Key result
Heparin or LMWH bridging during OAC interruption shows uncertain benefits and is linked to bleeding.
Why the study?
The risks and benefits of bridging therapy during interruption of oral anticoagulant therapy for invasive procedures are uncertain.
How should anticoagulation be managed in patients requiring invasive procedures to minimize thromboembolism and bleeding risks?
How should anticoagulation be managed in patients requiring invasive procedures to minimize thromboembolism and bleeding risks?
The review suggests minimizing the interruption of oral anticoagulants and reserving bridging therapy for patients at the highest risk of thromboembolism to balance bleeding and thrombotic risks.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Reserve bridging for highest-risk patients only; leaves open the need for RCTs to clarify net benefit.
Clive Kearon (2003) conducted a review in Patients on oral anticoagulation requiring invasive procedures. Bridging therapy (heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin) was evaluated. Bridging therapy with heparin or LMWH during interruption of oral anticoagulation for invasive procedures has uncertain risks and benefits, and may be associated with bleeding.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: