Karam Ayoub1, Ramez Nairooz2, Ahmed Almomani2, Meera Marji3, Hakan Paydak2, Waddah Maskoun4. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas. Electronic address: kfayoub@uams.edu. 2. Department of Cardiology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas. 3. College of Public Health, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas. 4. Department of Cardiology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas; Department of Cardiology, Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System, John L. McClellan Memorial Veterans Hospital, Little Rock, Arkansas.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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). CONCLUSION: 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.
BACKGROUND: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 AFpatients requiring temporary interruption of oral anticoagulation. METHODS: We searched the literature for trials that compared heparin bridging with no bridging in AFpatients 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 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). CONCLUSION: Among AFpatients 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.
Authors: Ricardo Rubini-Costa; Francisco Bermúdez-Jiménez; Ricardo Rivera-López; Elena Sola-García; Hadi Nagib-Raya; Eduardo Moreno-Escobar; Miguel Ángel López-Zúñiga; Adela Briones-Través; Francisco Sanz-Herrera; Jose Miguel Sequí-Sabater; Juan Luis Romero-Cabrera; Javier Maíllo-Seco; Felipe Fernández-Vázquez; María Rivadeneira-Ruiz; Lucas López-Valero; Carlos Gómez-Navarro; Jose Antonio Aparicio-Gómez; Miguel Álvarez López; Luis Tercedor; María Molina-Jiménez; Rosa Macías-Ruiz; Juan Jiménez-Jáimez Journal: Med Clin (Engl Ed) Date: 2022-06-22
Authors: Christian Kim; Margaret L Pfeiffer; Jessica R Chang; Michael A Burnstine Journal: Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2022-01-11 Impact factor: 2.011