Christine Baumgartner1, Ivan de Kouchkovsky2, Evans Whitaker3, Margaret C Fang4. 1. Division of Hospital Medicine, University of California, San Francisco; Department of General Internal Medicine, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 2. Division of Hospital Medicine, University of California, San Francisco. 3. UCSF Medical Library, University of California, San Francisco. 4. Division of Hospital Medicine, University of California, San Francisco. Electronic address: Margaret.Fang@ucsf.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Vitamin K antagonists (VKA) are the most widely used anticoagulants, and bridging is commonly administered during periprocedural VKA interruption. Given the unclear benefits and risks of periprocedural bridging in patients with previous venous thromboembolism, we aimed to assess recurrent venous thromboembolism and bleeding outcomes with and without bridging in this population. METHODS: We performed a systematic review searching the PubMed and Embase databases from inception to December 7, 2017 for randomized and nonrandomized studies that included adults with previous venous thromboembolism requiring VKA interruption to undergo an elective procedure, and that reported venous thromboembolism or bleeding outcomes. Quality of evidence was graded by consensus. RESULTS: We included 28 cohort studies (20 being single-arm cohorts) with, overall, 6915 procedures for analysis. In 27 studies reporting perioperative venous thromboembolism outcomes, the pooled incidence of recurrent venous thromboembolism with bridging was 0.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.4%-1.2%) and 0.5% (95% CI, 0.3%-0.8%) without bridging. Eighteen studies reported major or nonmajor bleeding outcomes. The pooled incidence of any bleeding was 3.9% (95% CI, 2.0%-7.4%) with bridging and 0.4% (95% CI, 0.1%-1.7%) without bridging. In bridged patients at high thromboembolic risk, the pooled incidence for venous thromboembolism was 0.8% (95% CI, 0.3%-2.5%) and 7.5% (95% CI, 3.1%-17.4%) for any bleeding. Quality of available evidence was very low, primarily due to a high risk of bias of included studies. CONCLUSIONS: Periprocedural bridging increases the risk of bleeding compared with VKA interruption without bridging, without a significant difference in periprocedural venous thromboembolism rates.
BACKGROUND:Vitamin K antagonists (VKA) are the most widely used anticoagulants, and bridging is commonly administered during periprocedural VKA interruption. Given the unclear benefits and risks of periprocedural bridging in patients with previous venous thromboembolism, we aimed to assess recurrent venous thromboembolism and bleeding outcomes with and without bridging in this population. METHODS: We performed a systematic review searching the PubMed and Embase databases from inception to December 7, 2017 for randomized and nonrandomized studies that included adults with previous venous thromboembolism requiring VKA interruption to undergo an elective procedure, and that reported venous thromboembolism or bleeding outcomes. Quality of evidence was graded by consensus. RESULTS: We included 28 cohort studies (20 being single-arm cohorts) with, overall, 6915 procedures for analysis. In 27 studies reporting perioperative venous thromboembolism outcomes, the pooled incidence of recurrent venous thromboembolism with bridging was 0.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.4%-1.2%) and 0.5% (95% CI, 0.3%-0.8%) without bridging. Eighteen studies reported major or nonmajor bleeding outcomes. The pooled incidence of any bleeding was 3.9% (95% CI, 2.0%-7.4%) with bridging and 0.4% (95% CI, 0.1%-1.7%) without bridging. In bridged patients at high thromboembolic risk, the pooled incidence for venous thromboembolism was 0.8% (95% CI, 0.3%-2.5%) and 7.5% (95% CI, 3.1%-17.4%) for any bleeding. Quality of available evidence was very low, primarily due to a high risk of bias of included studies. CONCLUSIONS: Periprocedural bridging increases the risk of bleeding compared with VKA interruption without bridging, without a significant difference in periprocedural venous thromboembolism rates.
Authors: Imdad Ahmed; Elie Gertner; William B Nelson; Chad M House; Ranjan Dahiya; Christopher P Anderson; David G Benditt; Dennis W X Zhu Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2010-02-20 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: James D Douketis; Alex C Spyropoulos; Frederick A Spencer; Michael Mayr; Amir K Jaffer; Mark H Eckman; Andrew S Dunn; Regina Kunz Journal: Chest Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: A C Spyropoulos; A G G Turpie; A S Dunn; J Spandorfer; J Douketis; A Jacobson; F J Frost Journal: J Thromb Haemost Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 5.824
Authors: Robert D McBane; Waldemar E Wysokinski; Paul R Daniels; Scott C Litin; Joshua Slusser; David O Hodge; Nicole F Dowling; John A Heit Journal: Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol Date: 2010-02-05 Impact factor: 8.311
Authors: Matthew W Sherwood; James D Douketis; Manesh R Patel; Jonathan P Piccini; Anne S Hellkamp; Yuliya Lokhnygina; Alex C Spyropoulos; Graeme J Hankey; Daniel E Singer; Christopher C Nessel; Kenneth W Mahaffey; Keith A A Fox; Robert M Califf; Richard C Becker Journal: Circulation Date: 2014-02-19 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: A Malato; G Saccullo; L Lo Coco; D Caramazza; I Abbene; G Pizzo; A Casuccio; S Siragusa Journal: J Thromb Haemost Date: 2009-10-11 Impact factor: 5.824
Authors: Geoffrey D Barnes; Yun Li; Xiaokui Gu; Brian Haymart; Eva Kline-Rogers; Mona A Ali; Jay Kozlowski; Gregory Krol; James B Froehlich; Scott Kaatz Journal: J Thromb Haemost Date: 2020-06-25 Impact factor: 5.824