1. Home
  2. hemorrhage

hemorrhage

Perioperative Management of Patients Taking Direct Oral Anticoagulants

Author/s: 
James D Douketis, Alex C Spyropoulos

Importance: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), comprising apixaban, rivaroxaban, edoxaban, and dabigatran, are commonly used medications to treat patients with atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism. Decisions about how to manage DOACs in patients undergoing a surgical or nonsurgical procedure are important to decrease the risks of bleeding and thromboembolism.

Observations: For elective surgical or nonsurgical procedures, a standardized approach to perioperative DOAC management involves classifying the risk of procedure-related bleeding as minimal (eg, minor dental or skin procedures), low to moderate (eg, cholecystectomy, inguinal hernia repair), or high risk (eg, major cancer or joint replacement procedures). For patients undergoing minimal bleeding risk procedures, DOACs may be continued, or if there is concern about excessive bleeding, DOACs may be discontinued on the day of the procedure. Patients undergoing a low to moderate bleeding risk procedure should typically discontinue DOACs 1 day before the operation and restart DOACs 1 day after. Patients undergoing a high bleeding risk procedure should stop DOACs 2 days prior to the operation and restart DOACs 2 days after. With this perioperative DOAC management strategy, rates of thromboembolism (0.2%-0.4%) and major bleeding (1%-2%) are low and delays or cancellations of surgical and nonsurgical procedures are infrequent. Patients taking DOACs who need emergent (<6 hours after presentation) or urgent surgical procedures (6-24 hours after presentation) experience bleeding rates up to 23% and thromboembolism as high as 11%. Laboratory testing to measure preoperative DOAC levels may be useful to determine whether patients should receive a DOAC reversal agent (eg, prothrombin complex concentrates, idarucizumab, or andexanet-α) prior to an emergent or urgent procedure.

Conclusions and relevance: When patients who are taking a DOAC require an elective surgical or nonsurgical procedure, standardized management protocols can be applied that do not require testing DOAC levels or heparin bridging. When patients taking a DOAC require an emergent, urgent, or semiurgent surgical procedure, anticoagulant reversal agents may be appropriate when DOAC levels are elevated or not available.

Keywords 
Perioperative oral anticoagulants

Adverse Events Associated With the Addition of Aspirin to Direct Oral Anticoagulant Therapy Without a Clear Indication

Author/s: 
Schaefer, J. K., Errickson, J., Li, Y., Kong, X., Alexandris-Souphis, T., Ali, M. A., Decamillo, D., Haymart, B., Kaatz, S., Kline-Rogers, E., Kozlowski, J. H., Krol, G. D., Shankar, S, R., Sood, S. L., Froehlich, J. B., Barnes, G. D.

Importance: It is unclear how many patients treated with a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) are using concomitant acetylsalicylic acid (ASA, or aspirin) and how this affects clinical outcomes.

Objective: To evaluate the frequency and outcomes of prescription of concomitant ASA and DOAC therapy for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) or venous thromboembolic disease (VTE).

Design, setting, and participants: This registry-based cohort study took place at 4 anticoagulation clinics in Michigan from January 2015 to December 2019. Eligible participants were adults undergoing treatment with a DOAC for AF or VTE, without a recent myocardial infarction (MI) or history of heart valve replacement, with at least 3 months of follow-up.

Exposures: Use of ASA concomitant with DOAC therapy.

Main outcomes and measures: Rates of bleeding (any, nonmajor, major), rates of thrombosis (stroke, VTE, MI), emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and death.

Results: Of the study cohort of 3280 patients (1673 [51.0%] men; mean [SD] age 68.2 [13.3] years), 1107 (33.8%) patients without a clear indication for ASA were being treated with DOACs and ASA. Two propensity score-matched cohorts, each with 1047 patients, were analyzed (DOAC plus ASA and DOAC only). Patients were followed up for a mean (SD) of 20.9 (19.0) months. Patients taking DOAC and ASA experienced more bleeding events compared with DOAC monotherapy (26.0 bleeds vs 31.6 bleeds per 100 patient years, P = .01). Specifically, patients undergoing combination therapy had significantly higher rates of nonmajor bleeding (26.1 bleeds vs 21.7 bleeds per 100 patient years, P = .02) compared with DOAC monotherapy. Major bleeding rates were similar between the 2 cohorts. Thrombotic event rates were also similar between the cohorts (2.5 events vs 2.3 events per 100 patient years for patients treated with DOAC and ASA compared with DOAC monotherapy, P = .80). Patients were more often hospitalized while undergoing combination therapy (9.1 vs 6.5 admissions per 100 patient years, P = .02).

Conclusion and relevance: Nearly one-third of patients with AF and/or VTE who were treated with a DOAC received ASA without a clear indication. Compared with DOAC monotherapy, concurrent DOAC and ASA use was associated with increased bleeding and hospitalizations but similar observed thrombosis rate. Future research should identify and deprescribe ASA for patients when the risk exceeds the anticipated benefit.

Keywords 
aspirin anticoagulant therapy treatment heart-valve replacement thrombosis

Mild bleeding disorders in adults

Author/s: 
Sun, Dongmei, Phua, Chai W.

About 11% of patients in primary care reported bleeding symptoms in a 2010 Canadian study.1 Mild bleeding disorders should be considered in patients with disproportionate bleeding (i.e., excessive postsurgical bleeding from multiple sites or bleeding that requires blood or iron transfusion).2 Mild bleeding disorders can be inherited or acquired; common diagnoses include mild von Willebrand disease, platelet dysfunction and mild–moderate factor deficiencies.2 Unlike severe inherited bleeding disorders that are often diagnosed in early life, mild inherited bleeding disorders can present in adulthood.

Keywords 
von Willebrand Diseases Blood Platelet Disorders Hemorrhagic Disorders hemorrhage

Aspirin for Primary Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Prevention as Baseline Risk Increases: A Meta-Regression Analysis

Author/s: 
Nudy, M, Cooper, J, Ghahramani, M, Ruzieh, M, Mandrola, J, Foy, AJ

Background

Aspirin is often prescribed for the primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) however, recent randomized trials (RCTs) have challenged this practice. Despite this, aspirin is commonly recommended for high risk primary prevention. We tested the hypothesis that aspirin is more efficacious for the primary prevention of ASCVD, as the baseline risk increases.

Methods

RCTs that compared aspirin to control for primary prevention and evaluated ASCVD (composite of myocardial infarction and ischemic stroke) and major bleeding were included. Rate ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. A regression analysis was performed using the ASCVD event rate in the control arm of each RCT as the moderator.

Results

Twelve RCTs were identified with 963,829 patient years of follow-up. Aspirin was associated with a reduction in ASCVD (4.7 versus 5.3 events per 1,000 patient years; RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.79-0.92). There was increased major bleeding among aspirin users (2.5 versus 1.8 events per 1000 patient years, RR 1.41 95% CI, 1.29-1.54). Regression analysis found no relationship between the log rate ratio of ASCVD or major bleeding and incidence of ASCVD in the control arm of each RCT.

Conclusion

Aspirin is associated with a reduction in ASCVD when used for primary prevention; however, it is unlikely to be clinically significant given the increase in bleeding. More importantly, aspirin's treatment effect does not increase as ASCVD risk increases as many hypothesize. There is no suggestion from this data that use of aspirin for higher risk primary prevention patients is beneficial.

Keywords 
aspirin primary prevention Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease myocardial infarction Ischemic Stroke Major Bleeding

Outcomes Associated With Oral Anticoagulants Plus Antiplatelets in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Atrial Fibrillation

Author/s: 
Fox, KAA, Velentgas, P, Camm, AJ, Bassand, JP, Fitzmaurice, DA, Gersh, BJ, Goldhaber, SZ, Goto, S, Haas, S, Misselwitz, F, Pieper, KS, Turpie, AGG, Verhegut, FWA, Dabrowski, E, Luo, K, Gibbs, L, Kakkar, AK, GARFIELD-AF Investigators

IMPORTANCE:

Patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation at risk of stroke should receive oral anticoagulants (OAC). However, approximately 1 in 8 patients in the Global Anticoagulant Registry in the Field (GARFIELD-AF) registry are treated with antiplatelet (AP) drugs in addition to OAC, with or without documented vascular disease or other indications for AP therapy.

OBJECTIVE:

To investigate baseline characteristics and outcomes of patients who were prescribed OAC plus AP therapy vs OAC alone.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:

Prospective cohort study of the GARFIELD-AF registry, an international, multicenter, observational study of adults aged 18 years and older with recently diagnosed nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and at least 1 risk factor for stroke enrolled between March 2010 and August 2016. Data were extracted for analysis in October 2017 and analyzed from April 2018 to June 2019.

EXPOSURE:

Participants received either OAC plus AP or OAC alone.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:

Clinical outcomes were measured over 3 and 12 months. Outcomes were adjusted for 40 covariates, including baseline conditions and medications.

RESULTS:

A total of 24 436 patients (13 438 [55.0%] male; median [interquartile range] age, 71 [64-78] years) were analyzed. Among eligible patients, those receiving OAC plus AP therapy had a greater prevalence of cardiovascular indications for AP, including acute coronary syndromes (22.0% vs 4.3%), coronary artery disease (39.1% vs 9.8%), and carotid occlusive disease (4.8% vs 2.0%). Over 1 year, patients treated with OAC plus AP had significantly higher incidence rates of stroke (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.49; 95% CI, 1.01-2.20) and any bleeding event (aHR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.17-1.70) than those treated with OAC alone. These patients did not show evidence of reduced all-cause mortality (aHR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.98-1.51). Risk of acute coronary syndrome was not reduced in patients taking OAC plus AP compared with OAC alone (aHR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.70-1.94). Patients treated with OAC plus AP also had higher rates of all clinical outcomes than those treated with OAC alone over the short term (3 months).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:

This study challenges the practice of coprescribing OAC plus AP unless there is a clear indication for adding AP to OAC therapy in newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation.

Keywords 
anticoagulants atrial fibrillation stroke antiplatelet

Rivaroxaban Versus Vitamin K Antagonist in Antiphospholipid Syndrome: A Randomized Noninferiority Trial

Author/s: 
Ordi-Ros, J, Sáez-Comet, L., Pérez-Conesa, M., Vidal, X., Riera-Mestre, A., Castro-Salomó, A., Cuquet-Pedragosa, J., Ortiz-Santamaria, V., Mauri-Plana, M., Solé, C., Cortés-Hernández, J.

BACKGROUND:

The potential role of new oral anticoagulants in antiphospholipid antibody syndrome (APS) remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVE:

To determine whether rivaroxaban is noninferior to dose-adjusted vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for thrombotic APS.

DESIGN:

3-year, open-label, randomized noninferiority trial. (EU Clinical Trials Register: EUDRA [European Union Drug Regulatory Authorities] code 2010-019764-36).

SETTING:

6 university hospitals in Spain.

PARTICIPANTS:

190 adults (aged 18 to 75 years) with thrombotic APS.

INTERVENTION:

Rivaroxaban (20 mg/d or 15 mg/d, according to renal function) versus dose-adjusted VKAs (target international normalized ratio, 2.0 to 3.0, or 3.1 to 4.0 in patients with a history of recurrent thrombosis).

MEASUREMENTS:

The primary efficacy outcome was the proportion of patients with new thrombotic events; the primary safety outcome was major bleeding. The prespecified noninferiority margin for risk ratio (RR) was 1.40. Secondary outcomes included time to thrombosis, type of thrombosis, changes in biomarker levels, cardiovascular death, and nonmajor bleeding.

RESULTS:

After 3 years of follow-up, recurrent thrombosis occurred in 11 patients (11.6%) in the rivaroxaban group and 6 (6.3%) in the VKA group (RR in the rivaroxaban group, 1.83 [95% CI, 0.71 to 4.76]). Stroke occurred more commonly in patients receiving rivaroxaban (9 events) than in those receiving VKAs (0 events) (corrected RR, 19.00 [CI, 1.12 to 321.9]). Major bleeding occurred in 6 patients (6.3%) in the rivaroxaban group and 7 (7.4%) in the VKA group (RR, 0.86 [CI, 0.30 to 2.46]). Post hoc analysis suggested an increased risk for recurrent thrombosis in rivaroxaban-treated patients with previous arterial thrombosis, livedo racemosa, or APS-related cardiac valvular disease.

LIMITATION:

Anticoagulation intensity was not measured in the rivaroxaban group.

CONCLUSION:

Rivaroxaban did not show noninferiority to dose-adjusted VKAs for thrombotic APS and, in fact, showed a non-statistically significant near doubling of the risk for recurrent thrombosis.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE:

Bayer Hispania.

Keywords 
rivaroxaban thrombosis wafarin

Periprocedural Bridging in Patients with Venous Thromboembolism: A Systematic Review

Author/s: 
Baumgartner, C., de Kouchkovsky, I., Whitaker, E., Fang, M.C.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Vitamin K antagonists (VKA) are the most widely used anticoagulants, and bridging is commonly administered during periprocedural VKA interruption. Given the unclear benefits and risks of periprocedural bridging in patients with previous venousthromboembolism, we aimed to assess recurrent venous thromboembolism and bleeding outcomes with and without bridging in this population.

METHODS:

We performed a systematic review searching the PubMed and Embase databases from inception to December 7, 2017 for randomized and nonrandomized studies that included adults with previous venous thromboembolism requiring VKA interruption to undergo an elective procedure, and that reported venous thromboembolism or bleeding outcomes. Quality of evidence was graded by consensus.

RESULTS:

We included 28 cohort studies (20 being single-arm cohorts) with, overall, 6915 procedures for analysis. In 27 studies reporting perioperative venous thromboembolism outcomes, the pooled incidence of recurrent venous thromboembolism with bridging was 0.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.4%-1.2%) and 0.5% (95% CI, 0.3%-0.8%) without bridging. Eighteen studies reported major or nonmajor bleeding outcomes. The pooled incidence of any bleeding was 3.9% (95% CI, 2.0%-7.4%) with bridging and 0.4% (95% CI, 0.1%-1.7%) without bridging. In bridged patients at high thromboembolic risk, the pooled incidence for venous thromboembolism was 0.8% (95% CI, 0.3%-2.5%) and 7.5% (95% CI, 3.1%-17.4%) for any bleeding. Quality of available evidence was very low, primarily due to a high risk of bias of included studies.

CONCLUSIONS:

Periprocedural bridging increases the risk of bleeding compared with VKA interruption without bridging, without a significant difference in periprocedural venous thromboembolism rates.

Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

KEYWORDS:

Anticoagulants; Bleeding; Bridging; PROSPERO; Periprocedural; Venous thromboembolism; registration number CRD42017074710

Keywords 
warfarin risk assessment hemorrhage anticoagulants bleeding Bridging Periprocedural

Association of Aspirin Use for Primary Prevention With Cardiovascular Events and Bleeding Events: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Author/s: 
Zheng, Sean L., Roddick, Alistair J.

IMPORTANCE:

The role for aspirin in cardiovascular primary prevention remains controversial, with potential benefits limited by an increased bleeding risk.

OBJECTIVE:

To assess the association of aspirin use for primary prevention with cardiovascular events and bleeding.

DATA SOURCES:

PubMed and Embase were searched on Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials from the earliest available date through November 1, 2018.

STUDY SELECTION:

Randomized clinical trials enrolling at least 1000 participants with no known cardiovascular disease and a follow-up of at least 12 months were included. Included studies compared aspirin use with no aspirin (placebo or no treatment).

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS:

Data were screened and extracted independently by both investigators. Bayesian and frequentist meta-analyses were performed.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:

The primary cardiovascular outcome was a composite of cardiovascular mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke. The primary bleeding outcome was any major bleeding (defined by the individual studies).

RESULTS:

A total of 13 trials randomizing 164 225 participants with 1 050 511 participant-years of follow-up were included. The median age of trial participants was 62 years (range, 53-74), 77 501 (47%) were men, 30 361 (19%) had diabetes, and the median baseline risk of the primary cardiovascular outcome was 9.2% (range, 2.6%-15.9%). Aspirin use was associated with significant reductions in the composite cardiovascular outcome compared with no aspirin (57.1 per 10 000 participant-years with aspirin and 61.4 per 10 000 participant-years with no aspirin) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.89 [95% credible interval, 0.84-0.95]; absolute risk reduction, 0.38% [95% CI, 0.20%-0.55%]; number needed to treat, 265). Aspirin use was associated with an increased risk of major bleeding events compared with no aspirin (23.1 per 10 000 participant-years with aspirin and 16.4 per 10 000 participant-years with no aspirin) (HR, 1.43 [95% credible interval, 1.30-1.56]; absolute risk increase, 0.47% [95% CI, 0.34%-0.62%]; number needed to harm, 210).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:

The use of aspirin in individuals without cardiovascular disease was associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular events and an increased risk of major bleeding. This information may inform discussions with patients about aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular events and bleeding.

Keywords 
aspirin bleeding events cardiovascular events
Subscribe to hemorrhage