INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: In the perioperative setting, temporary interruption of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) is recommended. However, the safety of these recommendations is based on non-urological surgical experiences. Our objective was to verify the safety of these recommendations in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients regularly receiving a DOAC and scheduled for RP at our institution were prospectively assessed. DOAC intake was usually stopped 48 h before surgery without any preoperative bridging therapy. Postoperatively, patients received risk-adapted low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH). On the third day after unremarkable RP, DOAC intake was restarted and the administration of LMWH was stopped. We assessed perioperative outcomes and 30-day morbidity. RESULTS: Thirty-two consecutive patients receiving DOAC underwent RP at our institution between 12/2017 and 07/2018. Time of surgery (median, 177 min) and intraoperative blood loss (median, 500 mL) were unremarkable. DOACs were restarted on the third postoperative day in 30 patients (94%). No patient had a significant hemoglobin level reduction after DOAC restart. Overall, 28% of patients experienced complications within 30 days after surgery. Most of which were minor (Clavien ≤ 2), three patients (9%), however, had Clavien ≥ 3 complications. CONCLUSION: Our report is the first to prospectively assess current guideline recommendations regarding DOAC restarting after major urological surgery. RP can safely be performed, if DOACs are correctly paused before surgery. Moreover, in case of an uneventful postoperative clinical course, DOACs can be safely restarted on the third postoperative day. A 9% Clavien ≥ 3 30-day morbidity warrants attention and should be further explored in future studies.
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: In the perioperative setting, temporary interruption of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) is recommended. However, the safety of these recommendations is based on non-urological surgical experiences. Our objective was to verify the safety of these recommendations in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP). MATERIALS AND METHODS:Patients regularly receiving a DOAC and scheduled for RP at our institution were prospectively assessed. DOAC intake was usually stopped 48 h before surgery without any preoperative bridging therapy. Postoperatively, patients received risk-adapted low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH). On the third day after unremarkable RP, DOAC intake was restarted and the administration of LMWH was stopped. We assessed perioperative outcomes and 30-day morbidity. RESULTS: Thirty-two consecutive patients receiving DOAC underwent RP at our institution between 12/2017 and 07/2018. Time of surgery (median, 177 min) and intraoperative blood loss (median, 500 mL) were unremarkable. DOACs were restarted on the third postoperative day in 30 patients (94%). No patient had a significant hemoglobin level reduction after DOAC restart. Overall, 28% of patients experienced complications within 30 days after surgery. Most of which were minor (Clavien ≤ 2), three patients (9%), however, had Clavien ≥ 3 complications. CONCLUSION: Our report is the first to prospectively assess current guideline recommendations regarding DOAC restarting after major urological surgery. RP can safely be performed, if DOACs are correctly paused before surgery. Moreover, in case of an uneventful postoperative clinical course, DOACs can be safely restarted on the third postoperative day. A 9% Clavien ≥ 3 30-day morbidity warrants attention and should be further explored in future studies.
Authors: Thorsten Schlomm; Pierre Tennstedt; Caroline Huxhold; Thomas Steuber; Georg Salomon; Uwe Michl; Hans Heinzer; Jens Hansen; Lars Budäus; Stefan Steurer; Corinna Wittmer; Sarah Minner; Alexander Haese; Guido Sauter; Markus Graefen; Hartwig Huland Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-05-10 Impact factor: 20.096
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: Kardiol Pol Date: 2014 Impact factor: 3.108
Authors: Jochen Walz; Jonathan I Epstein; Roman Ganzer; Markus Graefen; Giorgio Guazzoni; Jihad Kaouk; Mani Menon; Alexandre Mottrie; Robert P Myers; Vipul Patel; Ashutosh Tewari; Arnauld Villers; Walter Artibani Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-02-02 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Thorsten Schlomm; Hans Heinzer; Thomas Steuber; Georg Salomon; Oliver Engel; Uwe Michl; Alexander Haese; Markus Graefen; Hartwig Huland Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2011-03-22 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Raisa S Pompe; Burkhard Beyer; Alexander Haese; Felix Preisser; Uwe Michl; Thomas Steuber; Markus Graefen; Hartwig Huland; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Derya Tilki Journal: BJU Int Date: 2018-06-04 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Nicolas Mottet; Joaquim Bellmunt; Michel Bolla; Erik Briers; Marcus G Cumberbatch; Maria De Santis; Nicola Fossati; Tobias Gross; Ann M Henry; Steven Joniau; Thomas B Lam; Malcolm D Mason; Vsevolod B Matveev; Paul C Moldovan; Roderick C N van den Bergh; Thomas Van den Broeck; Henk G van der Poel; Theo H van der Kwast; Olivier Rouvière; Ivo G Schoots; Thomas Wiegel; Philip Cornford Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-08-25 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: V Matti J Säily; Anssi Pétas; Lotta Joutsi-Korhonen; Kimmo Taari; Riitta Lassila; Antti S Rannikko Journal: Scand J Urol Date: 2013-07-18 Impact factor: 1.612
Authors: Philippe D Violette; Rufus Cartwright; Matthias Briel; Kari A O Tikkinen; Gordon H Guyatt Journal: BJU Int Date: 2016-04-29 Impact factor: 5.588