Colonic endoscopic mucosal resection in patients taking anticoagulants: Is heparin bridging therapy necessary?

OBJECTIVE: Heparin bridging therapy (HBT) reportedly increases the risk of post-procedural bleeding, and its safety during endoscopic interventions remains unclear. We aimed to evaluate the effects of peri-procedural HBT in patients taking anticoagulants who underwent colonic endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for polyps. METHODS: Patients who underwent colonic EMR while taking a single anticoagulant agent were enrolled in this study. Anticoagulants were temporarily ceased in all patients either without (the non-HBT group, prospectively enrolled) or with HBT (the HBT group, retrospectively enrolled). The incidences of post-procedural bleeding and anemia exacerbation and their length of hospitalization were evaluated and compared. RESULTS: There were altogether 43 consecutive adult patients (30 men; mean age 72.2 ± 7.4 years) in the non-HBT group and 41 sex- and age-matched adults (32 men; mean age 72.9 ± 8.3 years) in the HBT group. There were no significant differences in the location, number or size of resected polyps between the two groups. The percentage of patients with post-procedural bleeding within 2 weeks after colonic EMR in the non-HBT group was lower than that in the HBT group (2.3% vs 9.8%, P = 0.15), although the frequency of anemia exacerbation was not significantly different between the two groups. The total hospitalization length was shorter in the non-HBT compared with the HBT group (4.5 days vs 6.0 days, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: No patient in either group developed embolism during hospitalization. Colonic EMR with the temporary cessation of anticoagulants without HBT may be acceptable and beneficial for patients taking anticoagulants.

Differences in the clinical course of 516 Japanese patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding between weekday and weekend admissions.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Patients suspected of having upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) admitted during the weekend tend to have a poor outcome in western countries. However, no Japanese studies have been reported on this matter. We aimed to evaluate differences in the clinical course of patients with UGIB between weekday and weekend admissions in Japan. METHODS: Medical records of patients who had undergone emergency endoscopy for UGIB were retrospectively reviewed. The severity of UGIB was evaluated using the Glasgow-Blatchford (GB) and AIMS65 score. Patients in whom UGIB was stopped and showed improved iron deficiency anemia after admission were considered as having a good clinical course. RESULTS: We reviewed 516 consecutive patients and divided them into two groups: Group A (daytime admission on a weekday: 234 patients) and Group B (nighttime or weekend admission: 282 patients). There was no significant difference in GB and AIM65 scores between the Groups. The proportions of patients with good clinical course were not significantly different between groups (A, 67.5% and B, 67.0%; p = .90). However, patients in Group B underwent hemostatic treatments more frequently compared with those in Group A (58.5% vs 47.4%, p = .012). Multivariate analysis showed that taking acid suppressants, no need for blood transfusions, use of hemostatic treatments, and GB score <12 were associated with a good clinical course. CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences in the clinical outcomes of patients with UGIB admitted during daytime on weekdays and those admitted at nighttime or weekends partly owing to the sufficient performance of endoscopic hemostatic treatments.