E A Hart1, R Jansen1, T A Meijs1, B J Bouma2, R K Riezebos3, W Tanis4, W J P van Boven2, V Hindori3, N Wiersma5, T Dessing1, J Westerink1, S A J Chamuleau6. 1. University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 2. Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Haga Ziekenhuis, The Hague, The Netherlands. 5. Thrombosis Center Saltro, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 6. University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. Electronic address: s.a.j.chamuleau@umcutrecht.nl.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In preparation for an invasive procedure with a high bleeding risk, patients with a mechanical heart valve temporarily have to discontinue their anticoagulant therapy and are usually bridged with either intravenous unfractionated heparin (UFH) or subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). In this study we retrospectively analyzed the safety of UFH versus LMWH as bridging strategy in left-sided mechanical heart valve patients. METHODS: We performed a retrospective multicenter study in four surgical centers in The Netherlands. Patients with a mechanical heart valve implantation bridged from January 2010 until January 2015 were included. The cumulative incidence of adverse events in the 30days following the procedure was recorded. Main outcomes were major bleeding according to International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) criteria, symptomatic thromboembolism, and mortality. RESULTS: In total, 238 (174 aortic, 42 mitral, 22 aortic+mitral) bridging episodes were included. The incidence of major bleeding was 16 (19%) events in the UFH group versus 29 (19%) events in the LMWH group (p=0.97). Incidences of thromboembolism were 2 (2.4%) versus 1 (0.6%). The incidence of death was 1 (1.2%) patient in the UFH group versus 3 (1.9%) patients in the LMWH group. More than 50% of all bleeding complications were categorized as a major bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: Bridging anticoagulation in patients with aortic and mitral mechanical valves is associated with considerable risk, but no difference was apparent between UFH and LMWH strategy. The rate of thromboembolism and death was low with either strategy and the vast majority of adverse events were bleedings. Copyright Â
BACKGROUND: In preparation for an invasive procedure with a high bleeding risk, patients with a mechanical heart valve temporarily have to discontinue their anticoagulant therapy and are usually bridged with either intravenous unfractionated heparin (UFH) or subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). In this study we retrospectively analyzed the safety of UFH versus LMWH as bridging strategy in left-sided mechanical heart valvepatients. METHODS: We performed a retrospective multicenter study in four surgical centers in The Netherlands. Patients with a mechanical heart valve implantation bridged from January 2010 until January 2015 were included. The cumulative incidence of adverse events in the 30days following the procedure was recorded. Main outcomes were major bleeding according to International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) criteria, symptomatic thromboembolism, and mortality. RESULTS: In total, 238 (174 aortic, 42 mitral, 22 aortic+mitral) bridging episodes were included. The incidence of major bleeding was 16 (19%) events in the UFH group versus 29 (19%) events in the LMWH group (p=0.97). Incidences of thromboembolism were 2 (2.4%) versus 1 (0.6%). The incidence of death was 1 (1.2%) patient in the UFH group versus 3 (1.9%) patients in the LMWH group. More than 50% of all bleeding complications were categorized as a major bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: Bridging anticoagulation in patients with aortic and mitral mechanical valves is associated with considerable risk, but no difference was apparent between UFH and LMWH strategy. The rate of thromboembolism and death was low with either strategy and the vast majority of adverse events were bleedings. Copyright Â