Key result
Perioperative anticoagulation requires balancing procedural bleeding against thromboembolic risks of stopping therapy.
Why the study?
Management of anticoagulation status is mandatory for safe invasive procedures, requiring risk analysis of bleeding and thromboembolic complications.
A logical assessment of procedural bleeding risk and patient thromboembolic risk is necessary to guide safe anticoagulation management and bridging therapy during invasive procedures.
Individualized risk assessment guides periprocedural anticoagulation decisions; leaves open standardized bridging protocols from prospective trials.
To perform safe invasive procedures on patients on anticoagulation therapy, management of the patient's anticoagulation status is mandatory. For patients on anticoagulation therapy, a risk analysis of both the procedural risk of bleeding as well as the risk to the patient from discontinuing anticoagulation needs to be performed. For procedures at low risk of bleeding, the procedure may be performed with little change to the patient's anticoagulation regimen. For procedures with significant bleeding risk, however, anticoagulation will need to be held or reversed. Patients at high risk for thromboembolic complications will require bridging therapy if anticoagulation is to be withheld. In this article, a logical assessment of bleeding risk in patients undergoing procedures is presented, and a review of anticoagulation and risk is discussed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Blaze Cook (2010) conducted a review in Patients on anticoagulation therapy undergoing invasive procedures. Anticoagulation management was evaluated. Anticoagulation management during invasive procedures requires balancing procedural bleeding risk against the patient's risk of thromboembolic complications from discontinuing therapy.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: