Perioperative medicine training resources: U3M11: Management of anti coagulant medications prior to surgery

Anticoagulant medicines are used extensively in clinical practice. They have a narrow therapeutic index and over or under anticoagulation can result in significant adverse patient outcomes.

Abstract
Perioperative stroke is a potentially devastating complication in patients undergoing noncardiac, nonneurological surgery. This scientific statement summarizes established risk factors for perioperative stroke, preoperative and intraoperative strategies to mitigate the risk of stroke, suggestions for postoperative assessments, and treatment approaches for minimizing permanent neurological dysfunction in patients who experience a perioperative stroke. The first section focuses on preoperative optimization, including the role of preoperative carotid revascularization in patients with high-grade carotid stenosis and delaying surgery in patients with recent strokes. The second section reviews intraoperative strategies to reduce the risk of stroke, focusing on blood pressure control, perioperative goal-directed therapy, blood transfusion, and anesthetic technique. Finally, this statement presents strategies for the evaluation and treatment of patients with suspected postoperative strokes and, in particular, highlights the value of rapid recognition of strokes and the early use of intravenous thrombolysis and mechanical embolectomy in appropriate patients.

Keywords: AHA Scientific Statements; complications; embolectomy; ischemic stroke; stroke; surgical procedures, operative; therapeutics; thrombectomy.

Abstract
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.).

Abstract
Background: Patients who require perioperative anticoagulation during cardiac implantable electronic device surgery are at increased risk for bleeding complications. The BRUISE CONTROL trial demonstrated that continuing warfarin was safer than heparin bridging, reducing the incidence of clinically significant pocket hematoma. Novel oral anticoagulants are being increasingly prescribed in place of warfarin. The best perioperative management of these new anticoagulants is unknown.

Methods/design: A randomized controlled trial to investigate whether a strategy of continued vs interrupted novel oral anticoagulant (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or apixaban) at the time of device surgery, in patients with moderate to high risk of arterial thromboembolic events, reduces the incidence of clinically significant hematoma (defined as a hematoma requiring reoperation and/or resulting in prolongation of hospitalization, and/or requiring interruption of anticoagulation). The secondary outcomes include components of the primary outcome, composite of all other major perioperative bleeding events, thromboembolic events, all-cause mortality, cost-effectiveness, patient quality of life, perioperative pain, and satisfaction. Planned analyses include descriptive statistics of all baseline variables. For the primary outcome, interrupted vs continued novel oral anticoagulant arms will be compared using the χ(2) test. If any clinically significant differences are identified, a logistic regression analysis will be conducted. Quality of life will be assessed using EuroQol-5D, and perioperative pain using a visual analog scale.

Discussion: BRUISE CONTROL-2 is a randomized trial evaluating the best strategy to manage novel oral anticoagulants at the time of device surgery. We hypothesize that device surgery can be performed safely without interruption of these medications.

Background: Bleeding is a potential complication after neuraxial and peripheral nerve blocks. The risk is increased in patients on antiplatelet and anticoagulant drugs. This joint guideline from the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care and the European Society of Regional Anaesthesia aims to provide an evidence-based set of recommendations and suggestions on how to reduce the risk of antithrombotic drug-induced haematoma formation related to the practice of regional anaesthesia and analgesia.

Design: A systematic literature search was performed, examining seven drug comparators and 10 types of clinical intervention with the outcome being peripheral and neuraxial haematoma. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used for assessing the methodological quality of the included studies and for formulating recommendations. A Delphi process was used to prepare a clinical practice guideline.

Results: Clinical studies were limited in number and quality and the certainty of evidence was assessed to be GRADE C throughout. Forty clinical practice statements were formulated. Using the Delphi-process, strong consensus (>90% agreement) was achieved in 57.5% of recommendations and consensus (75 to 90% agreement) in 42.5%.

Discussion: Specific time intervals should be observed concerning the adminstration of antithrombotic drugs both prior to, and after, neuraxial procedures or those peripheral nerve blocks with higher bleeding risk (deep, noncompressible). These time intervals vary according to the type and dose of anticoagulant drugs, renal function and whether a traumatic puncture has occured. Drug measurements may be used to guide certain time intervals, whilst specific reversal for vitamin K antagonists and dabigatran may also influence these. Ultrasound guidance, drug combinations and bleeding risk scores do not modify the time intervals. In peripheral nerve blocks with low bleeding risk (superficial, compressible), these time intervals do not apply.

Conclusion: In patients taking antiplatelet or anticoagulant medications, practitioners must consider the bleeding risk both before and after nerve blockade and during insertion or removal of a catheter. Healthcare teams managing such patients must be aware of the risk and be competent in detecting and managing any possible haematomas.

Abstract
Surgeons commonly need to treat patients receiving anticoagulant and anti-platelet therapy. This requires risk assessment and management to balance minimization of bleeding complications and avoidance of further ischaemic or thrombotic events. This review considers the evidence available to guide management of patients on anti-platelet and anticoagulant therapy, including some of the new classes of anti-platelets and anticoagulants which clinicians may be less familiar with.

Abstract
Venous thromboembolism is a well-established complication of total hip and knee arthroplasty and hip fracture surgery. Clinical practice guidelines have been proposed to help clinicians provide prophylaxis against this risk. However, most guidelines reference data that are becoming outdated because of new advances in perioperative protocols. Recent data would suggest that aspirin may be appropriate for most patients after total hip and knee replacement and a more potent chemoprophylaxis for higher risk patients. Low-molecular-weight heparin remains the recommended choice after hip fracture surgery, although there is a paucity of recent literature in this patient population. There are randomized trials currently underway in the arthroplasty population that may guide clinicians in the appropriate choice of chemoprophylaxis. These studies should inform updates to the current clinical practice guidelines.

Abstract
The American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (ASRA) 2012 survey of meeting attendees showed that existing ASRA anticoagulation guidelines for regional anesthesia were insufficient for their needs. Those surveyed agreed that procedure-specific and patient-specific factors required separate guidelines for pain and spine procedures. In response, a guidelines committee was formed. After preliminary review of published complications reports and studies, the committee stratified interventional spine and pain procedures according to potential bleeding risk: low-, intermediate-, and high-risk procedures. The ASRA regional anesthesia anticoagulation guidelines were largely deemed appropriate for the low- and intermediate-risk categories, but the high-risk category required further investigation. The first guidelines specific to interventional spine and pain procedures were published in 2015. Recent reviews evaluating bleeding complications in patients undergoing specific interventional pain procedures, the development of new regional anesthesia and acute pain guidelines, and the development of new anticoagulants and antiplatelet medications necessitate complementary updated guidelines. The authors desired coordination with the authors of the recently updated regional and acute pain anticoagulation guidelines. The latest evidence was sought through extensive database search strategies and the recommendations were evidence based when available and pharmacology driven otherwise. We could not provide strength and grading of these recommendations because there are not enough well-designed large studies concerning interventional pain procedures to support such grading. Although the guidelines could not always be based on randomized studies or on large numbers of patients from pooled databases, it is hoped that they will provide sound recommendations and the evidentiary basis for such recommendations. This publication is intended as a living document to be updated periodically with consideration of new evidence.

Abstract
The periprocedural management of patients receiving chronic therapy with oral anticoagulants (OACs), including vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) such as warfarin and direct OACs (DOACs), is a common clinical problem. The optimal perioperative management of patients receiving chronic OAC therapy is anchored on four key principles: (i) risk stratification of patient-related and procedure-related risks of thrombosis and bleeding; (ii) the clinical consequences of a thrombotic or bleeding event; (iii) discontinuation and reinitiation of OAC therapy on the basis of the pharmacokinetic properties of each agent; and (iv) whether aggressive management such as the use of periprocedural heparin bridging has advantages for the prevention of postoperative thromboembolism at the cost of a possible increase in bleeding risk. Recent data from randomized trials in patients receiving VKAs undergoing pacemaker/defibrillator implantation or using heparin bridging therapy for elective procedures or surgeries can now inform best practice. There are also emerging data on periprocedural outcomes in the DOAC trials for patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. This review summarizes the evidence for the periprocedural management of patients receiving chronic OAC therapy, focusing on recent randomized trials and large outcome studies, to address three key clinical scenarios: (i) can OAC therapy be safely continued for minor procedures or surgeries; (ii) if therapy with VKAs (especially warfarin) needs to be temporarily interrupted for an elective procedure/surgery, is heparin bridging necessary; and (iii) what is the optimal periprocedural management of the DOACs? In answering these questions, we aim to provide updated clinical guidance for the periprocedural management of patients receiving VKA or DOAC therapy, including the use of heparin bridging.