Key result
In patients on edoxaban undergoing major procedures, heparin bridging yielded comparable major cardiovascular events (2.9% vs 3.7%) but numerically higher major bleeding (16.8% vs 11.0%).
Why the study?
Major surgical procedures are not uncommon in anticoagulated patients, but data on perioperative edoxaban management are scarce.
Does heparin bridging during edoxaban interruption for major procedures reduce cardiovascular events or increase bleeding risk?
Observational (n=287)
Does heparin bridging during edoxaban interruption for major procedures reduce cardiovascular events or increase bleeding risk?
Absolute Event Rate: 2.9% vs 3.7%
Real-world data suggest that heparin bridging during edoxaban interruption for major procedures does not reduce vascular events but may increase bleeding risk.
Observational registry data describe edoxaban perioperative patterns; leaves open optimal strategies pending randomized trials.
Background Edoxaban is a non-vitamin K dependent oral anticoagulant (NOAC) licensed for venous thromboembolism (VTE) treatment or stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation. Major surgical procedures are not uncommon in anticoagulated patients but data on perioperative edoxaban management are scarce. Patients and Methods Using data from the prospective DRESDEN NOAC REGISTRY, we extracted data on major surgical procedures in edoxaban patients. Periinterventional edoxaban management patterns and rates of outcome events were evaluated until day 30 after procedure. Results Between 2011 and 2021, 3,448 procedures were identified in edoxaban patients, including 287 (8.3%) major procedures. A scheduled interruption of edoxaban was observed in 284/287 major procedures (99%) with a total median edoxaban interruption time of 11.0 days (25–75th percentile: 5.0–18.0 days). Heparin bridging was documented in 183 procedures (46 prophylactic dosages, 111 intermediate and 26 therapeutic dosages). Overall, 7 (2.4%; 95% CI: 1.2–4.9%) major cardiovascular events (5 VTE, 2 arterial thromboembolic events) and 38 major bleedings (13.2%; 95% CI: 9.8–17.7%) were observed and 6 patients died (2.1%; 95% CI: 1.0–4.5%). Rates of major cardiovascular events with or without heparin bridging were comparable (4/137; 2.9%; 95% CI: 1.1–7.3% vs. 3/82; 3.7%; 95% CI: 1.3–10.2%). Major bleedings occurred numerically more frequent in patients receiving heparin bridging (23/137; 16.8%; 95% CI: 11.5–23.9%) versus procedures without heparin bridging (9/82; 11.0%; 95% CI: 5.9–19.6%). Conclusion Within the limitations of our study design, real-world periprocedural edoxaban management seems effective and safe. Use of heparin bridging seems to have limited effects on reducing vascular events but may increase bleeding risk.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Köhler et al. (2023) conducted an observational in Patients on edoxaban undergoing major surgical procedures (n=287). Heparin bridging vs. No heparin bridging was evaluated on Major cardiovascular events. In patients on edoxaban undergoing major procedures, heparin bridging yielded comparable major cardiovascular events (2.9% vs 3.7%) but numerically higher major bleeding (16.8% vs 11.0%).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: