Interrupted versus uninterrupted anticoagulation therapy for catheter ablation in adults with arrhythmias.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Bawazeer GA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8530018 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Interrupted versus uninterrupted anticoagulation therapy for catheter ablation in adults with arrhythmias.
Bawazeer Ghada A GA Alkofide Hadeel A HA Alsharafi Aya A AA Babakr Nada O NO Altorkistani Arwa M AM Kashour Tarek S TS Miligkos Michael M AlFaleh Khalid M KM Al-Ansary Lubna A LA
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 20211021
<h4>Background</h4>The management of anticoagulation therapy around the time of catheter ablation (CA) procedure for adults with arrhythmia is critical and yet is variable in clinical practice. The ideal approach for safe and effective perioperative management should balance the risk of bleeding during uninterrupted anticoagulation while minimising the risk of thromboembolic events with interrupted therapy.<h4>Objectives</h4>To compare the efficacy and harms of interrupted versus uninterrupted a ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThere is a lack of data on anticoagulation requirements during ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF). This study compares different oral anticoagulation (OAC) strategies to evaluate risk of bleeding and thromboembolic complications.MethodsWe conducted a single-centre study in patients undergoing left atrial ablation of AF. Three groups were defined: 1) bridging: interrupted vitamin-K-antagonists (VKA), INR ≤2, and bridging with heparin; 2) VKA: uninterrupted VKA and INR of > 2; 3) DOAC: uninterrupted direct oral anticoagulants. Bleeding complications, thromboembolic events and peri-procedural heparin doses were assessed.ResultsIn total, 780 patients were documented. At 48 h, major complications were more common in the bridging group compared to uninterrupted VKA and DOAC groups (OR: 3.42, 95% CI: 1.29-9.10 and OR: 3.01, 95% CI: 1.19-7.61), largely driven by differences in major pericardial effusion (OR: 4.86, 95% CI: 1.56-15.99 and OR: 4.466, 95% CI, 1.52-13.67) and major vascular events (OR: 2.92, 95% CI: 0.58-14.67 and OR: 9.72, 95% CI: 1.00-94.43). Uninterrupted VKAs and DOACs resulted in similar odds of major complications (overall OR: 1.14, 95% CI: 0.44-2.92), including cerebrovascular events (OR: 1.21, 95% CI: 0.27-5.45). However, whereas only TIAs were observed in DOAC and bridging groups, strokes also occurred in the VKA group. Rates of minor complications (pericardial effusion, vascular complications, gastrointestinal hemorrhage) and major/minor groin hemorrhage were similar across groups.ConclusionOur dataset illustrates that uninterrupted VKA and DOAC have a better risk-benefit profile than VKA bridging. Bridging was associated with a 4.5× increased risk of complications and should be avoided, if possible.
| S-EPMC5924498 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceUninterrupted dabigatran therapy reduces stroke risk in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) undergoing ablation and is associated with a lower bleeding risk than uninterrupted warfarin therapy. Minimally interrupted direct oral anticoagulant therapy is widely used, but data from controlled studies are insufficient.ObjectiveTo compare the safety and efficacy of minimally interrupted dabigatran vs uninterrupted warfarin therapy in patients undergoing catheter ablation for NVAF.Design, setting, and participantsThe ABRIDGE-J (ABlation peRIoperative DabiGatran in use Envisioning in Japan) trial is a open-label, randomized clinical trial performed in 28 Japanese treatment centers. A total of 504 patients scheduled for NVAF ablation were enrolled; 500 were randomized to the study treatments; 499 received at least 1 dose of dabigatran etexilate (n = 248) or warfarin potassium (n = 251); and 442 underwent ablation (220 in the dabigatran group and 222 in the warfarin group). Data were collected from May 1, 2014, through September 14, 2015, and analyzed from March 7, 2017, through January 28, 2019.InterventionsAppropriate dose anticoagulation was administered 4 weeks before and at least 3 months after ablation in all patients. Dabigatran therapy was interrupted before catheter ablation (holding of 1-2 doses) and resumed after ablation.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary end points were the incidence of embolism during the perioperative period and atrial thrombus just before the ablation. The main secondary end point was the incidence of major bleeding events until 3 months after ablation.ResultsOf the 442 patients who underwent ablation, 74.9% were men and the median age was 66 years (interquartile range, 59-71 years). Before ablation, 1 cerebral infarction and 1 thrombus in the left atrium occurred in the warfarin group, but no events occurred in the interrupted dabigatran group. After ablation, the mean (SD) incidence of major bleeding events was significantly lower with dabigatran (3 patients [1.4% {0.8%}; 95% CI, 0.4%-4.2%]) vs warfarin (11 patients [5.0% {1.5%}; 95% CI, 2.8%-8.8%]; P = .03). No thromboembolic events occurred after ablation in the dabigatran group; 1 (0.5%) occurred in the warfarin group.Conclusions and relevanceIn patients undergoing ablation for NVAF, anticoagulation with minimally interrupted dabigatran therapy did not increase thromboembolic events and was associated with fewer bleeding complications than uninterrupted warfarin therapy.Trial registrationumin.ac.jp Identifier: UMIN000013129.
| S-EPMC6481436 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo describe regional differences in patient characteristics, ablation procedures, and bleeding events in the RE-CIRCUIT study. RE-CIRCUIT was a prospective, multicenter study that captured data from different regions, providing an opportunity to understand the practices followed in various regions. The incidence of major bleeding events (MBEs) was significantly lower with uninterrupted dabigatran versus uninterrupted warfarin.MethodsPatients were randomized to receive dabigatran 150 mg twice daily or warfarin. Ablation was performed with uninterrupted anticoagulation for 8 weeks after the procedure. Regions were Western Europe, Eastern Europe, North America, and Asia.ResultsOf 704 patients screened across 104 sites, 635 underwent catheter ablation (dabigatran, 317; warfarin, 318). Patient characteristics were different across various regions. Patients from North America had the highest prevalence of atrial flutter (33%), coronary artery disease (29%), diabetes mellitus (18%), and previous myocardial infarction (9%). Hypertension was most prevalent in Eastern Europe (75%), as was congestive heart failure (40% vs 2% in Western Europe). Pulmonary vein isolation alone was the preferred technique used in most patients (86% in North America and 75-83% elsewhere) and radio frequency was the preferred energy source. The major outcome measure, incidence of MBEs during and up to 2 months after the procedure, was consistently lower with uninterrupted dabigatran versus warfarin, irrespective of regions and their procedural differences, and different ablation techniques utilized.ConclusionsThis analysis shows that the benefits of dabigatran over a vitamin K antagonist in patients undergoing atrial fibrillation ablation are consistent across all geographic regions studied.Trial registrationNCT02348723 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02348723).
| S-EPMC6660508 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsVENTURE-AF is the first prospective randomized trial of uninterrupted rivaroxaban and vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) undergoing catheter ablation (CA).Methods and resultsTrial size was administratively set at 250, the protocol-specified target. Events were independently and blindly adjudicated. We randomly assigned 248 NVAF patients to uninterrupted rivaroxaban (20 mg once-daily) or to an uninterrupted VKA prior to CA and for 4 weeks afterwards. The primary endpoint was major bleeding events after CA. Secondary endpoints included thromboembolic events (composite of stroke, systemic embolism, myocardial infarction, and vascular death) and other bleeding or procedure-attributable events. Patients were 59.5 ± 10 years of age, 71% male, 74% paroxysmal AF, and had a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 1.6. The average total heparin dose used to manage activated clotting time (ACT) was slightly higher (13 871 vs. 10 964 units; P < 0.001) and the mean ACT level attained slightly lower (302 vs. 332 s; P < 0.001) in rivaroxaban and VKA arms, respectively. The incidence of major bleeding was low (0.4%; 1 major bleeding event). Similarly, thromboembolic events were low (0.8%; 1 ischemic stroke and 1 vascular death). All events occurred in the VKA arm and all after CA. The number of any adjudicated events (26 vs. 25), any bleeding events (21 vs. 18), and any other procedure-attributable events (5 vs. 5) were similar.ConclusionIn patients undergoing CA for AF, the use of uninterrupted oral rivaroxaban was feasible and event rates were similar to those for uninterrupted VKA therapy.Name of the trial registryClinicaltrials.gov trial registration number is NCT01729871.
| S-EPMC4508487 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Adequate anticoagulation during catheter ablation (CA) for atrial fibrillation (AF) is crucial for the prevention of both thromboembolic events and life-threatening bleeding. The purpose of this updated meta-analysis is to compare the safety and efficacy of uninterrupted and minimally interrupted periprocedural direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) protocols and uninterrupted vitamin K antagonist (VKA) therapy in patients undergoing CA for AF based on the latest evidence. Randomized controlled trials, prospective observational studies, and retrospective registries comparing DOACs to VKAs were identified in multiple databases (Embase, MEDLINE via PubMed, CENTRAL, and Scopus). The primary outcomes were stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA), major bleeding, and net clinical benefit. Forty-two studies with a total of 22,715 patients were included in the final analysis. The occurrence of major bleeding was significantly lower in patients assigned to uninterrupted DOAC treatment compared to VKAs (pooled odds ratio (POR): 0.71, confidence interval (CI): 0.51-0.99). The pooled analysis of both uninterrupted and minimally interrupted DOAC groups also showed significant reduction in major bleeding events (POR: 0.70, CI: 0.53-0.93). The incidence of thromboembolic events was low, with no significant difference between groups. This updated meta-analysis showed that DOAC therapy is as effective as VKA in preventing stroke and TIA. Minimally interrupted DOAC therapy is a non-inferior periprocedural anticoagulation strategy; however, uninterrupted DOAC therapy showed superiority compared to VKA with regard to major, life-threatening bleeding. Based on our in-depth analysis, we conclude that both DOAC strategies are equally safe and preferable alternatives to VKAs in patients undergoing CA for AF.
| S-EPMC7598585 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Purpose of reviewTo discuss the role of catheter ablation in treating life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias associated with Brugada syndrome (BrS), by presenting recent findings of BrS arrhythmogenic substrate, mechanisms underlying ventricular arrhythmias, and how they can be treated with catheter ablation.Recent findingsAlmost three decades ago when the clinical entity of Brugada syndrome (BrS) was described in patients who had abnormal coved-type ST elevation in the right precordial EKG leads in patients who had no apparent structural heart disease but died suddenly from ventricular fibrillation. Since its description, the syndrome has galvanized explosive research in this field over the past decades, driving major progress toward better understanding of BrS, gaining knowledge of the genetic pathophysiology and risk stratification of BrS, and creating significant advances in therapeutic modalities. One of such advances is the ability for electrophysiologists to map and identify the arrhythmogenic substrate sites of BrS, which serve as good target sites for catheter ablation. Subsequently, several studies have shown that catheter ablation of these substrates normalizes the Brugada ECG pattern and is very effective in eliminating these substrates and preventing recurrent VF episodes. Catheter ablation has become an important addition for treatment of symptomatic BrS patients with recurrent VT/VF episodes.
| S-EPMC8068636 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundStudies indicate that uninterrupted anticoagulation (UA) is superior to interrupted anticoagulation (IA) in the periprocedural period during catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation. Still IA is followed in many centers considering the bleeding risk. This meta-analysis compares interrupted and uninterrupted direct oral anticoagulation during catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation.MethodsA systematic search into PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane databases was performed and five studies were selected that directly compared IA vs UA before ablation and reported procedural outcomes, embolic, and bleeding events. The primary outcome of the study was major adverse cerebro-cardiovascular events.ResultsThe meta-analysis included 840 patients with UA and 938 patients with IA. Median follow-up was 30 days. Activated clotting time (ACT) before first heparin bolus was significantly longer with UA (P = .006), whereas mean ACT was similar between the two groups (P = .19). Total heparin dose needed was significantly higher with IA (mean, ‒1.61; 95% CI, ‒2.67 to ‒0.55; P = .003). Mean procedure time did not vary between groups (P = .81). Overall complication rates were low, with similar major adverse cerebro-cardiovascular event (P = .40) and total bleeding (P = .55) rates between groups. Silent cerebral events (SCEs) were significantly more frequent with IA (log odds ratio, ‒0.90; 95% CI, ‒1.59 to ‒0.22; P < .01; I 2, 33%). Rates of major bleeding, minor bleeding, pericardial effusion, cardiac tamponade, and puncture complications were similar between groups.ConclusionsUA during atrial fibrillation ablation has similar bleeding event rates, procedural times, and mean ACTs as IA, with fewer SCEs.
| S-EPMC8021981 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsCatheter ablation is considered the treatment of choice for many tachyarrhythmias, but convincing 'real-world' data on efficacy and safety are lacking. Using Swedish national registry data, the ablation spectrum, procedural characteristics, as well as ablation efficacy and reported adverse events are reported.Methods and resultsConsecutive patients (≥18 years of age) undergoing catheter ablation in Sweden between 01 January 2006 and 31 December 2015 were included in the study. Follow-up (repeat ablation and vital status) was collected through 31 December 2016. A total of 26 642 patients (57 ± 15 years, 62% men), undergoing a total of 34 428 ablation procedures were included in the study. In total, 4034 accessory pathway/Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome (12%), 7358 AV-nodal re-entrant tachycardia (21%), 1813 atrial tachycardia (5.2%), 5481 typical atrial flutter (16%), 11 916 atrial fibrillation (AF, 35%), 2415 AV-nodal (7.0%), 581 premature ventricular contraction (PVC, 1.7%), and 964 ventricular tachycardia (VT) ablations (2.8%) were performed. Median follow-up time was 4.7 years (interquartile range 2.7-7.0). The spectrum of treated arrhythmias changed over time, with a gradual increase in AF, VT, and PVC ablation (P < 0.001). Decreasing procedural times and utilization of fluoroscopy with time, were seen for all arrhythmia types. The rates of repeat ablation differed between ablation types, with the highest repeat ablation seen in AF (41% within 3 years). The rate of reported adverse events was low (n = 595, 1.7%). Death in the immediate period following ablation was rare (n = 116, 0.34%).ConclusionCatheter ablations have shifted towards more complex procedures over the past decade. Fluoroscopy time has markedly decreased and the efficacy of catheter ablation seems to improve for AF.
| S-EPMC6403459 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and aimsFew recent large-scale studies have evaluated the risks and benefits of continuing oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapy after catheter ablation (CA) for atrial fibrillation (AF). This study evaluated the status of continuation of OAC therapy and the association between continuation of OAC therapy and thromboembolic and bleeding events according to the CHADS2 score.MethodsThis retrospective study included data from the Japanese nationwide administrative claims database of patients who underwent CA for AF between April 2014 and March 2021. Patients without AF recurrence assessed by administrative data of the treatment modalities were divided into two groups according to continuation of OAC therapy 6 months after the index CA. The primary outcomes were thromboembolism and major bleeding after a landmark period of 6 months. After inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis, the association between OAC continuation and outcomes was determined according to the CHADS2 score.ResultsAmong 231 374 patients included, 69.7%, 21.6%, and 8.7% had CHADS2 scores of ≤1, 2, and ≥3, respectively. Of these, 71% continued OAC therapy at 6 months. The OAC continuation rate was higher in the high CHADS2 score group than that in the low CHADS2 score group. Among all patients, 2451 patients (0.55 per 100 person-years) had thromboembolism and 2367 (0.53 per 100 person-years) had major bleeding. In the CHADS2 score ≤1 group, the hazard ratio of the continued OAC group was 0.86 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.74-1.01, P = .06] for thromboembolism and was 1.51 (95% CI: 1.27-1.80, P < .001) for major bleeding. In the CHADS2 score ≥3 group, the hazard ratio of the continued OAC group was 0.61 (95% CI: 0.46-0.82, P = .001) for thromboembolism and was 1.05 (95% CI: 0.71-1.56, P = 0.81) for major bleeding.ConclusionsThis observational study suggests that the benefits and risks of continuing OAC therapy after CA for AF differ based on the patient's CHADS2 score. The risk of major bleeding due to OAC continuation seems to outweigh the risk reduction of thromboembolism in patients with lower thromboembolic risk.
| S-EPMC10873714 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCurrently, peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are widely used; however, there are associated problems due to catheter-related thrombosis (CRT). According to the existing literature and guidelines, 3-6 months of anticoagulation therapy is recommended, but these recommendations are based on analogous deep vein thrombosis of the lower limbs. More specific management strategies need to be developed, and the safety and effectiveness of these strategies needs to be investigated.MethodsSome studies have suggested that catheter removal alone is a reasonable option, especially for patients with a higher risk of bleeding. We conducted a retrospective study of hospitalized patients from a single center who were diagnosed with PICC-related thrombosis. Among the 85 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 63 patients were treated with catheter removal alone, and 22 patients received anticoagulation therapy after catheter removal. The progression of thrombosis and bleeding in the two groups were compared. Most patients who underwent catheter removal alone had hematological malignancies, and thrombocytopenia had occurred during chemotherapy.ResultsAfter PICC removal, no patients in the anticoagulation therapy group developed progressive thrombosis, while 10 patients in the catheter removal alone group developed progressive thrombosis or pulmonary embolism (PE), including one case of PE, four cases of secondary upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (UEDVT), and five patients showed obvious aggravation of thrombosis after catheter removal, and were administered repeated anticoagulant therapy. In the PICC removal + anticoagulation treatment group, major bleeding increased significantly (28.6% vs. 4.7%, P=0.006).ConclusionsCompared to the PICC removal + anticoagulation treatment group, the risk of major bleeding in the catheter removal alone group was significantly reduced. In some patients with an increased bleeding risk, catheter removal alone may be a safer and more effective option than catheter removal with anticoagulation treatment for CRT.
| S-EPMC8756203 | biostudies-literature