Home  About us  Contact
 

Long-term Oral Anticoagulants (long-term + oral_anticoagulant)

Distribution by Scientific Domains
Medical Sciences100%

Selected Abstracts

Clinical outcomes with unfractionated heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin as bridging therapy in patients on long-term oral anticoagulants: the REGIMEN registry,

JOURNAL OF THROMBOSIS AND HAEMOSTASIS, Issue 6 2006
A. C. SPYROPOULOS
Summary.,Background: Patients who receive long-term oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapy often require interruption of OAC for an elective surgical or an invasive procedure. Heparin bridging therapy has been used in these situations, although the optimal method has not been established. No large prospective studies have compared unfractionated heparin (UFH) with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for the perioperative management of patients at risk of thromboembolism requiring temporary interruption of long-term OAC therapy. Patients/methods: This multicenter, observational, prospective registry conducted in North America enrolled 901 eligible patients on long-term OAC who required heparin bridging therapy for an elective surgical or invasive procedure. Practice patterns and clinical outcomes were compared between patients who received either UFH alone (n = 180) or LMWH alone (n = 721). Results: Overall, the majority of patients (74.5%) requiring heparin bridging therapy had arterial indications for OAC. LMWH, in mostly twice-daily treatment doses, represented approximately 80% of the study population. LMWH-bridged patients had significantly fewer arterial indications for OAC, a lower mean Charlson comorbidity score, and were less likely to undergo major or cardiothoracic surgery, receive intraprocedural anticoagulants or thrombolytics, or receive general anesthesia than UFH-bridged patients (all P < 0.05). The LMWH group had significantly more bridging therapy completed in an outpatient setting or with a < 24-h hospital stay vs. the UFH group (63.6% vs. 6.1%, P < 0.001). In the LMWH and UFH groups, similar rates of overall adverse events (16.2% vs. 17.1%, respectively, P = 0.81), major composite adverse events (arterial/venous thromboembolism, major bleed, and death; 4.2% vs. 7.9%, respectively, P = 0.07) and major bleeds (3.3% vs. 5.5%, respectively, P = 0.25) were observed. The thromboembolic event rates were 2.4% for UFH and 0.9% for LMWH. Logistic regression analysis revealed that for postoperative heparin use a Charlson comorbidity score > 1 was an independent predictor of a major bleed and that vascular, general, and major surgery were associated with non-significant trends towards an increased risk of major bleed. Conclusions: Treatment-dose LMWH, mostly in the outpatient setting, is used substantially more often than UFH as bridging therapy in patients with predominately arterial indications for OAC. Overall adverse events, including thromboembolism and bleeding, are similar for patients treated with LMWH or UFH. Postoperative heparin bridging should be used with caution in patients with multiple comorbidities and those undergoing vascular, general, and major surgery. These findings need to be confirmed using large randomized trials for specific patient groups undergoing specific procedures. [source]

Bridging therapy in patients on long-term oral anticoagulants who require surgery: the Prospective Peri-operative Enoxaparin Cohort Trial (PROSPECT)

JOURNAL OF THROMBOSIS AND HAEMOSTASIS, Issue 11 2007
A. S. DUNN
Summary., Background:, The peri-operative management of patients on oral anticoagulants (OACs) is a common clinical problem. Our aim was to determine the incidence of major bleeding during peri-operative administration of treatment-dose enoxaparin and the impact of the extensiveness of the procedure on the risk of bleeding. Methods:, We performed a prospective cohort study of 260 patients at 24 North American sites on OACs for atrial fibrillation or a history of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) requiring invasive or surgical procedures whose treating physician felt that bridging therapy was required. Warfarin was withheld, and once-daily s.c. enoxaparin (1.5 mg kg,1) was given peri-operatively. Patients were followed for 28 days after OAC was therapeutic. Results:, Major bleeding was observed in nine of 260 patients (3.5%, 95% CI: 1.6,6.5). The bleeding risk varied markedly by extensiveness of procedure: the incidence of major bleeding for invasive procedures, minor surgery and major surgery was 0.7% (95% CI: 0.02,3.7), 0% (95% CI: 0,5.0), and 20.0% (95% CI: 9.1,35.7), respectively. There were five thromboembolic events in total (1.9%, 95% CI: 0.6,4.4). There were four arterial events (2.3%, 95% CI: 0.6,5.7) in 176 patients with atrial fibrillation, and one venous event (1.0%, 95% CI: 0.03,5.7) in 96 patients with prior DVT. Conclusions:, Bridging therapy with once-daily therapeutic-dose enoxaparin administered primarily in an outpatient setting has a low incidence of major bleeding for patients undergoing invasive procedures and minor surgery. Further studies are needed to optimize the bridging strategy for patients undergoing major surgery. [source]

Clinical outcomes with unfractionated heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin as bridging therapy in patients on long-term oral anticoagulants: the REGIMEN registry,

JOURNAL OF THROMBOSIS AND HAEMOSTASIS, Issue 6 2006
A. C. SPYROPOULOS
Summary.,Background: Patients who receive long-term oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapy often require interruption of OAC for an elective surgical or an invasive procedure. Heparin bridging therapy has been used in these situations, although the optimal method has not been established. No large prospective studies have compared unfractionated heparin (UFH) with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for the perioperative management of patients at risk of thromboembolism requiring temporary interruption of long-term OAC therapy. Patients/methods: This multicenter, observational, prospective registry conducted in North America enrolled 901 eligible patients on long-term OAC who required heparin bridging therapy for an elective surgical or invasive procedure. Practice patterns and clinical outcomes were compared between patients who received either UFH alone (n = 180) or LMWH alone (n = 721). Results: Overall, the majority of patients (74.5%) requiring heparin bridging therapy had arterial indications for OAC. LMWH, in mostly twice-daily treatment doses, represented approximately 80% of the study population. LMWH-bridged patients had significantly fewer arterial indications for OAC, a lower mean Charlson comorbidity score, and were less likely to undergo major or cardiothoracic surgery, receive intraprocedural anticoagulants or thrombolytics, or receive general anesthesia than UFH-bridged patients (all P < 0.05). The LMWH group had significantly more bridging therapy completed in an outpatient setting or with a < 24-h hospital stay vs. the UFH group (63.6% vs. 6.1%, P < 0.001). In the LMWH and UFH groups, similar rates of overall adverse events (16.2% vs. 17.1%, respectively, P = 0.81), major composite adverse events (arterial/venous thromboembolism, major bleed, and death; 4.2% vs. 7.9%, respectively, P = 0.07) and major bleeds (3.3% vs. 5.5%, respectively, P = 0.25) were observed. The thromboembolic event rates were 2.4% for UFH and 0.9% for LMWH. Logistic regression analysis revealed that for postoperative heparin use a Charlson comorbidity score > 1 was an independent predictor of a major bleed and that vascular, general, and major surgery were associated with non-significant trends towards an increased risk of major bleed. Conclusions: Treatment-dose LMWH, mostly in the outpatient setting, is used substantially more often than UFH as bridging therapy in patients with predominately arterial indications for OAC. Overall adverse events, including thromboembolism and bleeding, are similar for patients treated with LMWH or UFH. Postoperative heparin bridging should be used with caution in patients with multiple comorbidities and those undergoing vascular, general, and major surgery. These findings need to be confirmed using large randomized trials for specific patient groups undergoing specific procedures. [source]

Oral anticoagulants and the risk of osteoporotic fractures among elderly,,

PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY AND DRUG SAFETY, Issue 5 2004
Danielle Pilon MD
Abstract Purpose Coumadin-based oral anticoagulants are associated with a decrease in bone mass density, but their role in fracture risk is equivocal. Because the use of oral anticoagulants is prevalent among the elderly, as is the risk and morbidity of osteoporotic fractures, the association between osteoporotic fractures and oral anticoagulants needs to be clarified. Method We conducted a case-control study on a 10% random sample of subjects aged 70 years and older enrolled in the Quebec universal health insurance plan between 1992 and 1994. Incident cases of a first osteoporotic fracture were identified by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes. Exposure was defined as one or more prescriptions of oral anticoagulants dispensed before the osteoporotic fracture. Ten controls for each case, matched by age and date of osteoporotic fracture, were identified. Results Among 1523 cases, 48 (3.2%) were ever exposed to oral anticoagulants; among 15,205 controls, 461 (3.0%) were ever exposed (crude odds ratio: 1.0: 95% confidence interval: 0.7,1.5). These negative results persisted after adjusting for potential confounding variables and stratifying exposure into cumulative dose and treatment duration. Conclusions Coumadin-based oral anticoagulants are not significantly associated with osteoporotic fractures among the elderly, providing reassurance for elderly patients on long-term oral anticoagulants. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source]