Key result
Uninterrupted NOACs significantly reduced the pooled incidence of major bleeding compared to VKAs (2.0% vs 4.9%; OR 0.40; 95% CI 0.16-0.99) in patients undergoing AF catheter ablation.
Why the study?
While uninterrupted VKAs reduce complications peri-ablation, a substantial portion of AF patients receive NOACs, warranting evaluation of uninterrupted NOACs versus VKAs.
Does uninterrupted NOAC use reduce bleeding or thromboembolic complications compared to uninterrupted VKAs in patients undergoing AF catheter ablation?
Meta-Analysis
Does uninterrupted NOAC use reduce bleeding or thromboembolic complications compared to uninterrupted VKAs in patients undergoing AF catheter ablation?
Odds Ratio: 0.4 (95% CI 0.16–0.99)
Absolute Event Rate: 2% vs 4.9%
Uninterrupted NOAC therapy during AF catheter ablation significantly reduces major bleeding and cardiac tamponade compared to uninterrupted VKAs, without increasing thromboembolic risk.
Uninterrupted dabigatran may be preferred peri-ablation; extends RCT safety data to NOACs versus VKAs.
Catheter ablation has been established as a rhythm control strategy in selected patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who have failed or wish to avoid anti-arrhythmic drugs. Uninterrupted oral anticoagulation with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) peri-ablation is associated with a lower risk of thromboembolic and bleeding complications as compared to interrupted oral anticoagulation and bridging heparin. However, a substantial portion of patients with AF are treated with non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs). Herein, we perform an in-depth review and comparison of three recent randomized trials of uninterrupted oral anticoagulation with NOACs vs VKAs in patients undergoing AF catheter ablation. Furthermore, we report pooled results of these randomized trials. The pooled incidence of major bleeding was significantly lower with NOACs as compared to VKAs (2% vs 4.9%, respectively; odds ratio [OR] 0.40; 95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.16-0.99). Similarly, cardiac tamponade was also reduced in the NOAC group (0.4% vs 1.5%; OR 0.27; 95% CI 0.07-0.97). Thromboembolic complications were not significantly different between groups. Overall, these findings support the 2017 HRS/EHRA/ECAS/APHRS/SOLAECE expert consensus statement's class I recommendation for uninterrupted NOAC use in patients undergoing AF catheter ablation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cardoso et al. (2018) conducted a meta-analysis in Atrial fibrillation undergoing catheter ablation. Uninterrupted non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) vs. Uninterrupted vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) was evaluated on Major bleeding (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.16-0.99). Uninterrupted NOACs significantly reduced the pooled incidence of major bleeding compared to VKAs (2.0% vs 4.9%; OR 0.40; 95% CI 0.16-0.99) in patients undergoing AF catheter ablation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: