Key result
Interrupted dabigatran showed no significant difference compared to warfarin in bleeding (5.4% vs 5.2%; OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.55-1.45) or thromboembolism during catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation.
Why the study?
Does interrupted dabigatran reduce bleeding or thromboembolic events compared to warfarin in patients undergoing catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation?
Meta-Analysis (n=3,036)
Yes
Does interrupted dabigatran reduce bleeding or thromboembolic events compared to warfarin in patients undergoing catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation?
Odds Ratio: 0.92 (95% CI 0.55–1.45)
Absolute Event Rate: 5.4% vs 5.2%
p-value: p=0.11
Interrupted dabigatran appears to be as safe and effective as warfarin for peri-procedural anticoagulation during catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation.
Interrupted dabigatran shows comparable bleeding and thromboembolic risks to warfarin; leaves open need for randomized confirmation before changing practice.
AIMS: To examine the safety (defined as bleeding risk) and efficacy (defined as prevention of thromboembolic events) of interrupted dabigatran for peri-procedural anticoagulation in catheter ablation (CA) of atrial fibrillation (AF) in comparison with warfarin. METHODS AND RESULTS: Reviewers independently searched literature databases from January 2010 through April 2013 for studies comparing the safety and efficacy of dabigatran and warfarin in CA of AF and extracted pre-defined data. The Mantel-Haenszel method was used to pool data of bleeding and thromboembolism outcomes into random and fixed effect model meta-analyses, respectively. Odds ratios (ORs), and risk difference (RD) analysis when studies reported no events in either arm, were used to generate an overall effect estimate of both outcomes. Publication bias and heterogeneity were assessed by contour funnel plot and the I(2) test, respectively. Nine citations, including 3036 patients (1073 dabigatran), met the inclusion criteria. There was no significant difference between interrupted dabigatran and warfarin therapy in CA of AF in occurrence of bleeding [dabigatran 58 (5.4%), warfarin 103 (5.2%); OR 0.92 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55-1.45); χ(2) = 13.03-P = 0.11; I(2) = 39%] or thromboembolism [dabigatran 5 (0.4%), warfarin 2 (0.1%); OR 2.15 (95% CI-0.58-7.98); χ(2) = 2.14, P = 0.54; I(2) = 0%; RD 0.00 (95% CI-0.00 to 0.01); χ(2) = 3.37, P = 0.81; I(2) = 0%]. Analysis of pre-defined subgroups (published articles vs. abstracts), sensitivity analyses (interrupted warfarin, USA studies, and Japanese studies) and fixed effect model analyses showed similar results. Heterogeneity was mild in the bleeding outcome analysis and zero in thromboembolism. There was no evidence of publication bias in either meta-analysis. CONCLUSION: Meta-analysis of currently available studies showed no significant difference in bleeding and thromboembolism between interrupted dabigatran and warfarin therapy in CA of AF. Dabigatran appears to be safe and effective for peri-procedural anticoagulation in CA of AF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Abdulhak et al. (2013) conducted a meta-analysis in Atrial fibrillation undergoing catheter ablation (n=3,036). Interrupted dabigatran vs. Warfarin was evaluated on Bleeding (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.55-1.45, p=0.11). Interrupted dabigatran showed no significant difference compared to warfarin in bleeding (5.4% vs 5.2%; OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.55-1.45) or thromboembolism during catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: