Key result
Bridging anticoagulation in surgical AF patients lacks randomized evidence for efficacy and safety.
Why the study?
What is the optimal periprocedural anticoagulation bridging strategy for patients with atrial fibrillation on vitamin-K antagonists undergoing surgery?
What is the optimal periprocedural anticoagulation bridging strategy for patients with atrial fibrillation on vitamin-K antagonists undergoing surgery?
There is a critical need for randomized controlled trials to determine the optimal bridging anticoagulation strategy for patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing surgery.
Clinicians should individualize bridging in AF surgery amid evidentiary gaps; leaves open the need for RCTs to define optimal strategies.
Patients with atrial fibrillation taking vitamin-K antagonists and undergoing invasive interventions or large surgery procedures are at highest risk of bleeding complications. Therefore, the temporary interruption of vitamin-K antagonists and bridging with heparin is a frequent clinical need, particularly in patients with high risk for stroke. The management of such patients is challenging because of the lack of randomized clinical trials assessing different periprocedural anticoagulation approaches and inconsistent recommendations from consensus groups. Recent non-randomized trials have helped to estimate the risks of thromboembolism and bleeding with "bridging" anticoagulation involving either low-molecular-weight heparin or intravenous unfractioned heparin. Nevertheless, there is still a clear need for randomized double-blinded controlled trials comparing efficacy and safety of the different "bridging" strategies, including unfractionated heparin and placebo comparators, in preventing thromboembolism for specific patients and procedures.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dobrev et al. (2009) conducted a review in Atrial fibrillation. Bridging anticoagulation was evaluated. Bridging anticoagulation strategies in patients with atrial fibrillation requiring surgery currently lack randomized clinical trial evidence to adequately assess their efficacy and safety.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: