Key result
Peri-operative bridging therapy in AF patients on VKAs was associated with a higher risk of any peri-procedural event compared to no bridging therapy (4.5% vs 0.7%; OR 4.32, 95% CI 1.28-14.51).
Why the study?
Does peri-operative bridging therapy with low molecular weight heparin increase peri-procedural events in atrial fibrillation patients on Vitamin K Antagonists undergoing invasive procedures?
Cohort (n=1,361)
Does peri-operative bridging therapy with low molecular weight heparin increase peri-procedural events in atrial fibrillation patients on Vitamin K Antagonists undergoing invasive procedures?
Odds Ratio: 4.32 (95% CI 1.28–14.51)
Absolute Event Rate: 4.5% vs 0.7%
p-value: p=<0.001
Peri-procedural bridging therapy with low molecular weight heparin in atrial fibrillation patients on Vitamin K antagonists is associated with a significantly increased risk of peri-procedural adverse events.
Bridging in stable AF on VKAs may raise bleeding without benefit; leaves open need for randomized peri-procedural data.
BACKGROUND: The clinical effect of peri-operative bridging therapy in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients remains unclear given that it may increase bleeding risk without providing significant benefits. We aimed to investigate peri-procedural events in relation to peri-operative use of bridging therapy in AF patients under Vitamin K Antagonists (VKAs). METHODS: We included AF patients stable the previous 6 months on VKAs. During a median follow-up of 6.5 years (IQR 4.3-7.9), we recorded all invasive procedures and the peri-operative clinical management. All peri-procedural events (ischaemic stroke/transient ischaemic attack/systemic embolism, clinically relevant non-major bleeding and major bleeding) and severe peri-procedural events (ischaemic stroke/transient ischaemic attack/systemic embolism and major bleeding) suffered until the 30-days post-intervention period were recorded. RESULTS: We included 1361 patients (48.7% male, median age 76 [IQR 71-81] years). There were 1100 (70.9%) procedures performed using bridging therapy. The rate of any (4.5% vs. 0.7%, P < 0.001) and severe (2.3% vs. 0.0%, P = 0.002) peri-procedural events were higher in patients receiving bridging therapy. Adjusted logistic regressions demonstrated that the bleeding risk of the procedure was related with higher risk of severe peri-procedural events (OR 3.51, 95% CI 1.54-8.01) and peri-procedural events (OR 2.77, 95% CI 1.56-4.91). Importantly, the use of bridging therapy was also independently associated with higher risk of any peri-procedural events (OR 4.32, 95% CI 1.28-14.51). CONCLUSIONS: In this study including AF patients under VKA therapy, the use of bridging therapy as part of the clinical management during an invasive procedure was independently associated with higher risk of any peri-procedural event.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ríos et al. (2018) conducted a cohort in Atrial fibrillation (n=1,361). Peri-operative bridging therapy vs. No bridging therapy was evaluated on Any peri-procedural events (ischaemic stroke/transient ischaemic attack/systemic embolism, clinically relevant non-major bleeding and major bleeding) (OR 4.32, 95% CI 1.28-14.51, p=<0.001). Peri-operative bridging therapy in AF patients on VKAs was associated with a higher risk of any peri-procedural event compared to no bridging therapy (4.5% vs 0.7%; OR 4.32, 95% CI 1.28-14.51).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: