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.

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.

Perioperative management and outcomes in patients receiving low-dose rivaroxaban and/or aspirin: a subanalysis of the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) trial.

BACKGROUND: No study has investigated the perioperative management and clinical outcomes in patients who are receiving rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice a day and acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) 81 to 100 mg daily. OBJECTIVE: To assess perioperative management and outcomes in patients who are receiving low-dose rivaroxaban, 2.5 mg twice-daily, and low-dose ASA, 81 to 100 mg daily. To assess perioperative management and outcomes in patients who are receiving low-dose rivaroxaban, 2.5 mg twice-daily, and low-dose ASA, 81 to 100 mg daily. METHODS: Subanalysis of the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) trial was performed to assess perioperative management and clinical outcomes in patients with stable coronary or peripheral artery disease who were randomized to receive rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice a day plus ASA 100 mg daily, rivaroxaban 5 mg twice a day, or ASA 100 mg daily. Patients studied required a surgery/procedure during the trial. The study outcomes, which included myocardial infarction, angina, stroke, acute limb ischemia, bleeding, and death, were assessed according to treatment allocation. RESULTS: There were 2632 patients studied (mean age, 68 years; 80% male) who had a surgery/procedure, comprising percutaneous coronary interventions (∼43%), carotid or other arterial angioplasty (∼15%), pacemaker or internal cardiac defibrillator implantation (∼9%), and coronary artery bypass graft surgery (∼7%). Perioperative study drug management varied, with about one-third of patients not interrupting study drug and the remainder interrupting it between 1 and ≥10 days preprocedure. The incidences of adverse outcomes across treatment groups were 12.7% to 15.3% for myocardial ischemia, 0.8% to 1.2% for stroke, 0.1% to 0.2% for venous thromboembolism, and 3.1% to 4.2% for any bleeding. There was no statistically significant difference in outcome rates across treatment groups. CONCLUSION: In patients in the COMPASS trial who required a surgery/procedure, there was no significant difference in perioperative adverse outcomes whether patients were receiving rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice a day and ASA 100 mg daily, rivaroxaban 5 mg twice a day, or ASA alone.

Coordination of oral anticoagulant care at hospital discharge (COACHeD): pilot randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether a focused, expert medication management intervention is feasible and potentially effective in preventing anticoagulation-related adverse events for patients transitioning from hospital to home. DESIGN: Randomised, parallel design. SETTING: Medical wards at six hospital sites in southern Ontario, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Adults 18 years of age or older being discharged to home on an oral anticoagulant (OAC) to be taken for at least 4 weeks. INTERVENTIONS: Clinical pharmacologist-led intervention, including a detailed discharge medication management plan, a circle of care handover and early postdischarge virtual check-up visits to 1 month with 3-month follow-up. The control group received the usual care. OUTCOMES MEASURES: Primary outcomes were study feasibility outcomes (recruitment, retention and cost per patient). Secondary outcomes included adverse anticoagulant safety events composite, quality of transitional care, quality of life, anticoagulant knowledge, satisfaction with care, problems with medications and health resource utilisation. RESULTS: Extensive periods of restriction of recruitment plus difficulties accessing patients at the time of discharge negatively impacted feasibility, especially cost per patient recruited. Of 845 patients screened, 167 were eligible and 56 were randomised. The mean age (±SD) was 71.2±12.5 years, 42.9% females, with two lost to follow-up. Intervention patients were more likely to rate their ability to manage their OAC as improved (17/27 (63.0%) vs 7/22 (31.8%), OR 3.6 (95% CI 1.1 to 12.0)) and their continuity of care as improved (21/27 (77.8%) vs 2/22 (9.1%), OR 35.0 (95% CI 6.3 to 194.2)). Fewer intervention patients were taking one or more inappropriate medications (7 (22.5%) vs 15 (60%), OR 0.19 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.62)). CONCLUSION: This pilot randomised controlled trial suggests that a transitional care intervention at hospital discharge for older adults taking OACs was well received and potentially effective for some surrogate outcomes, but overly costly to proceed to a definitive large trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02777047.

Machine Learning-Based Predictive Models for Patients with Venous Thromboembolism: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a chronic disorder with a significant health and economic burden. Several VTE-specific clinical prediction models (CPMs) have been used to assist physicians in decision-making but have several limitations. This systematic review explores if machine learning (ML) can enhance CPMs by analyzing extensive patient data derived from electronic health records. We aimed to explore ML-CPMs' applications in VTE for risk stratification, outcome prediction, diagnosis, and treatment. METHODS: Three databases were searched: PubMed, Google Scholar, and IEEE electronic library. Inclusion criteria focused on studies using structured data, excluding non-English publications, studies on non-humans, and certain data types such as natural language processing and image processing. Studies involving pregnant women, cancer patients, and children were also excluded. After excluding irrelevant studies, a total of 77 studies were included. RESULTS: Most studies report that ML-CPMs outperformed traditional CPMs in terms of receiver operating area under the curve in the four clinical domains that were explored. However, the majority of the studies were retrospective, monocentric, and lacked detailed model architecture description and external validation, which are essential for quality audit. This review identified research gaps and highlighted challenges related to standardized reporting, reproducibility, and model comparison. CONCLUSION: ML-CPMs show promise in improving risk assessment and individualized treatment recommendations in VTE. Apparently, there is an urgent need for standardized reporting and methodology for ML models, external validation, prospective and real-world data studies, as well as interventional studies to evaluate the impact of artificial intelligence in VTE.

Anticoagulation Stewardship to Bridge the Implementation Gap in Perioperative Anticoagulation Management.

Lack of alignment of care protocols among providers in health care is a driver of increased costs and suboptimal patient outcomes. Perioperative anticoagulation management is a good example of a complex area where protocol creation is a clinical challenge that demands input from multiple experts. Questions regarding the need for anticoagulation interruptions are frequent. Yet, due to layers of complexity involving analysis of anticoagulation indication, surgical risk, and anesthesia-associated bleeding risk as well as institutional practices, there is heterogeneity in how these interruptions are approached. The recent perioperative anticoagulation guidelines from the American College of Chest Physicians summarize extensive evidence for the management of anticoagulant and antiplatelet medications in patients who undergo elective interventions. However, implementation of these guidelines by individual clinicians is highly varied and often does not follow the best available clinical evidence. Against this background, anticoagulation stewardship units, which exist to improve safety and quality monitoring for the anticoagulated patient, are of growing interest. These units provide a bridge for the implementation of value-based, high-quality guidelines for patients who need perioperative anticoagulation interruption. We use a case to pragmatically illustrate the problem and tactics for change management and implementation science that may facilitate the adoption of perioperative anticoagulation guidelines.

Algorithm for Rapid Exclusion of Clinically Relevant Plasma Levels of Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Patients Using the DOAC Dipstick: An Expert Consensus Paper.

BACKGROUND: With the widespread use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), there is an urgent need for a rapid assay to exclude clinically relevant plasma levels. Accurate and rapid determination of DOAC levels would guide medical decision-making to (1) determine the potential contribution of the DOAC to spontaneous or trauma-induced hemorrhage; (2) identify appropriate candidates for reversal, or (3) optimize the timing of urgent surgery or intervention. METHODS AND RESULTS: The DOAC Dipstick test uses a disposable strip to identify factor Xa- or thrombin inhibitors in a urine sample. Based on the results of a systematic literature search followed by an analysis of a simple pooling of five retrieved clinical studies, the test strip has a high sensitivity and an acceptably high negative predictive value when compared with levels measured with liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry or calibrated chromogenic assays to reliably exclude plasma DOAC concentrations ≥30 ng/mL. CONCLUSION: Based on these data, a simple algorithm is proposed to enhance medical decision-making in acute care indications useful primarily in hospitals not having readily available quantitative tests and 24/7. This algorithm not only determines DOAC exposure but also differentiates between factor Xa and thrombin inhibitors to better guide clinical management.

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.

Periprocedural management of direct oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation and active cancer.

BACKGROUND: Cancer and atrial fibrillation (AF) are common concurrent disorders. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are prescribed to prevent stroke in patients with AF. Patients with cancer often undergo invasive procedures for diagnostic or therapeutic purposes, necessitating interruption of anticoagulation. There are limited data to guide best periprocedural anticoagulation management practices in the setting of active cancer. OBJECTIVES: To describe patient characteristics, periprocedural management, and clinical outcomes in DOAC-treated patients with AF according to active cancer status. METHODS: We conducted descriptive and comparative analyses using data from the PAUSE study. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine whether active cancer status was an independent risk factor for bleeding outcomes. Covariates were selected a priori based on biological rationale and preexisting knowledge. RESULTS: Patients with active cancer were older (P < .001), more likely to be thrombocytopenic (P = .026), have moderate renal dysfunction (P = .005), and more likely to receive low-dose DOAC therapy (P < .001). A greater proportion of patients with active cancer underwent a high-bleed-risk procedure (P < .001), with longer periprocedural DOAC-interruption intervals (P <.001) and lower preprocedural residual DOAC levels (P = .002). Active cancer was an independent predictor for surgical major bleeding (OR = 2.45; 95% CI, 1.08-5.14) after adjusting for study center, procedure category and bleed risk, thrombocytopenia, hypertension, and the use of a P2Y12 inhibitor. CONCLUSIONS: Active cancer status is associated with an increased risk of surgical major bleeding among DOAC-treated patients with AF undergoing interruption of anticoagulation for elective invasive procedures.

Antithrombotic management of patients with deep vein thrombosis and venous stents: an international registry.

BACKGROUND: In patients with acute deep vein thrombosis (DVT) treated with catheter-based thrombolysis and venous stenting, poststenting anticoagulant management is uncertain. OBJECTIVES: To determine the type and duration of antithrombotic therapy used in patients who have received venous stents for treatment of acute lower extremity DVT. METHODS: We created an international registry of patients with leg DVT from 2005 to 2019 who received venous stents as part of their acute management. We collected data on baseline clinical characteristics and pre-venous and post-venous stent antithrombotic therapy. RESULTS: We studied 173 patients with venous stents: 101 (58%) were aged ≤50 years, 105 (61%) were female, and 128 (74%) had risk factors for thrombotic disease. DVT was iliofemoral in 150 (87%) patients, and catheter-based treatment was given within 7 days of diagnosis in 92 (53%) patients. After venous stenting, 109 (63%) patients received anticoagulant-only therapy with a direct oral anticoagulant (29%), warfarin (22%), or low-molecular-weight heparin (10%), and 59 (34%) received anticoagulant-antiplatelet therapy. In patients taking anticoagulant-only therapy, 29% received indefinite treatment; in patients on anticoagulant-antiplatelet therapy, 19% received indefinite treatment. Factors associated with combined anticoagulant-antiplatelet therapy vs anticoagulant-only therapy were use of thrombolytic, thrombectomy, and aspiration interventions (odds ratio [OR], 5.11; 95% CI, 1.45-18.05); use of balloon angioplasty (OR, 2.62; 95% CI, 1.20-5.76); and immediate stent restenosis (OR, 7.2; 95% CI, 1.45-5.89). CONCLUSION: Anticoagulant therapy without concomitant antiplatelet therapy appears to be the most common antithrombotic strategy in patients with DVT and venous stenting. More research is needed to determine outcomes of venous stenting in relation to antithrombotic therapy.

Defining heparin resistance: communication from the ISTH SSC Subcommittee of Perioperative and Critical Care Thrombosis and Hemostasis.

The term heparin resistance (HR) is used by clinicians without specific criteria. We performed a literature search and surveyed our SSC membership to better define the term when applied to medical and intensive care unit patients. The most common heparin dosing strategy reported in the literature (53%) and by survey respondents (80.4%) was the use of weight-based dosing. Heparin monitoring results were similar based on the proportion of publications and respondents that reported the use of anti-Xa and activated partial thromboplastin time. The most common literature definition of HR was >35 000 U/d, but no consensus was reported among survey respondents regarding weight-based and the total dose of heparin when determining resistance. Respondent consensus on treating HR included antithrombin supplementation, direct thrombin inhibitors, or administering more heparin as the strategies available for treating HR. A range of definitions for HR exist. Given the common use of heparin weight-based dosing, future publications employing the term HR should include weight-based definitions, monitoring assay, and target level used. Further work is needed to develop a consensus for defining HR.

Potential for a Virtual Care Model in the Perioperative Management of Anticoagulant Therapy: A 5-Year Retrospective Clinic Review.

Background With a trend toward greater virtual care in selected clinical settings, perioperative anticoagulant management appears well suited for this care delivery model. We explored the potential for virtual care among patients who are receiving anticoagulant therapy and require perioperative management around the time of an elective surgery/procedure. Methods We undertook a retrospective review of patients who were receiving anticoagulant therapy, either a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) or warfarin, assessed in a perioperative anticoagulation-bridging clinic over a 5-year period from 2016 to 2020. Using prespecified criteria, we determined the proportion of patients who likely would be suitable for virtual care (receiving a DOAC or warfarin and having a minimal- or low-/moderate-bleed-risk surgery/procedure), those who likely would be suitable for in-person care (receiving warfarin and requiring heparin bridging for a mechanical heart valve), and patients who would be suitable for either care delivery model (receiving a DOAC or warfarin, but not with a mechanical heart valve, and requiring a high-bleed-risk surgery/procedure). Results During the 5-year study period, there were 4,609 patients assessed for perioperative anticoagulant management in whom the most widely used anticoagulants were warfarin (37%), apixaban (30%), and rivaroxaban (24%). Within each year assessed, 4 to 20% of all patients were undergoing a minimal-bleed-risk procedure, 76 to 82% were undergoing a low-/moderate-bleed-risk surgery/procedure, and 10 to 39% were undergoing a high-bleed-risk surgery/procedure. The proportion of patients considered suitable for virtual, in-person, or either virtual or in-person management was 79.6, 7.1, and 13.3%, respectively. Conclusion In patients who were assessed in a perioperative anticoagulation clinic, there was a high proportion of patients in whom a virtual care model might be suitable.

In AF, the effects of DOACs vs. warfarin on death and stroke/systemic embolism vary by baseline CrCl level.

SOURCE CITATION: Harrington J, Carnicelli AP, Hua K, et al. Direct oral anticoagulants versus warfarin across the spectrum of kidney function: patient-level network meta-analyses from COMBINE AF. Circulation. 2023;147:1748-1757. 37042255.

Drug-drug interactions between direct oral anticoagulants and anticonvulsants and clinical outcomes: A systematic review.

Background: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are widely used in patients with atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism. However, DOACs have important potential drug-drug interactions (DDIs) with several classes of drugs. In particular, antiepileptic (AE) drugs may induce cytochrome P450 3A4 or P-glycoprotein. Co-administration of DOACs and AE drugs may result in lower DOAC drug levels and reduced DOAC efficacy. However, the clinical significance of such DDIs is uncertain. Objectives: The aim of this systematic review was to generate an updated review of these DDIs and their clinical relevance, given the rapidly evolving knowledge relating to DOAC and AE DDIs. Methods: We searched the MEDLINE and Embase databases for studies reporting clinical adverse outcomes (thrombotic events, bleeding events, and all-cause mortality) in patients concomitantly taking DOACs and AE drugs. Results: We retrieved 874 studies of which 15 were deemed eligible for this review, including 4 congress abstracts, 3 case reports, 2 letters to the editor, 5 retrospective cohorts, and 1 prospective cohort study. No randomized clinical trials were found. Most of the included studies reported thrombotic events, 3 studies reported major bleeding, and one study reported all-cause mortality associated with DOAC and AE drug administration. Substantial differences in the study designs did not allow for a meta-analysis to be performed. Conclusion: The current literature assessing these adverse clinical outcomes from DOAC and AE drug co-administration is limited. Although the available data point to a possible increased risk of thrombotic events, they are insufficient to draw definitive conclusions. Well-designed clinical studies are of utmost importance.

Joint 2022 European Society of Thoracic Surgeons and The American Association for Thoracic Surgery guidelines for the prevention of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism in thoracic surgery.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE), which includes deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, is a potentially fatal but preventable postoperative complication. Thoracic oncology patients undergoing surgical resection, often after multimodality induction therapy, represent among the highest risk groups for postoperative VTE. Currently there are no VTE prophylaxis guidelines specific to these thoracic surgery patients. Evidenced-based recommendations will help clinicians manage and mitigate risk of VTE in the postoperative period and inform best practice. OBJECTIVE: These joint evidence-based guidelines from The American Association for Thoracic Surgery and the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons aim to inform clinicians and patients in decisions about prophylaxis to prevent VTE in patients undergoing surgical resection for lung or esophageal cancer. METHODS: The American Association for Thoracic Surgery and the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel that included broad membership to minimize potential bias when formulating recommendations. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline development process, including updating or performing systematic evidence reviews. The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used, including GRADE Evidence-to-Decision frameworks, which were subject to public comment. RESULTS: The panel agreed on 24 recommendations focused on pharmacological and mechanical methods for prophylaxis in patients undergoing lobectomy and segmentectomy, pneumonectomy, and esophagectomy, as well as extended resections for lung cancer. CONCLUSIONS: The certainty of the supporting evidence for the majority of recommendations was judged as low or very low, largely due to a lack of direct evidence for thoracic surgery. The panel made conditional recommendations for use of parenteral anticoagulation for VTE prevention, in combination with mechanical methods, over no prophylaxis for cancer patients undergoing anatomic lung resection or esophagectomy. Other key recommendations include: conditional recommendations for using parenteral anticoagulants over direct oral anticoagulants, with use of direct oral anticoagulants suggested only in the context of clinical trials; conditional recommendation for using extended prophylaxis for 28 to 35 days over in-hospital prophylaxis only for patients at moderate or high risk of thrombosis; and conditional recommendations for VTE screening in patients undergoing pneumonectomy and esophagectomy. Future research priorities include the role of preoperative thromboprophylaxis and the role of risk stratification to guide use of extended prophylaxis.

Thrombotic and bleeding outcomes following the perioperative interruption of anticoagulation among patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and active cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer are at an increased risk of developing atrial fibrillation (AF) and often need to undergo procedures or surgery that requires periprocedural interruption of anticoagulation. Anticoagulated patients with cancer might be at increased risk of postprocedural thromboembolic and bleeding complications. Data on postprocedural outcomes among patients with concurrent active cancer and AF are sparse. OBJECTIVE: To assess the 30-day risk of postoperative thromboembolic and major bleeding complications after the periprocedural interruption of anticoagulation among patients with AF and active cancer. METHODS: We conducted a single-center retrospective cohort study in patients with active cancer and AF who required periprocedural interruption of anticoagulation for invasive procedures between August 2015 and May 2019. The primary endpoints were the 30-day postoperative risks of arterial thromboembolism (ATE) and major bleeding. The secondary endpoints included the 30-day risks of venous thromboembolism, clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, and overall mortality. RESULTS: Two hundred sixty-four patients undergoing 302 periprocedural interruptions were included in our study. The 30-day risk of ATE was 0.7% (95% CI, 0.1%-2.4%), and the 30-day risk of major bleeding was 1.7% (95% CI, 0.6%-3.9%). The 30-day risks of venous thromboembolism and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding were 0.7% (95% CI, 0.1%-2.4%) and 4.3% (95% CI, 2.5%-7.3%), respectively. The overall risk of mortality at 30 days was 1.3% (95% CI, 0.4%-3.4%). There was one fatal postoperative stroke. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with AF and active cancer in this study were at relatively low risk for ATE and postoperative bleeding complications when patients were managed according to commonly applied perioperative management recommendations.