Periprocedural Bridging in Patients with Venous Thromboembolism: A Systematic Review.

Baumgartner, Christine; de Kouchkovsky, Ivan; Whitaker, Evans; Fang, Margaret C (2019). Periprocedural Bridging in Patients with Venous Thromboembolism: A Systematic Review. The American journal of medicine, 132(6), 722-732.e7. Elsevier 10.1016/j.amjmed.2019.01.004

Preview

Text Baumgartner, Am J Med 2019.pdf - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons: Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works (CC-BY-NC-ND). Download (802kB) | Preview

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 venous thromboembolism, 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 non-randomized 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 and/or non-major 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 to VKA interruption without bridging, without a significant difference in periprocedural venous thromboembolism rates.

Interest & Impact

Downloads

293 since deposited on 14 Feb 2019
38 in the past 12 months

Citations

5 Citations in Web of Science ®
6 Citations in Scopus

Search

in Google Scholar™

Services

Actions (login required)

Edit item

Actions (login required)

Edit item