The Peri-Operative Management of Anticoagulants: Systemic Review of Guidelines
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction Venous thromboembolism (VTE) and atrial fibrillation are thrombotic disorders resulting in significant morbidity and mortality, if left untreated. In Canada, 45,000 people, or 1-2 cases per 1000 people, per year will experience an acute VTE, and it is estimated that 200,000 Canadians have atrial fibrillation. The treatment of VTE and atrial fibrillation often includes the use of anticoagulants. Patients on anticoagulation may need interruption of treatment for surgeries and procedures. To evaluate differences in perioperative anticoagulation management strategies we conducted a systematic review of the peri-operative clinical practice guidelines for anticoagulants. Methods A protocol using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) was developed. Relevant primary clinical practice guidelines were identified using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and guideline-specific databases. All guidelines from the preceding 20 years up to January 11, 2019 were screened. Eligible manuscripts were reviewed by two independent reviewers. Data abstraction was independently completed in duplicate for included guidances and categorized according to thrombotic risks and bleeding risks. Guidances on emergency surgeries were not included for the purposes of this review. Information on anticoagulation interruption, bridging regimens, laboratory testing, and reversal strategies were collected. Results Eight guidelines met inclusion criteria and 6 contained sufficient information for peri-operative management of anticoagulants. One guideline focused on patients presenting with bleeding events and restated the same peri-operative guidelines as had been published a year prior by the same group, and was excluded. Another guideline only addressed emergency surgeries and was also excluded from this review. The majority of the guidelines had similar definitions of risk factors for venous and arterial thrombotic events (see table 1). There were no conflicting guidance recommendations identified, but there were differences in the component of peri-operative management addressed by each guideline, ie bridging, reversal agents, laboratory tests. The levels of evidence used to develop recommendations varied between guidelines. All guidelines provided recommendations on warfarin and low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) management and only one guideline provided suggestions for direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). The findings for perioperative anticoagulation management for patients with atrial fibrillation and VTE are presented in Tables 2 and 3, respectively. For high bleeding risk surgeries, most guidelines cited similar studies resulting in similar recommendations for interruption of warfarin and bridging in high venous and arterial thrombotic risk patients. In high bleeding risk procedures and low thrombotic risk patients, no bridging is recommended. For low bleed risk procedures, regardless of thrombotic risk, guidelines recommended for continuation of anticoagulant therapy. Discussion This systematic review identified 6 guidelines of non-urgent peri-operative management recommendations of primarily warfarin and LMWH in patients with VTE and atrial fibrillation. While no major discrepancies in the guideline suggestions were noted, the scope of data examined (medication management, bridging, blood tests, reversal of agents) differed amongst the various agencies. The guidelines that were most consistent for recommendations of anticoagulant management and bridging tended to be from hematologic societies. The only guideline that addressed perioperative management of DOACs was the 2018 ASH guideline on management of VTE which was against measurement of DOAC levels prior to procedures. The lack of thorough guidance for DOACs is likely due to the year of publication of the guidelines examined and paucity of contributing studies. In terms of reversal agents, all clinical practice guidelines except for the ASH guidelines were prior to specific DOAC reversal agents such as idaracizumab. Future Directions We anticipate that there will be other guidelines developed that address specifically the use of DOACs in the perioperative setting, as well as their reversal agents. Disclosures Shivji: BMS-Pfizer Thrombosis Canada: Other: Fellowship award. Castellucci:BMS: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria; LEO Pharma: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Aspen: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,024 | 0,120 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,006 | 0,005 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,021 | 0,021 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».