Key result
Anticoagulation stewardship oversight fails to reduce bleeding, thrombosis, or readmission versus pre-implementation care.
Why the study?
Enoxaparin bridging during warfarin initiation carries increased bleeding risk, and the impact of anticoagulation stewardship teams on bridging delivered by Hospital in the Home is unknown.
Does Anticoagulation stewardship (ACS) team oversight reduce a composite of bleeding, thrombosis, or anticoagulation-related readmission in patients undergoing enoxaparin-warfarin bridging in Hospital in the Home?
Cohort (n=373)
Does Anticoagulation stewardship (ACS) team oversight reduce a composite of bleeding, thrombosis, or anticoagulation-related readmission in patients undergoing enoxaparin-warfarin bridging in Hospital in the Home?
Anticoagulation stewardship team oversight for enoxaparin-warfarin bridging in a Hospital in the Home setting did not reduce the overall composite of bleeding, thrombosis, or readmission, but was associated with significantly less major bleeding and fewer supratherapeutic INRs.
ACS oversight did not reduce bleeding or thrombosis in HITH bridging; leaves open whether stewardship improves outcomes in this setting.
BACKGROUND: Initiation or re-initiation of warfarin often requires enoxaparin bridging, a period associated with increased bleeding risk. Anticoagulation stewardship (ACS) teams may improve the safety of anticoagulant management; however, their impact on bridging delivered by Hospital in the Home (HITH) is unknown. AIMS: To determine the impact of ACS-guided anticoagulation management on bleeding, thrombosis and other outcomes in patients admitted to HITH for enoxaparin-warfarin bleeding. METHODS: We conducted a pre- (November 2020-November 2022) and post-implementation (April 2023-November 2024) comparative cohort study of patients referred to HITH for warfarin-enoxaparin bridging. In the post-implementation phase, the ACS team provided individualised bridging plans and weekly chart reviews. The primary outcome was a composite of bleeding (major or minor), thrombosis (venous thrombo-embolism, stroke, acute myocardial infarction) or anticoagulation-related readmission prior to HITH discharge. Secondary outcomes included the primary outcome assessed at 30 days following discharge and incidence of supratherapeutic international normalised ratio (INR). RESULTS: A total of 373 patients were identified, with 231 bridging episodes in the pre-implementation period (59% male, median age 64 (50-77) years) and 205 bridging episodes in the post-implementation period (59% male, median age 66 (54-77) years). Overall, there was no significant difference in the primary composite outcome following implementation, with rates of 10% and 12% respectively (P = 0.46). After implementation, major bleeding was reduced (2.2% vs 0%, P = 0.03), as was supratherapeutic INRs during warfarin titration (33% vs 21%, P = 0.01). No significant outcome differences were observed in the 30 days after discharge from HITH. CONCLUSIONS: ACS-guided anticoagulation plans and routine reviews did not reduce a composite of bleeding, thrombosis or anticoagulation-related rehospitalisation in patients managed in HITH. ACS may be associated with less major bleeding and fewer episodes of supratherapeutic INR.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pripanapong et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Enoxaparin-warfarin bridging (n=373). Anticoagulation stewardship (ACS) team oversight vs. Pre-implementation (standard care) was evaluated on Composite of bleeding (major or minor), thrombosis (venous thrombo-embolism, stroke, acute myocardial infarction) or anticoagulation-related readmission prior to HITH discharge (p=0.46). Anticoagulation stewardship team oversight did not significantly reduce the composite of bleeding, thrombosis, or readmission compared to pre-implementation care (12% vs 10%, P=0.46).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: