identifiable patient populations at reliably lower risk who could potentially avoid LA/LAA thrombus screening prior to AF ablation? What are the current strategies being employed by electrophysiologists in the published literature? What is the opinion of the current literature on warfarin and NOAC drugs as they pertain to the incidence of LA/LAA thrombus prior to AF ablation, and how does each fit into the current treatment strategies for the prevention of procedural thromboembolism? Finally, what is the future of preprocedural intracardiac thrombus evaluation prior to AF ablation, and what steps can be taken to ensure that the risk to the patient is minimized while improving laboratory efficiency and avoiding unnecessary costs?

Assessing an oral surgery specific protocol for patients on direct oral anticoagulants: a retrospective controlled cohort study

Chronic therapy with the new direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) poses new challenges for dental practitioners assessing the risk versus benefit of cessation versus non-cessation of anticoagulant therapy for dentoalveolar procedures. A retrospective controlled cohort study was designed to evaluate a non-cessation protocol for patients taking DOACs in the setting of dental extractions. A records review covering the period 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2016 identified 43 patients on DOAC therapy; 53 dentoalveolar procedures were performed under local anaesthesia, of which 15 included varying degrees of peri-procedural cessation. A control group of 50 patients on uninterrupted warfarin therapy undergoing 59 dentoalveolar procedures was identified. The incidence, severity, and timing of bleeding events were recorded for each group. Four (10.5%) minor bleeding events were recorded in the non-cessation DOAC group and nine (15.3%) minor bleeding events in the warfarin group. No bleeding events were recorded in the DOAC cessation group. Comparison of the incidence of bleeding events between the non-cessation DOAC group and the warfarin group showed no statistically significant difference (odds ratio 0.65, P=0.56). Within the limitations of this study, dental extractions in the context of continuing DOAC therapy can be performed safely provided extra local haemostatic measures are applied.

Vascular access site complication in transfemoral coronary angiography between uninterrupted warfarin and heparin bridging.

Warfarin discontinuation with heparin bridging is a common practice in patients receiving warfarin prior to elective coronary angiography (CAG). The uninterrupted warfarin strategy has been suggested to be alternative option for patients with high thromboembolic risk. Therefore, we aimed to assess the safety of elective transfemoral CAG during uninterrupted warfarin therapy compared to heparin bridging. This study was a randomized open-label design with blinded event evaluation. The 110 consecutive patients (age ≥ 18 years) receiving warfarin before the planned transfemoral CAG were randomly assigned to either heparin bridging or uninterrupted warfarin with targeted INR (2.0-3.0). The primary outcome was the incidence of major vascular access site complications. The baseline characteristics were comparable between two groups (mean age was 60.1 ± 7.8 years, 49 males). The mean INR on the day of CAG of heparin bridging and uninterrupted warfarin groups was 1.2 ± 0.3 and 2.2 ± 0.5 (P < 0.001). The major vascular access site complications occurred in 3 of 55 (5.5%) heparin-bridging patients and in none of 55 uninterrupted warfarin patients (P = 0.243). The total vascular access site complications occurred in 6 (10.9%) heparin-bridging and one (1.8%) uninterrupted warfarin patients (P = 0.113). No patient developed either other bleeding or thromboembolic events during 7 days after CAG. We demonstrated that an uninterrupted warfarin strategy did not increase vascular access site complications in patients undergoing transfemoral CAG compared to heparin bridging therapy. Due to the safety and the ease of uninterrupted warfarin strategy, this approach should be encouraged in patients receiving long-term warfarin who undergo elective transfemoral CAG.

47 A wide range of catheter ablations can be safely performed without interrupting novel oral anticoagulants

Introduction Catheter ablation, in the immediate peri-and post procedural period is associated with a transiently increased thrombogenic state secondary to atrial inflammation arising as a result of endothelial damage caused by manipulation of ablation catheters and/or ablation lesions. For atrial fibrillation(AF) ablations, the 2016 European Society of cardiology Guidelines recommend uninterrupted warfarin therapy in the peri-procedural period. In observational cohorts and one randomised study (PIONEER-AF), uninterrupted NOAC therapy has also been found to be safe in patients undergoing AF ablations. EHRA states that simple ablation procedures have a low bleeding risk while complex ablation procedures have high bleeding risk. We describe our experience of a wide variety of catheter ablations performed on uninterrupted NOAC therapy and compare our results with similar procedures undertaken on uninterrupted warfarin therapy. Methods A retrospective analysis of the NICOR database for all ablations undertaken on uninterrupted anticoagulation at the New Cross Hospital, Wolverhampton, between April 2014 and August 2016 was undertaken. Data regarding the number and type of procedures, type of oral anticoagulation (warfarin versus NOACs), frequency of trans-septal punctures, DCCV during procedures and complications were analysed. Results Atrial of 648 ablations were performed in the study period of which328(50.7%) were undertaken on uninterrupted anticoagulants (uninterrupted warfarin group (uW Grp): 228 (35.1%) and uninterrupted NOAC group (UNOAC Grp): 101 (15.5%). Mean age was 59 in both groups with more male preponderance in the NOAC group. A range of simple and complex ablations were done including 131 (57.4%) AF in UW Grp compared to 26 (26.5%) in the uNOAC grp. Trans-septal punctures were more common in the UW Grp compared to the uNOAC Grp, however cardioversions (both external and internal) were used in similar fashion. Composite of bleeding and thrombo-embolic complications were relatively low in both the groups [n=5(2.1%) in the VKA group compared to n=1 (0.9%) in the UNOAC Grp with OR 2.21 (95% CI 0.25 to 19.2; p=0.47)]. Conclusions Our experience suggests that a wide range of simple and complex ablation procedures can be safely performed ion uninterrupted NOAC therapy. Complications in the uNOAC Grp were lower than the uW Grp, reflecting growing confidence among electrophysiologists to undertake such procedures even in the absence of antidote for majority of the NOACs.

Are Some Anticoagulants More Equal Than Others? - Evaluating the Role of Novel Oral Anticoagulants in AF Ablation.

Left atrial ablation strategies are being increasingly performed as a Class 1 therapeutic indication for drug refractory paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF). Traditionally AF ablation has been performed with patients on uninterrupted warfarin therapy, however over the last few years, novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have emerged as attractive alternatives to warfarin in order to reduce stroke risk due to AF. NOACs are therefore increasingly being used instead of warfarin in the management of AF. There is also mounting evidence mainly in the form of small randomised studies and meta-analysis that have demonstrated that the use of NOACs for AF ablation is efficacious, safe and convenient. However the peri-procedural dosing protocols used in various studies especially in terms of whether NOAC use is interrupted or uninterrupted during AF ablation, have significant inter-operator and inter-institution variability. Currently there is also a lack of randomised controlled trials to validate the data obtained from meta-analyses. There is also evidence that use of NOACs may increase the requirement of unfractionated heparin during the procedure. This review article shall examine the currently available evidence-base, appraise the gaps in the current evidence and also underscore the need for larger randomised clinical trials in this rapidly developing field.

Comparison of uninterrupted warfarin and bridging therapy using low-molecular weight heparin with respect to the severity of bleeding after dental extractions in patients with prosthetic valves

Objective:The management of anticoagulated patients with warfarin during dental extraction is an intricate issue. We carefully designed the current study so that the amount of bleeding was measured with objective methods and the data from the same patient in different dental extraction appointments could be compared, eliminating the bleeding diathesis differences of patients.Methods:This prospective and controlled study was conducted in 36 adult patients with prosthetic valve requiring multiple tooth extractions. The first dental extraction was performed without the discontinuation of warfarin therapy, and the second procedure was performed with a discontinuation of warfarin and bridging with low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH). The two dental extraction protocols in the same patient group were compared. The total amount of bleeding was calculated as the difference between the weights of gauze swabs used before and after the tamponade; the number of gauze swabs used for bleeding control in the first 48 h was recorded.Result:The median number of used gauze swabs was 2.5 (IQR: 1–5) and 3.0 (IQR: 2–7) in the first and second dental extraction procedures, respectively. The median bleeding time was 50.0 (IQR: 20–100) in the first procedure compared with 60.0 (IQR: 40–140) min in the second procedure. The mean amounts of bleeding were 2194±1418 mg in the first dental extraction procedure and 2950±1694 mg in the second dental extraction procedure. The median number of used gauze swabs, the median bleeding time, and the mean amount of bleeding were statistically higher in the second dental extraction procedure (p<0.001).Conclusion:Continued warfarin treatment at the time of dental extractions reduces the total amount of bleeding compared with bridging therapy in patients with prosthetic valves.

Safety of Uninterrupted Warfarin Therapy in Patients Undergoing Cardiovascular Endovascular Procedures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of complication rates and outcomes in patients undergoing endovascular procedures who receive uninterrupted versus interrupted warfarin therapy. Literature published between 1990 and 2014 was searched for reports of comparative studies of vascular procedures. Information on periprocedural complications and patient deaths less than 30 days after the procedure was extracted. A random effects model was used and odds ratios (ORs) were reported. An OR of less than 1 was considered to indicate lower risk of the outcome with uninterrupted warfarin therapy. Meta-analysis was conducted by using meta-analysis software. A total of 27 studies of 20,376 patients were included. For arterial procedures, there were no significant differences between the uninterrupted and interrupted warfarin therapy groups in access site hematoma (OR, 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.33, 1.03; P = .06), any bleeding complications (OR, 0.56; 95% CI: 0.30, 1.06; P = .07), mortality (OR, 1.40; 95% CI: 0.37, 5.25; P = .62), intracranial hemorrhage (OR, 0.55; 95% CI: 0.03, 8.91; P = .68), ischemic stroke (OR, 0.85; 95% CI: 0.12, 5.84; P = .87), and major bleeding (OR, 0.56; 95% CI: 0.21, 1.51; P = .25). For venous procedures, uninterrupted warfarin was associated with lower odds of access site hematoma (OR, 0.70; 95% CI: 0.50, 0.99; P = .04), any bleeding complications (OR, 0.61; 95% CI: 0.48, 0.77; P < .01), ischemic stroke (OR, 0.21; 95% CI: 0.10, 0.45; P < .01), and major bleeding (OR, 0.64; 95% CI: 0.51, 0.80; P < .01). For arterial and venous procedures combined, uninterrupted warfarin was associated with lower odds of access site hematoma (OR, 0.68; 95% CI: 0.51, 0.91; P = .01), bleeding complications (OR, 0.59; 95% CI: 0.48, 0.74; P < .01), ischemic stroke (OR, 0.25; 95% CI: 0.12, 0.50; P < .01), and major bleeding (OR, 0.61; 95% CI: 0.49, 0.77; P < .01). Heterogeneity in most analyses was low, and confidence in the estimates was moderate. Uninterrupted perioperative warfarin therapy is safe for patients undergoing arterial procedures, but interrupted warfarin may be preferred for those undergoing venous procedures; no differences in outcome rates were found in the randomized controlled trials. Future studies should be performed to validate these results.

Implanting cardiac rhythm devices during uninterrupted warfarin therapy: a prospective, single center experience.

The aim of the present study was to assess the safety of cardiac rhythm device implantation during uninterrupted oral anticoagulant therapy. Patients at high thromboembolic risk (venous thromboembolism <3 months, nonvalvular atrial fibrillation with CHADS2 score >2, valvular atrial fibrillation, prosthetic heart valves) underwent procedures during uninterrupted warfarin (on warfarin group) and were compared to low-risk patients who underwent procedures after warfarin withdrawal (off warfarin group). Primary endpoint was a composite of hematoma requiring warfarin interruption, reoperation, or blood transfusion; death; hemothorax; and tamponade. Secondary endpoints were nonsignificant hematoma and clinical arterial thromboembolism assessed at discharge and at a 2 month follow-up. One hundred and ninety-one patients were enrolled, 102 in the 'on warfarin group' and 89 in the 'off warfarin group'. The majority of procedures were first implants (73% in the 'on warfarin group' vs. 87% in the 'off warfarin group', P= 0.01). Pacemakers, implantable cardioverter defibrillators, and biventricular devices were included. International normalized ratio at implant was 2 ± 0.28 (range 1.6-3.2) in the 'on warfarin group' and 1.3 ± 0.19 (range 1-1.6) in the 'off warfarin group' (P= 0.0001). Incidence of hemathoma was five of 102 in the 'on warfarin group' vs. three of 89 in the 'off warfarin group' (5 vs. 3%, P = not significant) and all hemathomas resolved spontaneously. There were no significant hemathomas in either group. There was no death, hemothorax, or tamponade. There were no thromboembolic events at 2 months. Cardiac rhythm device implantation during uninterrupted warfarin was not associated with increased bleeding compared with warfarin interruption.

Abstract 17642: Warfarin versus Dabigatran: The Coagulation Activity in the Left Atrium During Atrial Fibrillation Ablation

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation is associated with the potential risk of periprocedural thromboembolic events. Previous studies suggested performing AF ablation with continuous warfarin reduced the risk of thromboembolic events, otherwise the safety and efficacy of periprocedural dabigatran was controversial. We aim to compare the differences of the coagulable state in the left atrium (LA) between the anticoagulation strategies. Methods: We divided 158 patients who underwent AF ablation into 3 groups: ablation with off warfarin (n=100, WF-off group), ablation with perioperative warfarin therapy (n=33, WF group), and ablation with dabigatran therapy (n=25, D group). Warfarin was stopped 1 day before the procedure in WF-off group. Uninterrupted warfarin therapy was used in WF group and interrupted only on the morning of the procedure with dabigatran in D group. During AF ablation, the blood samples from the LA obtained immediately after the trans-septal puncture before heparin administration in each groups. The D-dimer level and soluble fibrin monomer complex (SFMC) level in the LA were evaluated. Results: The prevalence of positive D-dimer (≥ 0.5 μg/ml) in the LA was observed 3% in WF group, 12% in D group, and 23% in WF-off group, respectively. SFMC levels in the LA were significantly lower in WF group compared with WF-off group (p&lt;0.01). SFMC levels in D group tended to be higher compared with WF group, but lower compared with WF-off group. Conclusions: The coagulation activity in the LA was lower with perioperative warfarin therapy than with dabigatran therapy. Even transient interruption of anticoagulant therapy may be associated with hypercoagulable status in the LA.

Oral anticoagulant use around the time of atrial fibrillation ablation: a review of the current evidence of individual oral anticoagulant use for periprocedural atrial fibrillation ablation thromboembolic prophylaxis.

Atrial fibrillation is the most common arrhythmia and ablation is becoming more prevalent as a treatment option. Appropriate treatment of atrial fibrillation mandates thromboembolic prophylaxis, and atrial fibrillation ablation periprocedural management of oral anticoagulation is paramount because of the unique susceptibility for thromboembolism that exists for a patient undergoing ablation. Uninterrupted warfarin therapy is the current standard approach for periprocedural atrial fibrillation anticoagulation. Novel oral anticoagulants, including direct thrombin and factor Xa inhibitors, are being used more frequently for thromboembolic prophylaxis in atrial fibrillation patients, but the best strategy for using novel oral anticoagulants in periprocedural anticoagulation is unknown. Optimal periprocedural anticoagulation management strategies with oral anticoagulants, limitations of using novel oral anticoagulants, and future directions in this field are discussed.

Nationwide survey of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation: The Japanese catheter ablation registry of atrial fibrillation (J-CARAF)–A report on periprocedural oral anticoagulants

BackgroundCatheter ablation has become an established therapy for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF). To obtain a perspective on the current status of this therapy in Japan, the Japanese Heart Rhythm Society (JHRS) conducted a nationwide survey, the Japanese Catheter Ablation Registry of Atrial Fibrillation (J-CARAF). In this study, we focused on whether periprocedural use of novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) was related with excessive thromboembolic or bleeding complications. MethodsUsing an online questionnaire, JHRS requested electrophysiology centers in Japan to register the data of patients who underwent AF ablations in September 2011, March 2012, and September 2012. We compared the clinical profiles and ablation data, including the incidence of complications among patients in whom warfarin, a NOAC or neither was used as a periprocedural anticoagulant. ResultsA total of 179 centers submitted data relating to 3373 patients (62.2±10.6 years). Paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) was observed in 64.4% of patients. Warfarin, as a periprocedural oral anticoagulant, was used by 53.6% (1808/3373) of patients. A NOAC was given to 541 subjects (dabigatran: 504 [16.1%], rivaroxaban: 37 [1.1%]). In the remaining 1024 patients (30.4%), no periprocedural oral anticoagulants (OACs) were used. The proportion of PAF in warfarin-treated patients (61.1%) was significantly lower than that in NOAC-treated patients (70.1%, p<0.01) or in patients not treated with an OAC (67.4%, p<0.01). Patients treated with uninterrupted warfarin therapy were associated with significantly higher CHA2DS2-VASc scores. A total of 158 complications occurred in 151 subjects (4.5%). The incidence of complications in NOAC-treated patients (14/541 [2.6%]) was lower than that in patients receiving uninterrupted warfarin therapy (4.8%, p<0.05). The incidence of pericardial effusion in NOAC-treated patients (0.7%) was lower than in warfarin-treated patients (2.6%, p<0.05). The difference in the periprocedural anticoagulant strategy was not related to the frequency of other bleeding events. Cerebral infarction occurred in one patient from each patient group. ConclusionsOur results suggest that NOACs are safe for use as substitutes for warfarin without causing excessive increases in the rates of thromboembolic or bleeding complications.

11 First, Do No Harm. Improving Safety in Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation: A Prospective Study of the Use of Ultrasound to Guide Vascular Access

IntroductionThe most frequent complications of AF Ablation (AFA) are related to vascular access but there is little published evidence as to how these can be minimised. In 2012 the European...

Uninterrupted Rivaroxaban Appears Safe in Atrial Fibrillation Ablation

Over the last few years, uninterrupted warfarin therapy has become standard during atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. However, wide acceptance of the

The Safetyof Dabigatran Versus Warfarin in Patients Undergoing Atrial Fibrillation Ablation.

The safety and optimal strategy of the use of dabigatran versus uninterrupted warfarin in atrial fibrillation ablation is currently unclear. We performed a retrospective analysis between July 2011-October 2012 of all patients undergoing an AF ablation who received uninterrupted warfarin therapy (199) and the routine cessation of Dabigatran therapy (126) 4 days pre-ablation. Major safety endpoints included: pericardial effusion (requiring pericardiocentesis), peripheral thromboembolism, CVA, and groin hematoma requiring blood transfusion. Minor endpoints included pericardial effusion and groin hematoma. Dabigatran was restarted the following day after ablation. The warfarin group was older, had a higher CHADS2, CHA2DS2VASc and HASBLED scores and greater prevalence of aortic plaque. The major complication rate was 2.0% in the warfarin group and 2.4% in the dabigatran group (P= 0.83). The minor complication rate was 2.5% in the warfarin group and <1% in the dabigatran group (P= 0.27). In the dabigatran group, there was one renal thromboembolic event 4 days post-ablation. All patients in the warfarin group who suffered a major complication required a blood transfusion. Cessation of dabigatran therapy 4 days pre AF ablation has a comparable safety profile to uninterrupted warfarin therapy.

Feasibility and Safety of Uninterrupted Rivaroxaban for Periprocedural Anticoagulation in Patients Undergoing Radiofrequency Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation: Results From a Multicenter Prospective Registry

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of uninterrupted rivaroxaban therapy during atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation.Optimal periprocedural anticoagulation strategy is essential for minimizing bleeding and thromboembolic complications during and after AF ablation. The safety and efficacy of uninterrupted rivaroxaban therapy as a periprocedural anticoagulant for AF ablation are unknown.We performed a multicenter, observational, prospective study of a registry of patients undergoing AF ablation in 8 centers in North America. Patients taking uninterrupted periprocedural rivaroxaban were matched by age, sex, and type of AF with an equal number of patients taking uninterrupted warfarin therapy who were undergoing AF ablation during the same period.A total of 642 patients were included in the study, with 321 in each group. Mean age was 63 ± 10 years, with 442 (69%) males and 328 (51%) patients with paroxysmal AF equally distributed between the 2 groups. Patients in the warfarin group had a slightly higher mean HAS- BLED (hypertension, abnormal renal/liver function, stroke, bleeding history or predisposition, labile international normalized ratio, elderly, drugs/alcohol concomitantly) score (1.70 ± 1.0 vs. 1.47 ± 0.9, respectively; p = 0.032). Bleeding and embolic complications occurred in 47 (7.3%) and 2 (0.3%) patients (both had transient ischemic attacks) respectively. There were no differences in the number of major bleeding complications (5 [1.6%] vs. 7 [1.9%], respectively; p = 0.772), minor bleeding complications (16 [5.0%] vs. 19 [5.9%], respectively; p = 0.602), or embolic complications (1 [0.3%] vs. 1 [0.3%], respectively; p = 1.0) between the rivaroxaban and warfarin groups in the first 30 days.Uninterrupted rivaroxaban therapy appears to be as safe and efficacious in preventing bleeding and thromboembolic events in patients undergoing AF ablation as uninterrupted warfarin therapy.