Gerard Loughlin1, Tomás Datino Romaniega2, Javier Garcia-Fernandez3, David Calvo4, Ricardo Salgado3, Andres Alonso1, Xin Li1, Angel Arenal1, Esteban González-Torrecilla1, Felipe Atienza1, Francisco Fernández-Avilés1. 1. Department of Cardiology, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria del Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, C/Dr. Esquerdo 46, 28007, Madrid, Spain. 2. Department of Cardiology, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria del Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, C/Dr. Esquerdo 46, 28007, Madrid, Spain. tomas.datino@gmail.com. 3. Hospital Universitario Asistencial, Burgos, Spain. 4. Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias, Oviedo, Spain.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Many centers perform catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) with periprocedural interruption of oral vitamin K antagonists. In this scenario, the optimal post-procedural anticoagulation strategy is still under debate. We sought to compare the incidence of major complications associated with post-procedural use of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) versus unfractioned heparin (UFH) as a bridge to reinitiation of oral anticoagulation after an AF ablation procedure. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed medical history data of all patients undergoing catheter ablation for AF at three Spanish referral centers between January 2009 and January 2014. A total of 702 patients were included in the analysis. We compared the incidence of major complications (a combination of major bleeding and thromboembolic events) between patients receiving UFH (291) and those receiving LMWH (411) after the procedure. RESULTS: The overall incidence of major complications was 4.1%, including five thromboembolic events (0.7%) and 24 major bleeding events (3.4%), with no significant differences in patients treated with LMWH vs. UFH (2.9 vs. 4.1%; P = NS). The presence of peripheral vascular disease emerged as the only independent predictor of major complications (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 9.1; confidence interval (CI) 95% 1.7-49.3; P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Immediate post-procedural bridging with UFH or with LMWH are equally safe strategies in patients undergoing catheter ablation for AF in whom oral anticoagulation is interrupted for the procedure. Due to its greater simplicity of use, LMWH may be the preferred option. The presence of peripheral vascular disease is a potent predictor of major post-procedural complications.
PURPOSE: Many centers perform catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) with periprocedural interruption of oral vitamin K antagonists. In this scenario, the optimal post-procedural anticoagulation strategy is still under debate. We sought to compare the incidence of major complications associated with post-procedural use of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) versus unfractioned heparin (UFH) as a bridge to reinitiation of oral anticoagulation after an AF ablation procedure. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed medical history data of all patients undergoing catheter ablation for AF at three Spanish referral centers between January 2009 and January 2014. A total of 702 patients were included in the analysis. We compared the incidence of major complications (a combination of major bleeding and thromboembolic events) between patients receiving UFH (291) and those receiving LMWH (411) after the procedure. RESULTS: The overall incidence of major complications was 4.1%, including five thromboembolic events (0.7%) and 24 major bleeding events (3.4%), with no significant differences in patients treated with LMWH vs. UFH (2.9 vs. 4.1%; P = NS). The presence of peripheral vascular disease emerged as the only independent predictor of major complications (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 9.1; confidence interval (CI) 95% 1.7-49.3; P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Immediate post-procedural bridging with UFH or with LMWH are equally safe strategies in patients undergoing catheter ablation for AF in whom oral anticoagulation is interrupted for the procedure. Due to its greater simplicity of use, LMWH may be the preferred option. The presence of peripheral vascular disease is a potent predictor of major post-procedural complications.
Authors: Uwe Dorwarth; Michael Fiek; Thomas Remp; Cristopher Reithmann; Martin Dugas; Gerhard Steinbeck; Ellen Hoffmann Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 1.976
Authors: Uma N Srivatsa; Beate Danielsen; Ivan Anderson; Ezra Amsterdam; Nayereh Pezeshkian; Yingbo Yang; Richard H White Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2014-07-15 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Oussama M Wazni; Antonio Rossillo; Nassir F Marrouche; Eduardo B Saad; David O Martin; Mandeep Bhargava; Dianna Bash; Salwa Beheiry; Mark Wexman; Domenico Potenza; Ennio Pisano; Raffaele Fanelli; Aldo Bonso; Sakis Themistoclakis; Demet Erciyes; Walid I Saliba; Robert A Schweikert; Johannes Brachmann; Antonio Raviele; Andrea Natale Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2005-06
Authors: Ayman A Hussein; David O Martin; Walid Saliba; Deven Patel; Saima Karim; Omar Batal; Mustafa Banna; Michelle Williams-Andrews; Minerva Sherman; Mohamed Kanj; Mandeep Bhargava; Thomas Dresing; Thomas Callahan; Patrick Tchou; Luigi Di Biase; Salwa Beheiry; Bruce Lindsay; Andrea Natale; Oussama Wazni Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2009-07-10 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: P B Sparks; S Jayaprakash; J K Vohra; H G Mond; A G Yapanis; L E Grigg; J M Kalman Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1998-08 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Daniel Scherr; Kavita Sharma; Darshan Dalal; David Spragg; Karuna Chilukuri; Alan Cheng; Jun Dong; Charles A Henrikson; Saman Nazarian; Ronald D Berger; Hugh Calkins; Joseph E Marine Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2009-12