Key result
Novel oral anticoagulants showed no significantly increased risk of bleeding (0-4% vs 4.6-8%) or thromboembolic events (0-1% vs 0%) compared with warfarin during device implantation.
Why the study?
Do novel oral anticoagulant agents lead to increased rates of peri-procedural complications in patients requiring an implanted cardiac rhythm device?
Systematic Review
Do novel oral anticoagulant agents lead to increased rates of peri-procedural complications in patients requiring an implanted cardiac rhythm device?
NOACs (dabigatran and rivaroxaban) do not appear to significantly increase the risk of peri-procedural bleeding or thromboembolic events compared to warfarin during cardiac rhythm device implantation.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports NOAC continuation during device implantation; hypothesis-generating pending randomized confirmation.
A best evidence topic was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was 'In patients requiring an implanted cardiac rhythm device, do novel oral anticoagulant agents lead to increased rates of peri-procedural complications?' Altogether 1228 papers were found using the reported search, of which 5 represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The authors, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers are tabulated. The novel oral anticoagulant agents (NOACs) assessed in the included studies were dabigatran (a direct thrombin inhibitor) and rivaroxaban (a Factor Xa inhibitor). Dabigatran was included in all five studies and showed bleeding complication rates of 0-4%. Rivaroxaban was included in one study and had bleeding complication rates of 4%. Warfarin was a comparator agent in three studies and had bleeding complication rates of 4.6-8%. The incidence rate of thromboembolic complications was 0-1% with dabigatran and 0% with rivaroxaban and warfarin in all studies. Based on the available studies, there is no evidence of significantly increased risk of bleeding or thromboembolic events with NOACs compared with warfarin when used at the time of cardiac rhythm device implantation. However, not all patients in the studies were actually receiving the specified NOAC at the time of device implantation, thereby limiting the available evidence.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Davies et al. (2016) conducted a systematic review in Implanted cardiac rhythm device insertion. Novel oral anticoagulant agents (NOACs) vs. Warfarin was evaluated on Peri-procedural bleeding and thromboembolic complications. Novel oral anticoagulants showed no significantly increased risk of bleeding (0-4% vs 4.6-8%) or thromboembolic events (0-1% vs 0%) compared with warfarin during device implantation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: