Muhammad Umer Siddiqui1, Ahmed K Pasha2, Ibtisam Rauf3, Justin Z Lee4, Muhammad Danial Siddiqui5, Youssef Yaacoub6, Mohammad Reza Movahed7. 1. Marshfield Clinic Health System, Eau Claire, Wisconsin, USA [Current affiliation: George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA siddiqui.muhammad@marshfieldclinic.org. 2. Mayo Clinic Health System, Rochester, Minnesota, USA. 3. Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Department of Physical Therapy and Human Movement, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 4. Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona, USA. 5. University of South Dakota, Vermillion, South Dakota, USA. 6. Catholic Medical Center, Manchester, New Hampshire, USA. 7. University of Arizona Health Sciences, Tucson, Arizona, USA.
Abstract
Objective: The study objective was to determine if peri-operative bridging anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation is beneficial or harmful.Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.Setting: Inpatient or in-hospital setting.Participants: Adults with atrial fibrillation having a CHADS2 score >1 undergoing elective surgical procedure on anticoagulation. Methods: A systemic search of multiple databases (Cochrane, Medline, PubMed) was performed regarding studies conducted on efficacy and safety of perioperative bridging anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation. Studies identified were reviewed by two authors individually before inclusion. The results were then pooled using Review Manager to determine the combined effect. Stroke/systemic embolism was considered as the primary efficacy outcome. Major bleeding was the primary safety outcome. Results: The systematic search revealed 108 potential articles. The full texts of 28 articles were retrieved for assessment of eligibility. After full text review, 25 articles were excluded. Three articles met inclusion criteria. No significant difference in stroke/systemic embolism with bridging anticoagulation was noted (risk ratio, 1.25-95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55-2.85). Bridging was associated with significantly higher risk of major bleeding (risk ratio, 3.29-95% CI, 2.25-4.81). Conclusion: An individualized approach is required when initiating peri-operative bridging anticoagulation. There is certainly a higher risk of bleeding with bridging anticoagulation and no difference in stroke/systemic embolism. However, the results cannot be extrapolated to patients who have valvular atrial fibrillation or CHADS2 score of 5 or greater.
Objective: The study objective was to determine if peri-operative bridging anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation is beneficial or harmful.Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.Setting: Inpatient or in-hospital setting.Participants: Adults with atrial fibrillation having a CHADS2 score >1 undergoing elective surgical procedure on anticoagulation. Methods: A systemic search of multiple databases (Cochrane, Medline, PubMed) was performed regarding studies conducted on efficacy and safety of perioperative bridging anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation. Studies identified were reviewed by two authors individually before inclusion. The results were then pooled using Review Manager to determine the combined effect. Stroke/systemic embolism was considered as the primary efficacy outcome. Major bleeding was the primary safety outcome. Results: The systematic search revealed 108 potential articles. The full texts of 28 articles were retrieved for assessment of eligibility. After full text review, 25 articles were excluded. Three articles met inclusion criteria. No significant difference in stroke/systemic embolism with bridging anticoagulation was noted (risk ratio, 1.25-95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55-2.85). Bridging was associated with significantly higher risk of major bleeding (risk ratio, 3.29-95% CI, 2.25-4.81). Conclusion: An individualized approach is required when initiating peri-operative bridging anticoagulation. There is certainly a higher risk of bleeding with bridging anticoagulation and no difference in stroke/systemic embolism. However, the results cannot be extrapolated to patients who have valvular atrial fibrillation or CHADS2 score of 5 or greater.
Authors: Yoko Miyasaka; Marion E Barnes; Bernard J Gersh; Stephen S Cha; Kent R Bailey; Walter P Abhayaratna; James B Seward; Teresa S M Tsang Journal: Circulation Date: 2006-07-03 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Deborah Siegal; Jovana Yudin; Scott Kaatz; James D Douketis; Wendy Lim; Alex C Spyropoulos Journal: Circulation Date: 2012-08-21 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Sumeet S Chugh; Rasmus Havmoeller; Kumar Narayanan; David Singh; Michiel Rienstra; Emelia J Benjamin; Richard F Gillum; Young-Hoon Kim; John H McAnulty; Zhi-Jie Zheng; Mohammad H Forouzanfar; Mohsen Naghavi; George A Mensah; Majid Ezzati; Christopher J L Murray Journal: Circulation Date: 2013-12-17 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Julian P T Higgins; Douglas G Altman; Peter C Gøtzsche; Peter Jüni; David Moher; Andrew D Oxman; Jelena Savovic; Kenneth F Schulz; Laura Weeks; Jonathan A C Sterne Journal: BMJ Date: 2011-10-18
Authors: Rebecca M Turner; Jonathan Davey; Mike J Clarke; Simon G Thompson; Julian Pt Higgins Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2012-03-29 Impact factor: 7.196
Authors: James D Douketis; Alex C Spyropoulos; Joanne Duncan; Marc Carrier; Gregoire Le Gal; Alfonso J Tafur; Thomas Vanassche; Peter Verhamme; Sudeep Shivakumar; Peter L Gross; Agnes Y Y Lee; Erik Yeo; Susan Solymoss; Jeannine Kassis; Geneviève Le Templier; Stephen Kowalski; Mark Blostein; Vinay Shah; Elizabeth MacKay; Cynthia Wu; Nathan P Clark; Shannon M Bates; Frederick A Spencer; Eleni Arnaoutoglou; Michiel Coppens; Donald M Arnold; Joseph A Caprini; Na Li; Karen A Moffat; Summer Syed; Sam Schulman Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2019-11-01 Impact factor: 21.873