BACKGROUND: Periprocedural antithrombotic prophylaxis in patients undergoing surgical valve procedures (SVP) is insufficiently investigated. Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) has been considered as an alternative to unfractionated heparin (UFH). However, safety and efficacy of this prophylaxis strategy is unknown. This study aimed to investigate safety and efficacy of periprocedural LMWH prophylaxis and determine optimal dosage and timing for periprocedural cessation and initiation. METHODS: The present study is a retrospective, single-center observational analysis of 388 patients who underwent SVP (valve replacement or valvuloplasty) between 2015 and 2016. In-hospital endpoints were bleeding, transfusions, reoperation due to bleeding, and thromboembolic events. RESULTS: Giving the first dose of LMWH on the day of SVP was a risk factor for bleeding (OR 1.07; 95% CI 1.04-1.10; p < 0.001), transfusions (OR 1.04; 95% CI 1.01-1.07; p = 0.008) and reoperation due to bleeding (OR 1.20; 95% CI 1.12-1.28; p < 0.001), with > 40 mg/day as a predictor. A higher dosage of LMWH premedication was an independent risk factor for bleeding (OR 1.02; 95% CI 1.00-1.04; p = 0.03) and transfusion (OR 1.03; 95% CI 1.01-1.05; p = 0.01), with > 60 mg/day as a predictor for these events. LMWH dosed within 24 h prior to SVP increased the risk of transfusion (AUC 0.636; 95% CI 0.496-0.762; p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Bleeding is an important early concern after surgical valve procedures. Safety and efficacy of periprocedural prophylaxis with LMWH depends on dosage and the timing of its administration. The most optimal periprocedural prophylaxis in the SVP population appears to be LMWH in dosage of 40-60 mg/day, which is recommended for deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis, ceased at least one day before SVP.
BACKGROUND: Periprocedural antithrombotic prophylaxis in patients undergoing surgical valve procedures (SVP) is insufficiently investigated. Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) has been considered as an alternative to unfractionated heparin (UFH). However, safety and efficacy of this prophylaxis strategy is unknown. This study aimed to investigate safety and efficacy of periprocedural LMWH prophylaxis and determine optimal dosage and timing for periprocedural cessation and initiation. METHODS: The present study is a retrospective, single-center observational analysis of 388 patients who underwent SVP (valve replacement or valvuloplasty) between 2015 and 2016. In-hospital endpoints were bleeding, transfusions, reoperation due to bleeding, and thromboembolic events. RESULTS: Giving the first dose of LMWH on the day of SVP was a risk factor for bleeding (OR 1.07; 95% CI 1.04-1.10; p < 0.001), transfusions (OR 1.04; 95% CI 1.01-1.07; p = 0.008) and reoperation due to bleeding (OR 1.20; 95% CI 1.12-1.28; p < 0.001), with > 40 mg/day as a predictor. A higher dosage of LMWH premedication was an independent risk factor for bleeding (OR 1.02; 95% CI 1.00-1.04; p = 0.03) and transfusion (OR 1.03; 95% CI 1.01-1.05; p = 0.01), with > 60 mg/day as a predictor for these events. LMWH dosed within 24 h prior to SVP increased the risk of transfusion (AUC 0.636; 95% CI 0.496-0.762; p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS:Bleeding is an important early concern after surgical valve procedures. Safety and efficacy of periprocedural prophylaxis with LMWH depends on dosage and the timing of its administration. The most optimal periprocedural prophylaxis in the SVP population appears to be LMWH in dosage of 40-60 mg/day, which is recommended for deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis, ceased at least one day before SVP.
Authors: Yngve Falck-Ytter; Charles W Francis; Norman A Johanson; Catherine Curley; Ola E Dahl; Sam Schulman; Thomas L Ortel; Stephen G Pauker; Clifford W Colwell Journal: Chest Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Cary W Akins; D Craig Miller; Marko I Turina; Nicholas T Kouchoukos; Eugene H Blackstone; Gary L Grunkemeier; Johanna J M Takkenberg; Tirone E David; Eric G Butchart; David H Adams; David M Shahian; Siegfried Hagl; John E Mayer; Bruce W Lytle Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Steen Dalby Kristensen; Juhani Knuuti; Antti Saraste; Stefan Anker; Hans Erik Bøtker; Stefan De Hert; Ian Ford; Jose Ramón Gonzalez-Juanatey; Bulent Gorenek; Guy Robert Heyndrickx; Andreas Hoeft; Kurt Huber; Bernard Iung; Keld Per Kjeldsen; Dan Longrois; Thomas F Lüscher; Luc Pierard; Stuart Pocock; Susanna Price; Marco Roffi; Per Anton Sirnes; Miguel Sousa-Uva; Vasilis Voudris; Christian Funck-Brentano Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2014-08-01 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: J G Mathew; A C Spyropoulos; A Yusuf; J Vincent; J Eikelboom; O Shestakovska; S Fremes; J Noora; L Guo; M Peterson; M Pai; R Whitlock Journal: Thromb Haemost Date: 2014-08-28 Impact factor: 5.249
Authors: Laura C Guglielmetti; Robert Sorabella; Codruta Chiuzan; Marc Najjar; Estibaliz Castillero; Daniel Lambert; Min J Kim; Paul Kurlansky; Michael A Borger; Michael Argenziano; Craig R Smith; Isaac George Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2016-04-09 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: N Allou; P Piednoir; C Berroëta; S Provenchère; H Ibrahim; G Baron; P Montravers; B Iung; I Philip; N Ajzenberg Journal: Heart Date: 2009-05-28 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: M J Unsworth-White; A Herriot; O Valencia; J Poloniecki; E E Smith; A J Murday; D J Parker; T Treasure Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 1995-03 Impact factor: 4.330