Meta-analysis of uninterrupted as compared to interrupted oral anticoagulation with or without bridging in patients undergoing coronary angiography with or without percutaneous coronary intervention.

Kowalewski, Mariusz; Suwalski, Piotr; Raffa, Giuseppe Maria; Słomka, Artur; Kowalkowska, Magdalena Ewa; Szwed, Krzysztof Aleksander; Borkowska, Alina; Kowalewski, Janusz; Malvindi, Pietro Giorgio; Undas, Anetta; Windyga, Jerzy; Pawliszak, Wojciech; Anisimowicz, Lech; Carrel, Thierry; Paparella, Domenico; Lip, Gregory Y H (2016). Meta-analysis of uninterrupted as compared to interrupted oral anticoagulation with or without bridging in patients undergoing coronary angiography with or without percutaneous coronary intervention. International journal of cardiology, 223, pp. 186-194. Elsevier 10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.08.089

[img] Text
1-s2.0-S0167527316317946-main.pdf - Published Version
Restricted to registered users only
Available under License Publisher holds Copyright.

Download (1MB) | Request a copy

OBJECTIVES

To assess safety and effectiveness of different periprocedural antithrombotic strategies in patients receiving long-term oral anticoagulation and undergoing coronary angiography with or without percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

METHODS

Studies comparing uninterrupted oral anticoagulation (UAC) with vit. K antagonists vs interrupted oral anticoagulation (IAC) with or without bridging anticoagulation before coronary procedures were eligible for inclusion in the current meta-analysis. Endpoints selected were 30-day composite of major adverse cardiovascular or cerebrovascular and thromboembolic events (MACCE) and major bleeding.

RESULTS

Eight studies (7 observational and 1 randomized controlled trial [N=2325pts.]) were included in the analysis. There was no difference in MACCE between UAC and IAC; RR (95%CIs): 0.74 (0.34-1.64); p=0.46 but there was a statistically significant MACCE risk reduction with UAC as compared to IAC with bridging: 0.52 (0.29-0.95); p=0.03. Likewise, there were no statistically significant differences between UAC vs IAC in regard to major bleeding: 0.62 (0.16-2.43); p=0.49; but as compared to IAC with bridging, UAC was associated with statistically significant 65% lower risk of major bleeding: 0.35 (0.13-0.92); p=0.03. Additionally, meta-regression analysis revealed significant linear correlation between log RR of MACCE (β=-4.617; p<0.001) and major bleeding (β=6.665; p=0.022) and mean value of target INR suggestive of higher thrombotic and secondary haemorrhagic risk below estimated INR cut-off of 2.17-2.27 within 30days.

CONCLUSIONS

Uninterrupted OAC is at least as safe as interrupted OAC, and seems to be much safer than interrupted OAC with bridging anticoagulation in patients undergoing coronary angiography with or without PCI.

Item Type:

Journal Article (Original Article)

Division/Institute:

04 Faculty of Medicine > Department of Cardiovascular Disorders (DHGE) > Clinic of Cardiovascular Surgery

UniBE Contributor:

Carrel, Thierry

Subjects:

600 Technology > 610 Medicine & health

ISSN:

0167-5273

Publisher:

Elsevier

Language:

English

Submitter:

Daniela Huber

Date Deposited:

15 Nov 2016 08:34

Last Modified:

15 Nov 2016 08:34

Publisher DOI:

10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.08.089

PubMed ID:

27541652

Uncontrolled Keywords:

Atrial fibrillation; Bridging anticoagulation; Heparin; Meta-analysis; Oral anticoagulation; Percutaneous coronary intervention

BORIS DOI:

10.7892/boris.89183

URI:

https://boris.unibe.ch/id/eprint/89183

Actions (login required)

Edit item Edit item
Provide Feedback