Comparison of temporary interruption with continuation of direct oral anticoagulants for low bleeding risk procedures

INTRODUCTION: Limited data is available on the rates of bleeding and thromboembolic events for patients undergoing low bleeding risk procedures while taking direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC). METHODS: Adults taking DOAC in the Michigan Anticoagulation Quality Improvement Initiative (MAQI(2)) database who underwent a low bleeding risk procedure between May 2015 and Sep 2019 were included. Thirty-day bleeding (of any severity), thromboembolic events, and death were compared between DOAC temporarily interrupted and continued uninterrupted groups. Adverse event rates were compared using an inverse probability weighting propensity score. RESULTS: There were 820 patients who underwent 1412 low risk procedures. DOAC therapy was temporarily interrupted in 371 (45.2%) patients (601 [42.6%] procedures) and continued uninterrupted in 449 (54.8%) patients (811 [57.4%] procedures). DOAC patients with temporary interruptions were more likely to have diabetes, prior stroke or TIA, prior bleeding, higher CHA2DS2-VASc, and higher modified HAS-BLED scores. DOAC interruption was common for gastrointestinal endoscopy, electrophysiology device implantation, and cardiac catheterization while it was less common for cardioversion, dermatologic procedures, and subcutaneous injection. After propensity score adjustment, bleeding risk was lower in the DOAC temporary interruption group (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.41-0.95) as compared to the group with continuous DOAC use. Rates of thromboembolic events and death did not differ significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: DOAC-treated patients undergoing low bleeding risk procedures may experience lower rates of bleeding when DOAC is temporarily interrupted. Prospective studies focused on low bleeding risk procedures are needed to identify the safety DOAC management strategy

Periprocedural Bridging Anticoagulation: Measuring the Impact of a Clinical Trial on Care Delivery

Use of bridging anticoagulation has been shown to be harmful and without benefit in warfarin-treated patients with atrial fibrillation. We performed a quasi-experimental interrupted time series analysis between 2010 and 2017 in the Michigan Anticoagulation Quality Improvement Initiative (MAQI(2)) collaborative before and after the BRIDGE trial publication (July 2015). Predicted use of bridging at the end of the study period was calculated with and without the effect of the BRIDGE trial after adjustment for patient-level clustering. Predictors of bridging anticoagulation use in the post-BRIDGE trial period were analyzed. In adjusted analyses, the use of bridging anticoagulation declined from a predicted 27.8% (95% confidence interval, 20.5%-35.1%) to 13.6% (95% confidence interval, 9.0%-18.2%) at the end of 2017 (P=.001) in response to the BRIDGE trial. Use of bridging anticoagulation declined similarly among atrial fibrillation patients at low risk for stroke (29.0% to 14.4%) and intermediate or high risk for stroke (38.0%-20.3%). Younger age and a prior history of stroke were independent predictors of bridging anticoagulation use following the BRIDGE trial publication. The BRIDGE trial publication is associated with a rapid and significant decline in the use of periprocedural bridging anticoagulation