Study of Modifications Induced by Continued Direct Oral Anticoagulant Therapy during Atrial Fibrillation Ablation Procedures on Standard Hemostasis Parameters.

BACKGROUND: Unfractionated heparin (UFH) is used as an anticoagulant during the atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation procedure to prevent the occurrence of thromboembolic events. Guidelines recommend an activated clotting time (ACT) greater than 300 s (s) based on studies of patients treated with vitamin K antagonist (VKA) for their AF. However, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have supplanted VKAs in AF and are now used as first-line therapy. It is recommended not to interrupt them during the procedure, which could interfere with the ACT measures. OBJECTIVE: To assess the real-life relationship between ACT, DOAC concentrations, and UFH anti-Xa activity in patients treated by uninterrupted DOAC therapy. METHODS: We conducted a single-center retrospective study. We analyzed consecutive patients with AF who underwent catheter ablation under DOAC therapy. RESULTS: In total, 40 patients were included, including 15 (37.5%), 20 (50.0%), and 5 (12.5%) on rivaroxaban, apixaban, and dabigatran, respectively. Baseline ACT was significantly lower in the apixaban group. ACT was linearly correlated with the residual concentration of apixaban and dabigatran but not with rivaroxaban. After UFH injection, ACT was linearly correlated with the anti-Xa activity, regardless of DOAC. Patients in the apixaban group received a higher total dose of UFH during the procedure to achieve a target ACT > 300 s, which resulted in significantly higher anti-Xa activity during the procedure. CONCLUSION: Our results raise the question of optimal management of intra-procedural heparin therapy and highlight the limitations of the ACT test, particularly in patients on apixaban.

Prevention of thrombotic risk in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and hemostasis monitoring.

COVID-19 is an infection induced by the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, and severe forms can lead to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) requiring intensive care unit (ICU) management. Severe forms are associated with coagulation changes, mainly characterized by an increase in D-dimer and fibrinogen levels, with a higher risk of thrombosis, particularly pulmonary embolism. The impact of obesity in severe COVID-19 has also been highlighted.In this context, standard doses of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) may be inadequate in ICU patients, with obesity, major inflammation, and hypercoagulability. We therefore urgently developed proposals on the prevention of thromboembolism and monitoring of hemostasis in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.Four levels of thromboembolic risk were defined according to the severity of COVID-19 reflected by oxygen requirement and treatment, the body mass index, and other risk factors. Monitoring of hemostasis (including fibrinogen and D-dimer levels) every 48 h is proposed. Standard doses of LMWH (e.g., enoxaparin 4000 IU/24 h SC) are proposed in case of intermediate thrombotic risk (BMI < 30 kg/m2, no other risk factors and no ARDS). In all obese patients (high thrombotic risk), adjusted prophylaxis with intermediate doses of LMWH (e.g., enoxaparin 4000 IU/12 h SC or 6000 IU/12 h SC if weight > 120 kg), or unfractionated heparin (UFH) if renal insufficiency (200 IU/kg/24 h, IV), is proposed. The thrombotic risk was defined as very high in obese patients with ARDS and added risk factors for thromboembolism, and also in case of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), unexplained catheter thrombosis, dialysis filter thrombosis, or marked inflammatory syndrome and/or hypercoagulability (e.g., fibrinogen > 8 g/l and/or D-dimers > 3 µg/ml). In ICU patients, it is sometimes difficult to confirm a diagnosis of thrombosis, and curative anticoagulant treatment may also be discussed on a probabilistic basis. In all these situations, therapeutic doses of LMWH, or UFH in case of renal insufficiency with monitoring of anti-Xa activity, are proposed.In conclusion, intensification of heparin treatment should be considered in the context of COVID-19 on the basis of clinical and biological criteria of severity, especially in severely ill ventilated patients, for whom the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism cannot be easily confirmed.