Key result
Periprocedural heparin bridging for patients on chronic oral anticoagulants increases the risk of major bleeding two- to three-fold without reducing the risk of stroke and systemic embolism.
Why the study?
Recent evidence questions the routine use of periprocedural heparin bridging during oral anticoagulation interruption, prompting a summary of major studies and definition of an evidence-based protocol.
Does periprocedural heparin bridging reduce thromboembolic events without excessive bleeding in patients on chronic oral anticoagulants undergoing elective procedures?
Does periprocedural heparin bridging reduce thromboembolic events without excessive bleeding in patients on chronic oral anticoagulants undergoing elective procedures?
Heparin bridging during periprocedural interruption of oral anticoagulants increases major bleeding without reducing thromboembolic risk, supporting guidelines that recommend against routine bridging.
Supports avoiding routine bridging; leaves open prospective validation in select high-risk subgroups.
Interruption of chronic anticoagulation due to the bleeding risk associated with an elective procedure may also lead to an elevated risk of thromboembolism. Periprocedural bridging with either unfractionated heparin or low-molecular weight heparin had been the mainstay of therapy for many patients receiving chronic warfarin treatment based on an estimation of a patient's thromboembolic risk. However, recent results from cohort studies and placebo-controlled randomized trials in the periprocedural use of heparin bridging for warfarin-treated patients reveal a consistent two- to three-fold increase in the risk of major bleeding and no benefit in terms of a reduction in the risk of stroke and systemic embolism. The most recent antithrombotic guidance statements suggest that the majority of patients on chronic warfarin, except those at high risk of thromboembolism, may safely interrupt and resume warfarin without heparin bridging in elective periprocedural settings. In addition, data from the use of heparin bridging in patients on direct oral anticoagulants during temporary interruption for an elective procedure also reveal harm and no benefits of this approach. A strategy that considers the pharmacokinetic properties of the direct oral anticoagulants, the bleeding risk of each procedure, and patient renal function would safely obviate the need for heparin bridging. In this review, the authors summarize the major studies of heparin bridging for patients on chronic oral anticoagulants that may lead to a change in practice in periprocedural antithrombotic management and define an evidence-based heparin bridging protocol for those patient groups who may be the candidates for this approach.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nikolakopoulos et al. (2019) conducted a review in Patients on chronic oral anticoagulants in periprocedural settings. Heparin bridging therapy vs. No heparin bridging was evaluated. Periprocedural heparin bridging for patients on chronic oral anticoagulants increases the risk of major bleeding two- to three-fold without reducing the risk of stroke and systemic embolism.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: