Why the study?
How should antithrombotic therapy be managed perioperatively in patients undergoing otolaryngologic procedures?
How should antithrombotic therapy be managed perioperatively in patients undergoing otolaryngologic procedures?
Perioperative management of antithrombotics in otolaryngology requires a systematic assessment of the patient's thromboembolic risk, the procedural bleeding risk, and the timing of therapy interruption.
May inform perioperative antithrombotic decisions in otolaryngology via risk stratification; leaves open prospective validation.
OBJECTIVE: The perioperative management of patients undergoing otolaryngologic procedures is increasingly complicated by the use of newer antithrombotic agents. Furthermore, with advances in anesthesia and surgical technique, otolaryngologists are presented with the challenge of operating on patients with advanced comorbid diseases. The objective of this review is to provide evidence-based recommendations on perioperative antithrombotic management for common otolaryngologic procedures. DATA SOURCES: PubMed/MEDLINE. REVIEW METHODS: Selected literature on patient-specific thromboembolic risk, rate of bleeding complications in otolaryngologic procedures, and the interruption of antithrombotic therapy is reviewed and interpreted by expert opinion. CONCLUSIONS: By stratifying patients into either low thromboembolic risk (≤ 5%) or high thromboembolic risk (> 5%) and interpreting this in the context of procedural bleed risk and potential clinical consequences in the event of a bleed, otolaryngologists can make evidence-based decisions to determine the appropriate perioperative management of antithrombotic therapy. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: When the perioperative management of antithrombotic therapy is being decided, 3 critical factors must be considered systematically: the patient's inherent thromboembolic risk, the risk and potential consequences of bleeding related to the procedure, and the timing of interruption of thromboembolic therapy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hsueh et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: