Why the study?
Does uninterrupted anticoagulation compared to interrupted anticoagulation improve safety in patients on warfarin undergoing PCI?
Does uninterrupted anticoagulation compared to interrupted anticoagulation improve safety in patients on warfarin undergoing PCI?
Performing PCI with uninterrupted warfarin therapy is safe and associated with fewer access-site complications compared to the traditional strategy of interrupting anticoagulation.
May favor uninterrupted anticoagulation to reduce access-site complications in warfarin-treated PCI; hypothesis-generating and should not yet change practice.
AIMS: Uninterrupted anticoagulation (UAC) is assumed to increase bleeding and access-site complications. A common consensus is to postpone percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) to reach international normalized ratio (INR) levels < 1.5-1.8. METHODS AND RESULTS: To assess the safety and feasibility of UAC, we analysed retrospectively all consecutive patients (n = 523) on warfarin therapy referred for PCI in four centres with a policy to interrupt anticoagulation (IAC) before PCI and in three centres with a long experience on UAC during PCI. Major bleeding, access-site complications, and major adverse cardiac events (death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, and stent thrombosis) were recorded during hospitalization. In the IAC group, warfarin was withdrawn for a mean of 3 days prior to PCI (mean INR 1.7). In the UAC group, mean INR value was 2.2. Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa (GP) inhibitors (P < 0.001) and low-molecular-weight heparins (P < 0.001) were more often used in the IAC group. Major bleeding and access-site complications were more common in the IAC group (5.0% vs. 1.2%, P = 0.02 and 11.3% vs. 5.0%, P = 0.01, respectively) than in the UAC group. After adjusting for propensity score, the group difference in access-site complications remained significant [OR (odds ratio) 2.8, 95% CI (confidence interval) 1.3-6.1, P = 0.008], but did not remain significant in major bleeding (OR 3.9, 95% CI 1.0-15.3, P = 0.05). In multivariable analysis, femoral access (OR 9.9, 95% CI 1.3-75.2), use of access-site closure devices (OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.1-4.0), low-molecular-weight heparin (OR 2.7, 95% CI 1.1-6.7) and old age predicted access-site complications, and the use of GP inhibitors (OR 3.0, 95% CI 1.0-9.1) remained as a predictor of major bleeding. CONCLUSION: Our study shows that PCI is a safe procedure during UAC with no excess bleeding complications.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Karjalainen et al. (2008) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: