Reversal of direct oral anticoagulants: Guidance from the SSC of the ISTH: R1.

The currently approved direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are increasingly used in clinical practice. Although serious bleeding risks are lower with DOACs compared to vitamin K antagonists, bleeding remains the most frequent side effect. Andexanet-alfa and idarucizumab are the currently approved specific reversal agents for oral FXa inhibitors and dabigatran, respectively. Our prior guidance document was published in 2106, but with more information available on the utility and increased use of these reversal agents and other bleeding management strategies, we have updated this ISTH guidance document on DOAC reversal. In this narrative review, we compare the mechanism of action of specific and non-specific reversal agents, review the clinical data supporting their use, and provide guidance on when reversal is indicated. In addition, we briefly discuss the reversal of oral FXIa inhibitors, a new class of DOACs currently under clinical development.

Executive Summary: Perioperative Management of Antithrombotic Therapy: An American College of Chest Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline.

BACKGROUND: The American College of Chest Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline on the Perioperative Management of Antithrombotic Therapy addresses 43 Patients-Interventions-Comparators-Outcomes (PICO) questions related to the perioperative management of patients who are receiving long-term oral anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy and require an elective surgery/procedure. This guideline is separated into four broad categories, encompassing the management of patients who are receiving: (1) a vitamin K antagonist (VKA), mainly warfarin; (2) if receiving a VKA, the use of perioperative heparin bridging, typically with a low-molecular-weight heparin; (3) a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC); and (4) an antiplatelet drug. METHODS: Strong or conditional practice recommendations are generated based on high, moderate, low, and very low certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology for clinical practice guidelines. RESULTS: A multidisciplinary panel generated 44 guideline recommendations for the perioperative management of VKAs, heparin bridging, DOACs, and antiplatelet drugs, of which two are strong recommendations: (1) against the use of heparin bridging in patients with atrial fibrillation; and (2) continuation of VKA therapy in patients having a pacemaker or internal cardiac defibrillator implantation. There are separate recommendations on the perioperative management of patients who are undergoing minor procedures, comprising dental, dermatologic, ophthalmologic, pacemaker/internal cardiac defibrillator implantation, and GI (endoscopic) procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial new evidence has emerged since the 2012 iteration of these guidelines, especially to inform best practices for the perioperative management of patients who are receiving a VKA and may require heparin bridging, for the perioperative management of patients who are receiving a DOAC, and for patients who are receiving one or more antiplatelet drugs. Despite this new knowledge, uncertainty remains as to best practices for the majority of perioperative management questions.

Perioperative Management of Antithrombotic Therapy: An American College of Chest Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline.

BACKGROUND: The American College of Chest Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline on the Perioperative Management of Antithrombotic Therapy addresses 43 Patients-Interventions-Comparators-Outcomes (PICO) questions related to the perioperative management of patients who are receiving long-term oral anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy and require an elective surgery/procedure. This guideline is separated into four broad categories, encompassing the management of patients who are receiving: (1) a vitamin K antagonist (VKA), mainly warfarin; (2) if receiving a VKA, the use of perioperative heparin bridging, typically with a low-molecular-weight heparin; (3) a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC); and (4) an antiplatelet drug. METHODS: Strong or conditional practice recommendations are generated based on high, moderate, low, and very low certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology for clinical practice guidelines. RESULTS: A multidisciplinary panel generated 44 guideline recommendations for the perioperative management of VKAs, heparin bridging, DOACs, and antiplatelet drugs, of which two are strong recommendations: (1) against the use of heparin bridging in patients with atrial fibrillation; and (2) continuation of VKA therapy in patients having a pacemaker or internal cardiac defibrillator implantation. There are separate recommendations on the perioperative management of patients who are undergoing minor procedures, comprising dental, dermatologic, ophthalmologic, pacemaker/internal cardiac defibrillator implantation, and GI (endoscopic) procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial new evidence has emerged since the 2012 iteration of these guidelines, especially to inform best practices for the perioperative management of patients who are receiving a VKA and may require heparin bridging, for the perioperative management of patients who are receiving a DOAC, and for patients who are receiving one or more antiplatelet drugs. Despite this new knowledge, uncertainty remains as to best practices for the majority of perioperative management questions.

Rivaroxaban or Enoxaparin in Nonmajor Orthopedic Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Nonmajor orthopedic surgery of the lower limbs that results in transient reduced mobility places patients at risk for venous thromboembolism. Rivaroxaban may be noninferior to enoxaparin with regard to the prevention of major venous thromboembolism in these patients. METHODS: In this international, parallel-group, randomized, double-blind, noninferiority trial, we randomly assigned adult patients undergoing lower-limb nonmajor orthopedic surgery who were considered to be at risk for venous thromboembolism on the basis of the investigator's judgment to receive either rivaroxaban or enoxaparin. The primary efficacy outcome of major venous thromboembolism was a composite of symptomatic distal or proximal deep-vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, or venous thromboembolism-related death during the treatment period or asymptomatic proximal deep-vein thrombosis at the end of treatment. A test for superiority was planned if rivaroxaban proved to be noninferior to enoxaparin. For all outcomes, multiple imputation was used to account for missing data. Prespecified safety outcomes included major bleeding (fatal, critical, or clinically overt bleeding or bleeding at the surgical site leading to intervention) and nonmajor clinically relevant bleeding. RESULTS: A total of 3604 patients underwent randomization; 1809 patients were assigned to receive rivaroxaban, and 1795 to receive enoxaparin. Major venous thromboembolism occurred in 4 of 1661 patients (0.2%) in the rivaroxaban group and in 18 of 1640 patients (1.1%) in the enoxaparin group (risk ratio with multiple imputation, 0.25; 95% confidence interval, 0.09 to 0.75; P<0.001 for noninferiority; P = 0.01 for superiority). The incidence of bleeding did not differ significantly between the rivaroxaban group and the enoxaparin group (1.1% and 1.0%, respectively, for major bleeding or nonmajor clinically relevant bleeding; 0.6% and 0.7%, respectively, for major bleeding). CONCLUSIONS: Rivaroxaban was more effective than enoxaparin in the prevention of venous thromboembolic events during a period of immobilization after nonmajor orthopedic surgery of the lower limbs. (Funded by Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Saint-Etienne and Bayer; PRONOMOS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02401594.).

Assessing residual neuromuscular blockade using acceleromyography can be deceptive in postoperative awake patients.

UNLABELLED: Postoperative awake patients may have significant residual neuromuscular block. In awake patients, the results of accelerometry are affected by extra movements to which the thumb may be subject. In this study, we evaluated the repeatability of train-of-four (TOF) ratio using acceleromyography in 253 patients recovering from anesthesia. Immediately after arrival in the postanesthesia care unit, the ulnar nerve was stimulated with TOF stimulation. The evoked response at the thumb was measured by the TOF-Watch apparatus. The current intensity was 30 mA. Two TOF stimulations were applied and recorded at 30-s intervals. A Bland-Altman test was used. The Kappa (kappa) test for clinical agreement between the two measurements was also calculated according to the presence or absence of a residual neuromuscular blockade, defined as a TOF ratio <0.9. According to the presence of a residual neuromuscular blockade, the paired TOF ratios were discordant in 61 patients (24%; 95% confidence interval, 21%-27%). The kappa test indicated a moderate agreement (k = 0.47). We demonstrated that accelerometry as used in this study is not always accurate. Two isolated acceleromyograph TOF ratios are not an accurate representation of the neuromuscular status of the patient recovering from anesthesia. IMPLICATIONS: Clinicians should be aware that acceleromyography as used in this study does not always provide precise train-of-four ratio measurements. Two isolated acceleromyograph train-of-four ratios are not an accurate representation of the neuromuscular status of the patient recovering from anesthesia.