Key result
Continuing vitamin K antagonists during cardiac device surgery significantly reduced the incidence of clinically significant device pocket haematoma compared to interruption with heparin bridging (RR 0.19), whereas both continuation and interruption of non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants appeared safe.
Why the study?
The safety and efficacy of peri-procedural anticoagulation therapy management strategies during cardiovascular implantable electronic device procedures required systematic evaluation.
Does the continuation or interruption of anticoagulation therapy affect bleeding and thromboembolic complications in patients undergoing cardiovascular implantable electronic device procedures?
Systematic Review
Does the continuation or interruption of anticoagulation therapy affect bleeding and thromboembolic complications in patients undergoing cardiovascular implantable electronic device procedures?
Relative Risk: 0.19 (95% CI 0.1–0.36)
Absolute Event Rate: 3.5% vs 16%
p-value: p=<0.001
Continuing vitamin K antagonists at therapeutic levels is safer than interruption with heparin bridging during CIED procedures, while both continuation and interruption of NOACs appear safe.
Continuing therapeutic VKA reduces pocket hematoma versus bridging in CIED procedures; reinforces uninterrupted strategy while leaving NOAC management open for dedicated RCTs.
Aim:The objective of the study is to systematically evaluate the safety and efficacy of peri-procedural utilization of anticoagulation therapy during cardiovascular implantable electronic device procedures.Material and methods: The review materials were based on comprehensive retrieval of randomized controlled trials and observational studies published until April 2023.Studies which compared different management strategies of long-term anticoagulation therapy during peri-procedural cardiac rhythm device implantation and compared the complications of bleeding and/or thromboembolic events were selected and reviewed.Results: Studies analysing non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants interruption versus continuation during peri-procedural implantable cardiac device surgery found no statistically significant difference in bleeding or thromboembolic complications between these strategies.Studies comparing non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants with vitamin K antagonists also showed no statistically significant difference.One study comparing uninterrupted warfarin with interrupted warfarin with heparin bridging reported a reduced incidence of clinically significant device pocket haematoma in patients with continued warfarin treatment (relative risk = 0.19; 95% confidence interval: 0.10 to 0.36; p < 0.001).A sub-analysis of one study comparing dabigatran versus warfarin with heparin bridging and without bridging reported a lower risk of pocket haematoma with dabigatran when compared to warfarin with heparin bridging (risk difference: -8.62%, 95% confidence interval: -24.15 to -0.51%; p = 0.034).Both bleeding and thromboembolic complications were rare.Conclusions: The traditional method of vitamin K antagonists interruption with heparin bridging is less safe than continuing vitamin K antagonists at therapeutic levels.Both continuation and interruption strategies of non-vitamin K anticoagulants during cardiac device surgery seem to be safe and appropriate.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Daubaraitė et al. (2023) conducted a systematic review in Cardiovascular implantable electronic device procedures. Continuation of oral anticoagulants (VKAs or NOACs) vs. Interruption of oral anticoagulants with or without bridging was evaluated on Clinically significant device pocket haematoma (continued warfarin vs interrupted with heparin bridging) (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.10-0.36, p=<0.001). Continuing vitamin K antagonists during cardiac device surgery significantly reduced the incidence of clinically significant device pocket haematoma compared to interruption with heparin bridging (RR 0.19), whereas both continuation and interruption of non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants appeared safe.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: