MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2985838089 · doi:10.1182/blood-2019-128395

The Peri-Operative Management of Anticoagulants: Systemic Review of Guidelines

2019· article· en· W2985838089 on OpenAlexaffabout
Salma Shivji, Philip Chiang, Lana A. Castellucci, Elianna Saidenberg

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGuidelineAtrial fibrillationMEDLINEPerioperativeIntensive care medicineRivaroxabanVenous thromboembolismDabigatranSystematic reviewWarfarinEmergency medicineSurgeryInternal medicineThrombosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.120
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.127

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.120
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.005
Bibliometrics0.0210.021
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.303 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management→French-language works237,207→