JACC. Clinical electrophysiology · 2023
DOACs vs Vitamin K Antagonists During Cardiac Rhythm Device Surgery: A Multicenter Propensity-Matched Study.
Наблюдательное исследованиеМногоцентровое исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Creta Antonio, Ventrella Nicoletta, Earley Mark J, Finlay Malcolm, Sporton Simon, Maclean Edward, Kanthasamy Vijayabharathy, Lemos Silva Di Nubila Bruna Costa, Ricciardi Danilo, Calabrese Vito, Picarelli Francesco, Hunter Ross J, Lambiase Pier D, Schilling Richard J, Grigioni Francesco, Monkhouse Christopher, Muthumala Amal, Moore Philip, Providencia Rui, Chow Anthony
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of data comparing vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) to direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) at the time of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) surgery. Furthermore, the best management of DOACs (interruption vs continuation) is yet to be determined.
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare the incidence of device-related bleeds and thrombotic events based on anticoagulant type (DOAC vs VKA) and regimen (interrupted vs uninterrupted).
METHODS: This was an observational multicenter study. We included patients on chronic oral anticoagulation undergoing CIED surgery. Patients were matched using propensity scoring.
RESULTS: We included 1,975 patients (age 73.8 ± 12.4 years). Among 1,326 patients on DOAC, this was interrupted presurgery in 78.2% (n = 1,039) and continued in 21.8% (n = 287). There were 649 patients on continued VKA. The matched population included 861 patients. The rate of any major bleeding was higher with continued DOAC (5.2%) compared to interrupted DOAC (1.7%) and continued VKA (2.1%) (P = 0.03). The rate of perioperative thromboembolism was 1.4% with interrupted DOAC, whereas no thromboembolic events occurred with DOAC or VKA continuation (P = 0.04). The use of dual antiplatelet therapy, DOAC continuation, and male sex were independent predictors of major bleeding on a multivariable analysis.
CONCLUSIONS: In this large real-world cohort, a continued DOAC strategy was associated with a higher bleeding risk compared to DOAC interruption or VKA continuation in patients undergoing CIED surgery. However, DOAC interruption was associated with increased thromboembolic risk. Concomitant dual antiplatelet therapy should be avoided whenever clinically possible. A bespoke approach is necessary, with a strategy of minimal DOAC interruption likely to represent the best compromise.
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare the incidence of device-related bleeds and thrombotic events based on anticoagulant type (DOAC vs VKA) and regimen (interrupted vs uninterrupted).
METHODS: This was an observational multicenter study. We included patients on chronic oral anticoagulation undergoing CIED surgery. Patients were matched using propensity scoring.
RESULTS: We included 1,975 patients (age 73.8 ± 12.4 years). Among 1,326 patients on DOAC, this was interrupted presurgery in 78.2% (n = 1,039) and continued in 21.8% (n = 287). There were 649 patients on continued VKA. The matched population included 861 patients. The rate of any major bleeding was higher with continued DOAC (5.2%) compared to interrupted DOAC (1.7%) and continued VKA (2.1%) (P = 0.03). The rate of perioperative thromboembolism was 1.4% with interrupted DOAC, whereas no thromboembolic events occurred with DOAC or VKA continuation (P = 0.04). The use of dual antiplatelet therapy, DOAC continuation, and male sex were independent predictors of major bleeding on a multivariable analysis.
CONCLUSIONS: In this large real-world cohort, a continued DOAC strategy was associated with a higher bleeding risk compared to DOAC interruption or VKA continuation in patients undergoing CIED surgery. However, DOAC interruption was associated with increased thromboembolic risk. Concomitant dual antiplatelet therapy should be avoided whenever clinically possible. A bespoke approach is necessary, with a strategy of minimal DOAC interruption likely to represent the best compromise.