Key result
PAUSE-URO protocol linked to a 4.3% clinically relevant urological bleeding rate, safely below the predefined threshold.
Why the study?
Perioperative management of patients on DOACs requiring interruption for elective urological surgery is common but poorly standardized.
Does the PAUSE-URO protocol safely manage perioperative DOAC interruption in patients undergoing elective urological surgery?
Observational (n=480)
No
Does the PAUSE-URO protocol safely manage perioperative DOAC interruption in patients undergoing elective urological surgery?
p-value: p=0.002
The PAUSE-URO protocol for perioperative DOAC management in elective urological surgery appears safe, with clinically relevant bleeding rates below the 8% safety threshold.
Captured external expert commentary on this paper, strongest first. Original sources are linked where available.
“These findings provide the first urology-specific evidence for perioperative DOAC interruption strategies and may inform future guideline development.”
Supports feasibility of PAUSE-URO in elective urological procedures; hypothesis-generating and requires randomized confirmation before practice change.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The perioperative management of patients receiving direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) who require interruption of anticoagulation for elective urological surgery is a common clinical scenario but is poorly standardized. The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the safety of the novel perioperative PAUSE-URO protocol. METHODS: The prospective, single-arm observational study, PAUSE-URO, enrolled 480 consecutive patients undergoing elective urological surgery at the Department of Urology, University Medical Center Mannheim, from 2023 to 2025. DOACs were paused for 2 or 4 d preoperatively and resumed on postoperative day 1 at a reduced dose for another 10 d. The primary end point was defined as clinically relevant urological bleeding events, with a safety threshold rate of 8%. Secondary end points included major bleeding, thromboembolic events, and mortality. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: In the modified intention-to-treat and per-protocol cohorts, clinically relevant urological bleeding occurred in 4.3% (20/468; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.6-6.5%; p = 0.002) and 4.5% (18/399; 95% CI = 2.7-7.0%; p = 0.007) of the patients, respectively, with both rates below the predefined safety threshold. Major bleeding events occurred in <1% of the cases, suggesting the feasibility of the PAUSE-URO protocol. There were no deaths, strokes, or systemic embolic events. Peripheral venous thromboembolism occurred in one of the 468 (0.2%) patients and acute coronary syndrome in one of the 468 (0.2%) patients. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The PAUSE-URO protocol met the predefined safety threshold in the overall study population, supporting feasibility and informing future randomized investigation. Procedure-specific variation, particularly after endourological procedures, should be considered when applying the protocol in routine urological care.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Carl et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Elective urological surgery in patients receiving direct oral anticoagulants (n=480). PAUSE-URO protocol was evaluated on Clinically relevant urological bleeding events (95% CI 2.6-6.5, p=0.002). The PAUSE-URO protocol for perioperative DOAC management resulted in a 4.3% rate of clinically relevant urological bleeding, significantly below the predefined 8% safety threshold (P=0.002).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: