Yue Zhao1, Yuan Yang1, Xuejiao Tang1, Xiang Yu1, Lei Zhang1, Hua Xiao2. 1. Department of Cardiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, 400016, China. 2. Department of Cardiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, 400016, China. xiaohua197408@163.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: New oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have been shown to be comparable to warfarin in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF). This meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of NOACs for perioperative anticoagulation of AF catheter ablation. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, VIP, and SinoMed were searched for articles published up to August 30, 2015. The data were calculated with RevMan 5.2 using a fixed-effects model. RESULTS: Nineteen studies with a total of 7996 patients were included in this meta-analysis. NOAC treatment was associated with fewer overall bleeding events than continuous warfarin treatment (RR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.64-0.95, P = 0.01); similarly, there were fewer overall bleeding events with NOAC treatment than interrupted warfarin treatment (RR = 0.58, 95% CI = 0.44-0.77, P = 0.0002). In the subgroup analyses, the incidence of overall bleeding events (RR = 0.67, 95% CI = 0.48-0.92, P = 0.01) and minor bleeding events (RR = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.37-0.86, P = 0.007) in the interrupted NOAC group was lower than that in the continuous warfarin group. NOAC treatment did not increase the risk of thromboembolic complications compared with warfarin treatment (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this meta-analysis suggested that periprocedural NOAC therapy was as effective as continuous warfarin therapy for preventing thromboembolism and had a lower incidence of bleeding complications. Interrupted NOAC therapy during the periprocedural period might result in a lower incidence of bleeding complications compared with continuous NOAC therapy.
BACKGROUND: New oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have been shown to be comparable to warfarin in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF). This meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of NOACs for perioperative anticoagulation of AF catheter ablation. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, VIP, and SinoMed were searched for articles published up to August 30, 2015. The data were calculated with RevMan 5.2 using a fixed-effects model. RESULTS: Nineteen studies with a total of 7996 patients were included in this meta-analysis. NOAC treatment was associated with fewer overall bleeding events than continuous warfarin treatment (RR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.64-0.95, P = 0.01); similarly, there were fewer overall bleeding events with NOAC treatment than interrupted warfarin treatment (RR = 0.58, 95% CI = 0.44-0.77, P = 0.0002). In the subgroup analyses, the incidence of overall bleeding events (RR = 0.67, 95% CI = 0.48-0.92, P = 0.01) and minor bleeding events (RR = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.37-0.86, P = 0.007) in the interrupted NOAC group was lower than that in the continuous warfarin group. NOAC treatment did not increase the risk of thromboembolic complications compared with warfarin treatment (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this meta-analysis suggested that periprocedural NOAC therapy was as effective as continuous warfarin therapy for preventing thromboembolism and had a lower incidence of bleeding complications. Interrupted NOAC therapy during the periprocedural period might result in a lower incidence of bleeding complications compared with continuous NOAC therapy.
Authors: Mohammed Shurrab; Carlos A Morillo; Sam Schulman; Nitin Kansal; Asaf Danon; David Newman; Ilan Lashevsky; Jeff S Healey; Eugene Crystal Journal: Can J Cardiol Date: 2013-08-29 Impact factor: 5.223
Authors: A John Camm; Gregory Y H Lip; Raffaele De Caterina; Irene Savelieva; Dan Atar; Stefan H Hohnloser; Gerhard Hindricks; Paulus Kirchhof Journal: Europace Date: 2012-08-24 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Hein Heidbuchel; Peter Verhamme; Marco Alings; Matthias Antz; Werner Hacke; Jonas Oldgren; Peter Sinnaeve; A John Camm; Paulus Kirchhof Journal: Europace Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Daniel W Kaiser; Megan M Streur; Rangadham Nagarakanti; S Patrick Whalen; Christopher R Ellis Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2013-04-28 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Mohamed Bassiouny; Walid Saliba; John Rickard; Mingyuan Shao; Albert Sey; Mariam Diab; David O Martin; Ayman Hussein; Maurice Khoury; Bernard Abi-Saleh; Samir Alam; Jay Sengupta; P Peter Borek; Bryan Baranowski; Mark Niebauer; Thomas Callahan; Niraj Varma; Mina Chung; Patrick J Tchou; Mohamed Kanj; Thomas Dresing; Bruce D Lindsay; Oussama Wazni Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2013-04-03
Authors: Martin Martinek; Marianne Gwechenberger; Daniel Scherr; Clemens Steinwender; Markus Stühlinger; Helmut Pürerfellner; Franz Xaver Roithinger; Lukas Fiedler Journal: Wien Klin Wochenschr Date: 2018-01-25 Impact factor: 1.704
Authors: Rhanderson Cardoso; Stephan Willems; Edward P Gerstenfeld; Atul Verma; Richard Schilling; Stefan H Hohnloser; Ken Okumura; Matias Nordaby; Marc A Brouwer; Hugh Calkins Journal: Clin Cardiol Date: 2018-12-07 Impact factor: 2.882
Authors: Stefan H Hohnloser; John Camm; Riccardo Cappato; Hans-Christoph Diener; Hein Heidbuchel; Hans-Joachim Lanz; Lluís Mont; Carlos A Morillo; Rüdiger Smolnik; Ophelia Q P Yin; Josef Kautzner Journal: Clin Cardiol Date: 2018-04-17 Impact factor: 2.882
Authors: Ghada A Bawazeer; Hadeel A Alkofide; Aya A Alsharafi; Nada O Babakr; Arwa M Altorkistani; Tarek S Kashour; Michael Miligkos; Khalid M AlFaleh; Lubna A Al-Ansary Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2021-10-21