In medical inpatients, the IMPROVE risk score had moderate predictive power for 14-d in-hospital bleeding.

SOURCE CITATION: Villiger R, Juillard P, Darbellay Farhoumand P, et al. Prediction of in-hospital bleeding in acutely ill medical patients: external validation of the IMPROVE bleeding risk score. Thromb Res. 2023;230:37-44. 37634309.

Risk Factors For MACE And Bleeding In Atrial Fibrillation Patients Undergoing Surgery: Insights From The Bridge Trial.

INTRODUCTION: -Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing elective procedures are at risk for Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events (MACE) and symptomatic bleeding. We aimed to identify risk factors to guide perioperative risk stratification. METHODS: -We conducted a post-hoc analysis of the "Bridging Anticoagulation in Patients who Require Temporary Interruption of Warfarin Therapy for an Elective Invasive Procedure or Surgery" randomized trial. The primary outcomes were MACE and symptomatic bleeding. Our statistical approach encompassed standard univariate analysis, logistic stepwise regression, and Cox regression models. Additional interaction analyses evaluated the interplay between low-molecular-weight heparin bridge therapy and other identified risk factors. RESULTS: -Among A total of 1,813 participants (mean age 71.6±8.8, 73.3% male), MACE occurred in 25 (1.4%) individuals, with pre-procedure clopidogrel use (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 7.73, 95% CI 2.63-22.72, p<0.001) and CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥ 5 (aHR 2.89, 95% CI 1.26-6.63, p=0.012) identified as risk factors. Symptomatic bleeding occurred in 57 (3.1%) individuals, with bridge therapy (aHR 1.84, 95% CI 1.07-3.19, p=0.029), renal disease (aHR 2.50, 95% CI 1.34-4.67, p=0.004), post-procedure aspirin use (aHR 2.86, 95% CI 1.66-4.91, p<0.001), post-procedure nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use excluding aspirin (aHR 3.40, 95% CI 1.22-9.43, p=0.019), and major surgery (aHR 3.94, 95% CI 2.26-6.85, p<0.001) identified as risk factors. The interactions between risk factors and bridging therapy on MACE and symptomatic bleeding outcomes were not significant (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: -We identified predictors for MACE and symptomatic bleeding in AF patients undergoing elective procedures. These insights may help guide perioperative decisions to reduce the risk of adverse outcomes.

Antiphospholipid antibodies and recurrent thrombosis after a first unprovoked venous thromboembolism.

It is uncertain whether antiphospholipid antibodies (APAs) increase the risk of recurrence after a first unprovoked venous thromboembolism (VTE). We tested for anticardiolipin antibodies, anti-ß2 glycoprotein 1 antibodies, and lupus anticoagulant on 2 occasions ∼6 months apart in 307 patients with a first unprovoked VTE who were part of a prospective cohort study. We then determined if APAs were associated with recurrent thrombosis in the 290 patients who stopped anticoagulant therapy in response to negative D-dimer results. Compared with those without an APA, the hazard ratios for recurrent VTE were 1.8 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.9-3.7; P = .09) in the 25.9% of patients with an APA on ≥1 occasions, 2.7 (95% CI, 1.1-.7; P = .03) in the 9.0% of patients with the same APA on 2 occasions, and 4.5 (95% CI, 1.5-13.0; P = .006) in the 3.8% of patients with 2 or 3 different APA types on either the same or different occasions. There was no association between having an APA and D-dimer levels. We conclude that having the same type of APA on 2 occasions or having >1 type of APA on the same or different occasions is associated with recurrent thrombosis in patients with a first unprovoked VTE who stop anticoagulant therapy in response to negative D-dimer tests. APA and D-dimer levels seem to be independent predictors of recurrence in patients with an unprovoked VTE. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00720915.

Deep vein thrombosis: update on diagnosis and management.

Diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) requires a multifaceted approach that includes clinical assessment, evaluation of pre-test probability, and objective diagnostic testing. Common symptoms and signs of DVT are pain, swelling, erythema and dilated veins in the affected limb. The pre-test probability of DVT can be assessed using a clinical decision rule that stratifies DVT into "unlikely" or "likely". If DVT is "unlikely", refer for D-dimer test. If the D-dimer level is normal, DVT can be excluded; if the D-dimer level is increased, refer for compression ultrasound. If DVT is "likely", refer for compression ultrasound. When DVT is confirmed, anticoagulation is indicated to control symptoms, prevent progression and reduce the risk of post-thrombotic syndrome and pulmonary embolism. Anticoagulation may consist of a parenteral anticoagulant overlapped by warfarin or followed by a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) (dabigatran or edoxaban), or of a DOAC (apixaban or rivaroxaban) without initial parenteral therapy. DOACs are the preferred treatment for DVT because they are at least as effective, safer and more convenient than warfarin. DOACs may require dose reduction or avoidance in patients with renal dysfunction, and should be avoided in pregnancy. Recent evidence shows that DVT in patients with cancer may be treated with edoxaban (after discontinuation of 5 days of initial heparin or low molecular weight heparin [LMWH]) or rivaroxaban if patients prefer not to have daily injections of LMWH, but the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding is higher with DOACs than with LMWH in patients with gastrointestinal cancer.

Pulmonary embolism: update on diagnosis and management.

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a potentially life-threatening condition, mandating urgent diagnosis and treatment. The symptoms of PE may be non-specific; diagnosis therefore relies on a clinical assessment and objective diagnostic testing. A clinical decision rule can determine the pre-test probability of PE. If PE is "unlikely", refer for a D-dimer test. If the D-dimer result is normal, PE can be excluded. If D-dimer levels are increased, refer for chest imaging. If PE is "likely", refer for chest imaging. Imaging with computed tomography pulmonary angiogram is accurate and preferred for diagnosing PE, but may detect asymptomatic PE of uncertain clinical significance. Imaging with ventilation-perfusion (VQ) scan is associated with lower radiation exposure than computed tomography pulmonary angiogram, and may be preferred in younger patients and pregnancy. A low probability or high probability VQ scan is helpful for ruling out or confirming PE, respectively; however, an intermediate probability VQ scan requires further investigation. The direct oral anticoagulants have expanded the anticoagulation options for PE. These are the preferred anticoagulant for most patients with PE because they are associated with a lower risk of bleeding, and have the practical advantages of fixed dosage, no need for routine monitoring, and fewer drug interactions compared with vitamin K antagonists. Initial parenteral treatment is required before dabigatran and edoxaban.

Perioperative Bridging Anticoagulation in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: It is uncertain whether bridging anticoagulation is necessary for patients with atrial fibrillation who need an interruption in warfarin treatment for an elective operation or other elective invasive procedure. We hypothesized that forgoing bridging anticoagulation would be noninferior to bridging with low-molecular-weight heparin for the prevention of perioperative arterial thromboembolism and would be superior to bridging with respect to major bleeding. METHODS: We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in which, after perioperative interruption of warfarin therapy, patients were randomly assigned to receive bridging anticoagulation therapy with low-molecular-weight heparin (100 IU of dalteparin per kilogram of body weight) or matching placebo administered subcutaneously twice daily, from 3 days before the procedure until 24 hours before the procedure and then for 5 to 10 days after the procedure. Warfarin treatment was stopped 5 days before the procedure and was resumed within 24 hours after the procedure. Follow-up of patients continued for 30 days after the procedure. The primary outcomes were arterial thromboembolism (stroke, systemic embolism, or transient ischemic attack) and major bleeding. RESULTS: In total, 1884 patients were enrolled, with 950 assigned to receive no bridging therapy and 934 assigned to receive bridging therapy. The incidence of arterial thromboembolism was 0.4% in the no-bridging group and 0.3% in the bridging group (risk difference, 0.1 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.6 to 0.8; P=0.01 for noninferiority). The incidence of major bleeding was 1.3% in the no-bridging group and 3.2% in the bridging group (relative risk, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.78; P=0.005 for superiority). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with atrial fibrillation who had warfarin treatment interrupted for an elective operation or other elective invasive procedure, forgoing bridging anticoagulation was noninferior to perioperative bridging with low-molecular-weight heparin for the prevention of arterial thromboembolism and decreased the risk of major bleeding. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health; BRIDGE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00786474.).

Predictors of perioperative major bleeding in patients who interrupt warfarin for an elective surgery or procedure: Analysis of the BRIDGE trial.

BACKGROUND: The use of low-molecular weight heparin bridge therapy during warfarin interruption for elective surgery/procedures increases bleeding. Other predictors of bleeding in this setting are not well described. METHODS: BRIDGE was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of bridge therapy with dalteparin 100 IU/kg twice daily in patients with atrial fibrillation requiring warfarin interruption. Bleeding outcomes were documented from the time of warfarin interruption until up to 37 days postprocedure. Multiple logistic regression and time-dependent hazard models were used to identify major bleeding predictors. RESULTS: We analyzed 1,813 patients of whom 895 received bridging and 918 received placebo. Median patient age was 72.6 years, and 73.3% were male. Forty-one major bleeding events occurred at a median time of 7.0 days (interquartile range, 4.0-18.0 days) postprocedure. Bridge therapy was a baseline predictor of major bleeding (odds ratio [OR]=2.4, 95% CI: 1.2-4.8), as were a history of renal disease (OR=2.9, 95% CI: 1.4-6.0), and high-bleeding risk procedures (vs low-bleeding risk procedures) (OR=2.9, 95% CI: 1.4-5.9). Perioperative aspirin use (OR=3.6, 95% CI: 1.1-11.9) and postprocedure international normalized ratio >3.0 (OR=2.1, 95% CI: 1.5-3.1) were time-dependent predictors of major bleeding. Major bleeding was most common in the first 10 days compared with 11-37 days postprocedure (OR=3.5, 95% CI: 1.8-6.9). CONCLUSIONS: In addition to bridge therapy, perioperative aspirin use, postprocedure international normalized ratio >3.0, a history of renal failure, and having a high-bleeding risk procedure increase the risk of major bleeding around the time of an elective surgery/procedure requiring warfarin interruption.

Interventions for implementation of thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients at risk for venous thromboembolism.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in hospitalized patients. While numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown that the appropriate use of thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients at risk for VTE is safe, effective, and cost-effective, thromboprophylaxis remains underused or inappropriately used. Our previous review suggested that system-wide interventions, such as education, alerts, and multifaceted interventions were more effective at improving the prescribing of thromboprophylaxis than relying on individual providers' behaviors. However, 47 of the 55 included studies in our previous review were observational in design. Thus, an update to our systematic review, focused on the higher level of evidence of RCTs only, was warranted. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of system-wide interventions designed to increase the implementation of thromboprophylaxis and decrease the incidence of VTE in hospitalized adult medical and surgical patients at risk for VTE, focusing on RCTs only. SEARCH METHODS: Our research librarian conducted a systematic literature search of MEDLINE Ovid, and subsequently translated it to CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase Ovid, BIOSIS Previews Ovid, CINAHL, Web of Science, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE; in the Cochrane Library), NHS Economic Evaluation Database (EED; in the Cochrane Library), LILACS, and clinicaltrials.gov from inception to 7 January 2017. We also screened reference lists of relevant review articles. We identified 12,920 potentially relevant records. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all types of RCTs, with random or quasi-random methods of allocation of interventions, which either randomized individuals (e.g. parallel group, cross-over, or factorial design RCTs), or groups of individuals (cluster RCTs (CRTs)), which aimed to increase the use of prophylaxis or appropriate prophylaxis, or decrease the occurrence of VTE in hospitalized adult patients. We excluded observational studies, studies in which the intervention was simply distribution of published guidelines, and studies whose interventions were not clearly described. Studies could be in any language. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We collected data on the following outcomes: the number of participants who received prophylaxis or appropriate prophylaxis (as defined by study authors), the occurrence of any VTE (symptomatic or asymptomatic), mortality, and safety outcomes, such as bleeding. We categorized the interventions into alerts (computer or human alerts), multifaceted interventions (combination of interventions that could include an alert component), educational interventions (e.g. grand rounds, courses), and preprinted orders (written predefined orders completed by the physician on paper or electronically). We meta-analyzed data across RCTs using a random-effects model. For CRTs, we pooled effect estimates (risk difference (RD) and risk ratio (RR), with 95% confidence interval (CI), adjusted for clustering, when possible. We pooled results if three or more trials were available for a particular intervention. We assessed the certainty of the evidence according to the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: From the 12,920 records identified by our search, we included 13 RCTs (N = 35,997 participants) in our qualitative analysis and 11 RCTs (N = 33,207 participants) in our meta-analyses. PRIMARY OUTCOME: Alerts were associated with an increase in the proportion of participants who received prophylaxis (RD 21%, 95% CI 15% to 27%; three studies; 5057 participants; I² = 75%; low-certainty evidence). The substantial statistical heterogeneity may be in part explained by patient types, type of hospital, and type of alert. Subgroup analyses were not feasible due to the small number of studies included in the meta-analysis.Multifaceted interventions were associated with a small increase in the proportion of participants who received prophylaxis (cluster-adjusted RD 4%, 95% CI 2% to 6%; five studies; 9198 participants; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). Multifaceted interventions with an alert component were found to be more effective than multifaceted interventions that did not include an alert, although there were not enough studies to conduct a pooled analysis. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Alerts were associated with an increase in the proportion of participants who received appropriate prophylaxis (RD 16%, 95% CI 12% to 20%; three studies; 1820 participants; I² = 0; moderate-certainty evidence). Alerts were also associated with a reduction in the rate of symptomatic VTE at three months (RR 64%, 95% CI 47% to 86%; three studies; 5353 participants; I² = 15%; low-certainty evidence). Computer alerts were associated with a reduction in the rate of symptomatic VTE, although there were not enough studies to pool computer alerts and human alerts results separately. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We reviewed RCTs that implemented a variety of system-wide strategies aimed at improving thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients. We found increased prescription of prophylaxis associated with alerts and multifaceted interventions, and increased prescription of appropriate prophylaxis associated with alerts. While multifaceted interventions were found to be less effective than alerts, a multifaceted intervention with an alert was more effective than one without an alert. Alerts, particularly computer alerts, were associated with a reduction in symptomatic VTE at three months, although there were not enough studies to pool computer alerts and human alerts results separately.Our analysis was underpowered to assess the effect on mortality and safety outcomes, such as bleeding.The incomplete reporting of relevant study design features did not allow complete assessment of the certainty of the evidence. However, the certainty of the evidence for improvement in outcomes was judged to be better than for our previous review (low- to moderate-certainty evidence, compared to very low-certainty evidence for most outcomes). The results of our updated review will help physicians, hospital administrators, and policy makers make practical decisions about adopting specific system-wide measures to improve prescription of thromboprophylaxis, and ultimately prevent VTE in hospitalized patients.

Extended-duration versus short-duration pharmacological thromboprophylaxis in acutely Ill hospitalized medical patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Extended-duration pharmacological thromboprophylaxis, for at least 28 days, is effective for the prevention of symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE) in high-risk surgical patients but is of uncertain benefit in hospitalized medical patients. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of extended-duration thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients. We conducted a systematic PubMed, Medline and EMBASE literature search until June 2016 and a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials which compared extended-duration with short-duration thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients. Four randomized controlled trials comparing extended-duration prophylaxis (24-47 days) with short-duration prophylaxis (6-14 days) in a total of 34,068 acutely ill hospitalized medical patients were included. When compared with short-duration prophylaxis, extended-duration prophylaxis was associated with a decrease in symptomatic proximal or distal deep vein thrombosis (DVT) [relative risk (RR) = 0.52; 95% confidence interval (Cl): 0.35-0.77: p = 0.001; absolute risk reduction (ARR) = 0.32%, number needed to treat (NNT) = 313], and symptomatic non-fatal pulmonary embolism (RR = 0.61; 95% Cl 0.38-0.99: p = 0.04; ARR = 0.16%; NNT = 625), an increase in major bleeding (RR = 2.08; 95% Cl 1.50-2.90: p < 0.0001, absolute risk increase = 0.41%, number needed to harm = 244), and no significant reduction in VTE-related mortality (RR = 0.69; 95% Cl 0.45-1.06: p = 0.09) or all-cause mortality (RR = 1.00; 95% CI 0.89-1.12; p = 0.95). There was heterogeneity for major bleeding due to results from the APEX trial (no difference between betrixaban and enoxaparin). Compared with short-duration thromboprophylaxis, extended-duration treatment reduces the risk for symptomatic DVT and non-fatal pulmonary embolism. Extended treatment with apixaban, enoxaparin and rivaroxaban but not betrixaban increases the risk for major bleeding.

Perioperative Management of Dabigatran: A Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The perioperative management of dabigatran in clinical practice is heterogeneous. We performed this study to evaluate the safety of perioperative management of dabigatran using a specified protocol. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients treated with dabigatran and planned for an invasive procedure were eligible for inclusion. The timing of the last dose of dabigatran before the procedure was based on the creatinine clearance and procedure-related bleeding risk. Resumption of dabigatran was prespecified according to the complexity of the surgery and consequences of a bleeding complication. Patients were followed up for 30 days for major bleeding (primary outcome), minor bleeding, arterial thromboembolism, and death. We included 541 cases: 324 procedures (60%) with standard risk of bleeding and 217 procedures (40%) with increased risk of bleeding. The last dose of dabigatran was at 24, 48, or 96 hours before surgery according to the protocol in 46%, 37%, and 6%, respectively, of the patients. Resumption was timed according to protocol in 77% with 75 mg as the first dose on the day of procedure in 40% of the patients. Ten patients (1.8%; 95% confidence interval, 0.7-3.0) had major bleeding, and 28 patients (5.2%; 95% confidence interval, 3.3-7.0) had minor bleeding events. The only thromboembolic complication was transient ischemic attack in 1 patient (0.2%; 95% confidence interval, 0-0.5), and there were 4 deaths unrelated to bleeding or thrombosis. Bridging was not used preoperatively but was administered in 9 patients (1.7%) postoperatively. CONCLUSION: Our protocol for perioperative management of dabigatran appears to be effective and feasible.

Factors that predict thrombosis in relatives of patients with venous thromboembolism.

When counseling first-degree relatives of patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE), it is important to know whether factors other than thrombophilia influence their risk for thrombosis. We assessed the risk for VTE in 915 first-degree relatives of patients with provoked VTE, compared this with the risk in 1752 first-degree relatives of patients with unprovoked VTE, and then combined data from the 2 groups of relatives to identify predictors of thrombosis. There had been 123 VTEs in 2617 first-degree relatives (0.12 per 100 person-years). The risk for VTE in first-degree relatives was higher if the index cases had an unprovoked compared with a provoked VTE (odds ratio [OR], 2.38; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.43-3.85), if the index case was younger (OR, 0.97 per year older; 95% CI, 0.96-0.99), and if an additional family member had VTE (OR, 2.71; 95% CI, 2.22-3.31). Among first-degree relatives of an index case with factor V Leiden or the prothrombin 20210A gene variant, the presence of these abnormalities also predicted thrombosis (OR, 4.42; 95% CI, 1.35-14.38). We conclude that thrombosis at a young age and unprovoked VTE predict VTE in first-degree relatives, and that the influence of these 2 factors is additive.

Guidance for the evaluation and treatment of hereditary and acquired thrombophilia.

Thrombophilias are hereditary and/or acquired conditions that predispose patients to thrombosis. Testing for thrombophilia is commonly performed in patients with venous thrombosis and their relatives; however such testing usually does not provide information that impacts management and may result in harm. This manuscript, initiated by the Anticoagulation Forum, provides clinical guidance for thrombophilia testing in five clinical situations: following 1) provoked venous thromboembolism, 2) unprovoked venous thromboembolism; 3) in relatives of patients with thrombosis, 4) in female relatives of patients with thrombosis considering estrogen use; and 5) in female relatives of patients with thrombosis who are considering pregnancy. Additionally, guidance is provided regarding the timing of thrombophilia testing. The role of thrombophilia testing in arterial thrombosis and for evaluation of recurrent pregnancy loss is not addressed. Statements are based on existing guidelines and consensus expert opinion where guidelines are lacking. We recommend that thrombophilia testing not be performed in most situations. When performed, it should be used in a highly selective manner, and only in circumstances where the information obtained will influence a decision important to the patient, and outweigh the potential risks of testing. Testing should not be performed during acute thrombosis or during the initial (3-month) period of anticoagulation.

D-dimer testing to select patients with a first unprovoked venous thromboembolism who can stop anticoagulant therapy: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Normal D-dimer levels after withdrawal of anticoagulant therapy are associated with a reduced risk for recurrence in patients with unprovoked venous thromboembolism (VTE) and may justify stopping treatment. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether patients with a first unprovoked VTE and negative D-dimer test result who stop anticoagulant therapy have a low risk for recurrence. DESIGN: Prospective management study with blinded outcome assessment. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00720915). SETTING: 13 university-affiliated clinical centers. PATIENTS: 410 adults aged 75 years or younger with a first unprovoked proximal deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism who had completed 3 to 7 months of anticoagulant therapy. INTERVENTION: Anticoagulant therapy was stopped if D-dimer test results were negative and was not restarted if results were still negative after 1 month. MEASUREMENTS: Recurrent VTE during an average follow-up of 2.2 years. RESULTS: In 319 patients (78%) who had 2 negative D-dimer results and did not restart anticoagulant therapy, rates of recurrent VTE were 6.7% (95% CI, 4.8% to 9.0%) per patient-year overall (42 of 319), 9.7% (CI, 6.7% to 13.7%) per patient-year in men (33 of 180), 5.4% (CI, 2.5% to 10.2%) per patient-year in women with VTE not associated with estrogen therapy (9 of 81), and 0.0% (CI, 0.0% to 3.0%) per patient-year in women with VTE associated with estrogen therapy (0 of 58) (P = 0.001 for the 3-group comparison). LIMITATIONS: Imprecision in female subgroups. Results may not be generalizable to different D-dimer assays from the one used in the study. CONCLUSION: The risk for recurrence in patients with a first unprovoked VTE who have negative D-dimer results is not low enough to justify stopping anticoagulant therapy in men but may be low enough to justify stopping therapy in women. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Outcomes of temporary interruption of rivaroxaban compared with warfarin in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: results from the rivaroxaban once daily, oral, direct factor Xa inhibition compared with vitamin K antagonism for prevention of stroke and embolism trial in atrial fibrillation (ROCKET AF).

BACKGROUND: During long-term anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation, temporary interruptions (TIs) of therapy are common, but the relationship between patient outcomes and TIs has not been well studied. We sought to determine reasons for TI, the characteristics of patients undergoing TI, and the relationship between anticoagulant and outcomes among patients with TI. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the Rivaroxaban Once Daily, Oral, Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared With Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation (ROCKET AF), a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy study of rivaroxaban and warfarin in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, baseline characteristics, management, and outcomes, including stroke, non-central nervous system systemic embolism, death, myocardial infarction, and bleeding, were reported in participants who experienced TI (3-30 days) for any reason. The at-risk period for outcomes associated with TI was from TI start to 30 days after resumption of study drug. In 14 236 participants who received at least 1 dose of study drug, 4692 (33%) experienced TI. Participants with TI were similar to the overall ROCKET AF population in regard to baseline clinical characteristics. Only 6% (n=483) of TI incidences involved bridging therapy. Stroke/systemic embolism rates during the at-risk period were similar in rivaroxaban-treated and warfarin-treated participants (0.30% versus 0.41% per 30 days; hazard ratio [confidence interval]=0.74 [0.36-1.50]; P=0.40). Risk of major bleeding during the at-risk period was also similar in rivaroxaban-treated and warfarin-treated participants (0.99% versus 0.79% per 30 days; hazard ratio [confidence interval]=1.26 [0.80-2.00]; P=0.32). CONCLUSIONS: TI of oral anticoagulation is common and is associated with substantial stroke risks and bleeding risks that were similar among patients treated with rivaroxaban or warfarin. Further investigation is needed to determine the optimal management strategy in patients with atrial fibrillation requiring TI of anticoagulation. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00403767.

Prevention of venous thromboembolism in the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) setting: an evidence-based review.

PURPOSE: To review the evidence surrounding appropriate prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients undergoing surgery. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Appropriate prophylactic strategies for surgical patients have been defined in major society guidelines. We review the evidence behind these guidelines in a case-based format, including patients with a high risk of bleeding, history of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, obesity, and cancer. Selecting the most suitable means for VTE prophylaxis includes evaluating patient, anesthetic, and surgical factors. Nevertheless, pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis will be appropriate for the vast majority of inpatients undergoing surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Venous thromboembolism is a serious but preventable complication of hospitalization, especially among surgical patients. Historically, it has accounted for a high burden of postoperative morbidity and mortality. In the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery era, our aim should be no less ambitious than the eradication of postoperative VTE.

How I treat anticoagulated patients undergoing an elective procedure or surgery.

The periprocedural management of patients receiving long-term oral anticoagulant therapy remains a common but difficult clinical problem, with a lack of high-quality evidence to inform best practices. It is a patient's thromboembolic risk that drives the need for an aggressive periprocedural strategy, including the use of heparin bridging therapy, to minimize time off anticoagulant therapy, while the procedural bleed risk determines how and when postprocedural anticoagulant therapy should be resumed. Warfarin should be continued in patients undergoing selected minor procedures, whereas in major procedures that necessitate warfarin interruption, heparin bridging therapy should be considered in patients at high thromboembolic risk and in a minority of patients at moderate risk. Periprocedural data with the novel oral anticoagulants, such as dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban, are emerging, but their relatively short half-life, rapid onset of action, and predictable pharmacokinetics should simplify periprocedural use. This review aims to provide a practical, clinician-focused approach to periprocedural anticoagulant management.