Use Of Bridging Anticoagulation Research Articles

Perioperative Management of Anticoagulation and Antithrombotic Therapy

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

Periprocedural bridging anticoagulation in patients with venous thromboembolism: A registry‐based cohort study

BackgroundUse of bridging anticoagulation increases a patient's bleeding risk without clear evidence of thrombotic prevention among warfarin‐treated patients with atrial fibrillation. Contemporary use of bridging anticoagulation among warfarin‐treated patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) has not been studied. MethodsWe identified warfarin‐treated patients with VTE who temporarily stopped warfarin for a surgical procedure between 2010 and 2018 at six health systems. Using the 2012 American College of Chest Physicians guideline, we assessed use of periprocedural bridging anticoagulation based on recurrent VTE risk. Recurrent VTE risk and 30‐day outcomes (bleeding, thromboembolism, emergency department visit) were each assessed using logistic regression adjusted for multiple procedures per patient. ResultsDuring the study period, 789 warfarin‐treated patients with VTE underwent 1529 procedures (median, 2; interquartile range, 1‐4). Unadjusted use of bridging anticoagulation was more common in patients at high risk for VTE recurrence (99/171, 57.9%) than for patients at moderate (515/1078, 47.8%) or low risk of recurrence (134/280, 47.86%). Bridging anticoagulation use was higher in high‐risk patients compared with low‐ or moderate‐risk patients in both unadjusted (P = .013) and patient‐level cluster‐adjusted analyses (P = .031). Adherence to American College of Chest Physicians guidelines in high‐ and low‐risk patients did not change during the study period (odds ratio, 0.98 per year; 95% confidence interval, 0.91‐1.05). Adverse events were rare and not statistically different between the two treatment groups. ConclusionsBridging anticoagulation was commonly overused among low‐risk patients and underused among high‐risk patients treated with warfarin for VTE. Adverse events were rare and not different between the two treatment groups.

Nation-Wide Use of Periprocedural Bridging Anticoagulation in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation

The randomized, controlled BRIDGE trial established a lack of efficacy for use of bridging anticoagulation in warfarin-treated patients who underwent surgical procedures. A large nation-wide insurance claims database was used to perform a retrospective interrupted time series cohort study of adult patients with atrial fibrillation treated with warfarin who underwent surgical procedures. Patients were assessed for the use of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) use as a periprocedural bridging anticoagulant between July 2015 and November 2017. The interrupted time series regression model was used to estimate the reduction in use of bridging LMWH following the publication of the BRIDGE trial in July 2015. The cohort consisted of 9,278 warfarin-treated patients with atrial fibrillation. Use of bridging LMWH declined by an estimated 6.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.1% to 11.3%) to 13.0% following publication of the BRIDGE trial. The decline in bridging LMWH use was numerically larger for patients with a moderate- or high risk of stroke (8.9% decline, 95% CI 0.4% to 17.4%) than for patients at low risk for stroke (6.2% decline, 95% CI 0.7% to 11.5%). Significant predictors of bridging LMWH use include younger age and no co-morbid diabetes. In conclusion, this nation-wide, claims-based study identified a significant reduction in the use of bridging LMWH following the publication of the BRIDGE trial for warfarin-treated patients with AF.

Safety and Efficacy of Routine Bridging Anticoagulation for Subtherapeutic Anticoagulation in Outpatients with a Left Ventricular Assist Device

Background
 Anticoagulation with vitamin K antagonists is vital to prevent pump thrombosis in patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVADs). However, the safety and efficacy of bridging anticoagulation for the routine management of subtherapeutic international normalized ratio (INR) in stable outpatients remains poorly characterized.
 Methods 
 In this retrospective study, a total of 60 LVAD outpatients had 110 episodes of subtherapeutic INR noted on routine testing. 34 of these episodes were managed with parenteral bridging anticoagulation and 76 were managed with only an adjusted dose of warfarin. The rates of bleeding and thromboembolic adverse events following these episodes of subtherapeutic INR were measured to evaluate the safety and efficacy of bridging anticoagulation in this population.
 Results
 Ischemic cerebrovascular events occurred following 2 bridged episodes compared to 4 non-bridged episodes (6% vs. 5%, p=0.895). Hemolysis occurred following 1 bridged episode compared to 3 non-bridged episodes (3% vs. 4%, p=0.794). Bleeding events occurred after 4 bridged episodes compared to 13 non-bridged episodes (12% vs. 17%, p=0.474). In a subgroup of patients with either a CHA2DS2-VASc score > 3 or a history of atrial fibrillation, thromboembolic events occurred only in those who did not receive bridging anticoagulation although this result was not statistically significant.
 Conclusions
 There was no benefit associated with the routine use of bridging anticoagulation in a general population of stable LVAD outpatients with subtherapeutic INR. A trend towards benefit was seen in a subset of patients with a CHA2DS2-VASc score of > 3 or a history of atrial fibrillation.

Personalizing Bridging Anticoagulation in Patients with Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation-a Microsimulation Analysis.

Bridging anticoagulation is commonly prescribed to patients with atrial fibrillation who are initiating warfarin or require interruption of anticoagulation. Current guidelines recommend bridging for patients at high risk of stroke. Among patients with atrial fibrillation and one or more risk factors for ischemic stroke, the recently published BRIDGE trial found forgoing bridging during interruption to be, on average, noninferior to bridging with respect to ischemic complications, with significantly fewer hemorrhagic complications. We sought to examine the benefits and harms of bridging anticoagulation across the spectrum of ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke risk and thereby enable more nuanced, risk-stratified decision-making when bridging is considered during initiation or interruption of vitamin K antagonists. A Monte Carlo simulation, using a combination of literature-derived estimates, registry data, and trial data. Net clinical benefit, weighting for ischemic strokes, intracranial hemorrhages, and extracranial major hemorrhages. The benefits and harms of bridging anticoagulation vary according to underlying patient risk profiles for both thromboembolic stroke and major intracranial bleeding. Patients at high risk of ischemic stroke and low risk of hemorrhage derive benefit from bridging during initiation or interruption of warfarin therapy. Patients at similarly high or low risk of both outcomes may receive benefit from bridging during initiation and bridging during interruption, but this was sensitive to underlying assumptions. The need for stratification along both axes of risk was robust to a wide range of parameters. Bridging anticoagulation may provide benefit to patients at high risk of ischemic stroke and low risk of intracranial hemorrhage who are initiating or interrupting warfarin therapy, while patients at high or low risk of both complications may be harmed. The use of bridging anticoagulation in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation should be considered only after stratification by risk of ischemic and hemorrhagic complications.

Perioperative bridging anticoagulation during dabigatran or warfarin interruption among patients who had an elective surgery or procedure. Substudy of the RE-LY trial.

In patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who require interruption of dabigatran or warfarin for an elective surgery/procedure, the risks and benefits of perioperative bridging anticoagulation is uncertain.We accessed the database from RE-LY, a randomised trial comparing dabigatran with warfarin for stroke prevention in AF, to assess the potential benefits and risks of bridging. In patients who had a first interruption of dabigatran or warfarin for an elective surgery/procedure, we compared the risk for major bleeding (MB), stroke or systemic embolism (SSE) and any thromboembolism (TE) in patients who were bridged or not bridged during the period of seven days before until 30 days after surgery/procedure. We used multivariable Cox regression to adjust for potential confounders.Bridging was used more during warfarin interruption than dabigatran interruption (27.5 % vs 15.4 %; p< 0.001). With dabigatran interruption, bridged patients had more MB (6.5 % vs 1.8 %, p< 0.001) than those not bridged but bridged and not bridged groups did not differ for any TE (1.2 % vs 0.6 %, p=0.16) and SSE (0.5 % vs 0.3 %, p=0.46). With warfarin interruption, bridged patients had more MB (6.8 % vs 1.6 %, p< 0.001) and any TE (1.8 % vs 0.3 %, p=0.007) than those not bridged but bridged and not bridged groups did not differ for SSE (0.5 % vs 0.2 %, p=0.321). In conclusion, in patients who interrupted dabigatran or warfarin for a surgery/ procedure in the RE-LY trial, use of bridging anticoagulation appeared to increase the risk for major bleeding irrespective of dabigatran or warfarin interruption.

Heparin Bridging in Anticoagulated Patients: Overused and Possibly Hazardous

Although guidelines exist for use of bridging anticoagulation during short-term interruptions of warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation, they

Circulation : Clinical Summaries

<i>Circulation</i> : Clinical Summaries

Perioperative anticoagulation in patients having implantation of a cardiac pacemaker or defibrillator: a systematic review and practical management guide.

The perioperative management of anticoagulation in patients who are having implantation of a pacemaker or implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is a common clinical problem in which best clinical practise is not established. We performed a systematic review of the literature to assess the safety (pocket hematoma risk) and efficacy (thromboembolism risk) of different management strategies. We included studies involving patients who were having pacemaker or ICD implantation whenever a portion of these patients were receiving a coumarin and also assessed pocket hematoma or thromboembolism. We identified eight studies that assessed two strategies used for perioperative anticoagulation management: interruption of a coumarin and use of bridging anticoagulation with a short-acting heparin; and perioperative continuation of a coumarin. A strategy involving bridging anticoagulation with therapeutic-dose heparin was associated with an incidence of pocket hematoma of 12-20%. A strategy involving perioperative continuation of a coumarin was associated with an incidence of pocket bleeding of 1.9-6.6%. The incidence of thromboembolic events was 0-1%, irrespective of the perioperative anticoagulation strategy used. The perioperative anticoagulation management of patients who require pacemaker or ICD implantation is not established but a strategy involving postoperative bridging with intravenous heparin confers a high risk for bleeding whereas perioperative continuation of a coumarin appears to confer a lower risk for bleeding.

The Perioperative Management of Antithrombotic Therapy: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th Edition)

This article discusses the perioperative management of antithrombotic therapy and is part of the American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th Edition). The primary objectives of this article are the following: (1) to address the perioperative management of patients who are receiving vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) or antiplatelet drugs, such as aspirin and clopidogrel, and require an elective surgical or other invasive procedures; and (2) to address the perioperative use of bridging anticoagulation, typically with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) or unfractionated heparin (UFH). A secondary objective is to address the perioperative management of such patients who require urgent surgery. The recommendations in this article incorporate the grading system that is discussed in this supplement (Guyatt G et al, CHEST 2008; 133:123S-131S). Briefly, Grade 1 recommendations are considered strong and indicate that the benefits do (or do not) outweigh risks, burden, and costs, whereas Grade 2 recommendations are referred to as suggestions and imply that individual patient values may lead to different management choices. The key recommendations in this article include the following: in patients with a mechanical heart valve or atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism (VTE) at high risk for thromboembolism, we recommend bridging anticoagulation with therapeutic-dose subcutaneous (SC) LMWH or IV UFH over no bridging during temporary interruption of VKA therapy (Grade 1C); in patients with a mechanical heart valve or atrial fibrillation or VTE at moderate risk for thromboembolism, we suggest bridging anticoagulation with therapeutic-dose SC LMWH, therapeutic-dose IV UFH, or low-dose SC LMWH over no bridging during temporary interruption of VKA therapy (Grade 2C); in patients with a mechanical heart valve or atrial fibrillation or VTE at low risk for thromboembolism, we suggest low-dose SC LMWH or no bridging over bridging with therapeutic-dose SC LMWH or IV UFH (Grade 2C). In patients with a bare metal coronary stent who require surgery within 6 weeks of stent placement, we recommend continuing aspirin and clopidogrel in the perioperative period (Grade 1C); in patients with a drug-eluting coronary stent who require surgery within 12 months of stent placement, we recommend continuing aspirin and clopidogrel in the perioperative period (Grade 1C). In patients who are undergoing minor dental procedures and are receiving VKAs, we recommend continuing VKAs around the time of the procedure and co-administering an oral prohemostatic agent (Grade 1B); in patients who are undergoing minor dermatologic procedures and are receiving VKAs, we recommend continuing VKAs around the time of the procedure (Grade 1C); in patients who are undergoing cataract removal and are receiving VKAs, we recommend continuing VKAs around the time of the procedure (Grade 1C).