Key result
Perioperative NOAC interruption aligns with guidelines in only ~42% of cases.
Why the study?
Increasing numbers of patients receiving new oral anticoagulants (NOAC) are undergoing elective surgery, but the extent to which perioperative interruption of NOAC therapy and use of bridging heparin are concordant with best evidence and guidelines is uncertain.
Observational (n=150)
No
Guideline concordance for perioperative NOAC management is low; supports implementation research but leaves open effects on outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Increasing numbers of patients receiving new oral anticoagulants (NOAC) are undergoing elective surgery. The extent to which perioperative interruption of NOAC therapy and use of bridging heparin are concordant with best evidence is uncertain. AIMS: To determine: (i) concordance of NOAC and bridging heparin use with guidelines; and (ii) associations between guideline concordance and patient characteristics, surgical factors and perioperative adverse events. METHODS: Retrospective study of consecutive adult patients undergoing elective surgery at a tertiary hospital between 1 January 2014 and 30 June 2015 and were receiving NOAC for at least 3 months prior to surgery. Concordance of perioperative anticoagulation management with hospital guidelines was rated by two independent researchers according to explicit thrombosis and bleeding risk tables. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty patients of mean (±SD) age 72.0 (±11.6) years were studied; 75% had atrial fibrillation as NOAC indication. Decision to interrupt anticoagulation in 142 patients was rated guideline-concordant in 59 (41.5%) based on low bleeding risk in all cases and high thrombotic risk in one-third. Concordant decisions were associated with past myocardial infarction (P = 0.009), chronic kidney disease (P = 0.05), use of dabigatran (P = 0.06) and major surgery (P < 0.001). Bridging heparin was prescribed in 51 (35.9%) patients and not prescribed in 91 (64.1%), with 64 (45.1%) decisions rated guideline-discordant comprising 27 decisions to prescribe and 37 not to prescribe. Guideline concordant bridging was associated with chronic kidney disease (P = 0.02); discordant bridging with use of dabigatran (P = 0.04), high thrombotic risk (P = 0.004), past ischaemic stroke (P = 0.07). At 30 days, only one adverse event (major bleed) was noted. CONCLUSION: Considerable discordance exists between guideline recommendations and perioperative NOAC management. Assistive tools are required that better align decision-making with current best practice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wamala et al. (2017) conducted an observational in Elective surgery patients on NOAC therapy (75% atrial fibrillation) (n=150). Perioperative NOAC interruption and bridging heparin management vs. Hospital guideline recommendations was evaluated on Guideline-concordant NOAC interruption. Perioperative NOAC interruption decisions were guideline-concordant in only 41.5% of cases, while 45.1% of bridging heparin decisions were guideline-discordant.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: