About this Journal Submit a Manuscript Table of Contents
BioMed Research International
Volume 2014 (2014), Article ID 385014, 16 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/385014
Review Article

Management of Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants in the Perioperative Setting

1Department of Anesthesiology, CHU Dinant Godinne UcL Namur, Namur Thrombosis and Hemostasis Center (NTHC), Namur Research Institute of Life Sciences (NARILIS), 5530 Yvoir, Belgium
2Department of Pharmacy, University of Namur, Namur Thrombosis and Hemostasis Center (NTHC), Namur Research Institute of Life Sciences (NARILIS), 5000 Namur, Belgium
3Haematology Laboratory, CHU Dinant Godinne UcL Namur, Namur Thrombosis and Hemostasis Center (NTHC), Namur Research Institute of Life Sciences (NARILIS), 5530 Yvoir, Belgium

Received 30 May 2014; Accepted 5 August 2014; Published 3 September 2014

Academic Editor: Helen Mani

Copyright © 2014 Anne-Sophie Dincq et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

The field of oral anticoagulation has evolved with the arrival of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) including an anti-IIa agent (dabigatran etexilate) and anti-Xa agents (rivaroxaban and apixaban). The main specificities of these drugs are predictable pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics but special attention should be paid in the elderly, in case of renal dysfunction and in case of emergency. In addition, their perioperative management is challenging, especially with the absence of specific antidotes. Effectively, periods of interruption before surgery or invasive procedures depend on half-life and keeping a permanent balance between bleeding and thromboembolic risks. In addition, few data regarding the link between plasma concentrations and their effects are provided. Routine laboratory tests are altered by NOACs and quantitative measurements are not widely performed. This paper provides a review on the management of NOACs in the perioperative setting, including the estimation of the bleeding and thrombotic risk, the periods of interruption, the indication of heparin bridging, the usefulness of laboratory tests before surgery or invasive procedure, and the time of resuming. Most data are based on expert’s opinions.

1. Introduction

Three non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) [1] are already widely used in the clinical setting: rivaroxaban and apixaban, two direct factor Xa (FXa) inhibitors, and dabigatran etexilate (DE)—the prodrug of dabigatran, a direct thrombin inhibitor. Both of these drugs will progressively tend to replace vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in most of their indications. NOACs indications vary among countries. They are licensed for long-term prevention of thromboembolic events in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), for thromboprophylaxis of venous thromboembolism (VTE) including deep venous thromboembolism (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) after hip and knee arthroplasty, and for the treatment and secondary prophylaxis of VTE. Rivaroxaban is also approved in Europe for secondary prevention of atherothrombotic events after acute coronary syndrome (ACS) with elevated cardiac biomarkers [27].

Advantages of NOACs include rapid onset and offset of action and relatively predictable anticoagulation effects [8]. In most patients, routine laboratory monitoring of the anticoagulant effect is not required but the assessment of the estimated renal clearance is necessary [9]. In some cases (e.g., emergencies, bleeding, overdose, and trauma), the anticoagulation status and the alteration of standard laboratory data must be known [10, 11]. An increasing number of patients on long-term treatment with NOACs are encountered in the perioperative setting and it is essential for physicians to be aware of the pharmacological properties of these drugs. The management of those patients requires an involvement of all participating teams (general practitioners, surgeons, anesthesiologists, and other healthcare professionals involved in invasive procedures). Their cessation is indisputable in most elective procedure, but the risk between thrombosis and bleeding should be balanced [12]. In some settings, the therapeutic window is bridged by low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) or unfractionated heparin (UFH) to prevent thromboembolic risk [13, 14]. No specific antidote is currently available in case of bleeding so clinicians have to deal with rescue treatments [15]. The optimal time for NOAC’s resumption depends mainly on the postoperative risk of bleeding [16].

This paper aims at providing a review on the management of NOACs in the perioperative setting in accordance with the current literature. This includes the estimation of the bleeding and thrombotic risk of each patient, the period of NOAC’s interruption before an invasive procedure, the conditions for heparin bridging during this interruption, the usefulness of common and specific laboratory tests to assess the remaining anticoagulant effect preoperatively, and the time of NOAC’s resumption prerequisites for the perioperative management of NOACs. The literature search was performed in PubMed using the following keywords: perioperative, anticoagulant, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban. Overall inclusion of papers was limited to studies published until May 30, 2014.

2. Indications and Posology of NOACs

Three molecules are currently available in the clinical setting: dabigatran etexilate (Pradaxa, Boehringer-Ingelheim Pharma GmBH, Ingelheim am Rhein, Germany): 75 mg, 110 mg, and 220 mg capsules, rivaroxaban (Xarelto, Johnson and Johnson/Bayer HealthCare AG, Leverkusen, Germany): 2.5 mg, 10 mg, 15 mg, and 20 mg tablets, and apixaban (Eliquis, Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb House, Uxbridge, United Kingdom): 2.5 mg and 5 mg tablets.

Table 1 summarizes the approved indications by the Food and Drug Administration and the European Commission, the posology, and the dose adaptation of the different NOACs.

tab1
Table 1: Summary of approved indications, posology and dose adaptation of the different NOACs.

Table 2 summarizes the main studies leading to the approved indications of NOACs [1727].

tab2
Table 2: Summary of the main studies leading to approved indications of NOACs.

3. Clinician Oriented Overview of Pharmacokinetic Properties of NOACs

3.1. Dabigatran Etexilate (Pradaxa, Boehringer-Ingelheim Pharma GmBH, Ingelheim am Rhein, Germany): 75 mg, 110 mg, and 220 mg Capsules

Dabigatran etexilate is the prodrug of dabigatran, a selective and reversible oral direct thrombin inhibitor. The plasma peak after ingestion is at 1.5–3.0 hours and the plasma trough level is 11–14 hours after ingestion in healthy volunteers [28]. Bioavailability varies from 3 to 7% depending on the pH encountered in the microenvironment of the gastrointestinal tract. Dabigatran is 35% bound to plasma proteins, allowing theoretically its elimination by hemodialysis. Eighty percent of the drug is directly eliminated in the urine, explaining that, in the setting of renal insufficiency, the anticoagulant effect accumulates. Its elimination half-life rises to 18–24 hours in patients with significantly impaired renal function compared to healthy elderly subjects [29]. Creatinine clearance (CrCl) estimation based on the Cockroft and Gault formula [30, 31] is recommended in elderly patients to calculate doses and avoid overmedication [9]. Twenty percent is conjugated as glucuronides by hepatic metabolism. Dabigatran etexilate is contraindicated in case of severe renal impairment (CrCl < 30 mL/min) in Europe while a lower dose is proposed in North America for CrCl between 30 and 15 mL/min [32]. Hepatic impairment or liver disease with expected impact on survival is also a contraindication [33, 34].

3.2. Rivaroxaban

Rivaroxaban is a selective and reversible oral direct FXa inhibitor. The plasma peak after ingestion is at 2–4 hours and the half-life elimination is 5–9 hours in healthy volunteers and 11–13 hours in the elderly [28]. Bioavailability is between 80 and 100% for 10 mg and around 66% for 15 or 20 mg under fasting conditions. Rivaroxaban is bound to plasma proteins in more than 90%, making hemodialysis ineffective to eliminate this drug. About one-third (36%) of the dose is eliminated by renal pathway as unchanged active drug, and the approximately remaining two-thirds of the dose is subject to metabolic degradation. Metabolites are eliminated equally via renal pathway and via hepatobiliary route in the feces [35]. Clearance is mildly influenced by renal function [36]. Rivaroxaban is not recommended in severe renal impairment (ClCr < 15 mL/min) [32].

3.3. Apixaban

Apixaban is a selective and reversible oral direct FXa inhibitor. The plasma peak after ingestion is at 2-3 hours and the half-life elimination is 8–15 hours in healthy volunteers [28]. Apixaban is 87% bound to plasma proteins. Bioavailability is around 50%. Apixaban is eliminated via multiple pathways: predominantly via the fecal route (56%) and 25–29% via renal excretion [37]. Apixaban is not recommended in severe renal impairment (ClCr < 15 mL/min) [32].

Table 3 proposes an overview of the main pharmacokinetic properties of direct oral anticoagulants.

tab3
Table 3: Overview of main pharmacokinetic properties of NOACs.

4. Drugs Interactions

Two mechanisms are mainly involved in NOACs’ metabolism and elimination: the efflux operated by P-glycoprotein (P-gp) and the CYP450 isoform CYP3A4. Dabigatran etexilate is metabolized in dabigatran in the plasma and liver via CYP450-independent mechanisms [38], but DE acts as a substrate for P-gp. Therefore, strong inhibitors or inducers of P-gp may alter the absorption of DE [39]. Rivaroxaban and apixaban are metabolized by CYP3A4/5 and are both substrates for P-gp. Thus, drugs that strongly inhibit or induce CYP3A4 or P-gp or both influence the pharmacokinetic (PK) profile of these NOACs [39, 40].

5. Perioperative Management of NOACs

As illustrated in the RE-LY (randomized evaluation of long-term anticoagulation therapy) study [41], 25% of the patients on anticoagulant therapy required a transitory cessation during the two years of follow-up while, in the ROCKET-AF (rivaroxaban once daily oral, direct factor Xa inhibition compared with vitamin K antagonism for prevention of stroke and embolism in atrial fibrillation) study [42], 33% of the patients experienced a temporary interruption of anticoagulant therapy. Forty percent of these interruptions were before surgical or invasive procedure.

In the perioperative context, the balance between thrombosis (in case of anticoagulation interruption) and bleeding (in case of anticoagulation continuation) should be assessed for each patient [43].

5.1. The Thromboembolic Risk
5.1.1. For the Arterial Side

In developed countries, atrial fibrillation (AF) affects about 1.5 to 2% of the population. This arrhythmia is associated with a 5-fold increased risk of stroke (AF is associated with 15–20% of all strokes [44]), a 3-fold increased incidence in congestive heart failure, and a higher mortality [45]. Scores that assess thrombotic risk in the perioperative setting are not well established, whereas in certain chronic conditions risks like AF, stratification scores help in decision making when the risk of thrombosis and bleeding must be weighted [46, 47]. The most widely used score is the CHADS2 score (congestive heart failure, hypertension, age > 75 years, diabetes, and prior stroke/transient ischemic attack). It is validated for predicting AF-related thromboembolic risk events and helps for the optimal selection of VKAs and NOACs therapies [46, 47]. Since 2010, the CHA2DS2-VASc score (including cardiovascular disease, atherosclerotic disease, and female sex as additional risk factors) (Table 4) improves the predictive value for thromboembolism. Only a small proportion of patients belong to the low risk and intermediate risk categories [46, 48]. Patients with CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥ 2 are considered at high risk of thrombosis [46].

tab4
Table 4: CHA2DS2-VASc Score.

The ARISTOTLE (apixaban for reduction in stroke and other thromboembolic events in atrial fibrillation) trial shows a superiority of apixaban over warfarin in terms of stroke or systemic embolism prevention [20, 49] whatever the assessment of stroke risks by CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-VASc [50]. Actually, the assessment of periprocedural thrombotic risk is extrapolated from the risk outside the periprocedural period [12].

5.1.2. For the Venous Side

Patients with venous thromboembolism are at high risks of recurrent thrombosis, thrombus propagation, and embolization until 3 months after diagnosis and initiation of anticoagulation therapy [51]. The risk of recurrence is conditioned by the underlying cause. It decreases if the etiology is provoked (e.g., trauma, fractures, and pregnancy), but if the underlying cause is idiopathic, the risk of recurrence is higher [52].

5.2. The Bleeding Risk

The bleeding risk is multifactorial and its assessment needs to consider patient-specific and procedure-specific variables [53].

5.2.1. Patient-Specific Variables

For the Arterial Side. HAS-BLED score is used to assess 1-year risk of major bleeding in patients with AF under VKAs [54] (Table 5). Other scores such as ATRIA [55] and HEMORR2HAGES [56] scores are also used [57]. All these scores offer a modest predictive performance of the estimation of the bleeding risk in NOACs treated patients with AF. However, HAS-BLED and HEMORR2HAGES scores are superior in terms of clinically relevant bleeding for patients on NOACs [58]. Nevertheless, a second analysis of the ARISTOTLE trial shows less bleeding under apixaban compared with warfarin, independently of the HAS-BLED score [50].

tab5
Table 5: HAS-BLED score.

For the Venous Side. The RIETE score (Registro Informatizado de Enfermedad Tromboembólica) assesses the risk of fatal bleeding in VTE patients and seems better in predicting gastrointestinal than intracranial fatal bleeding [59].

5.2.2. Procedure-Specific Variables

There is little data available to identify the risk of blood loss related to the invasive procedure or surgery [60], except for cardiac surgery [61]. The estimation of bleeding risk for surgery/invasive procedure remains controversial for certain procedures and has low level of evidence [13]. Furthermore, there is a high intercenter variability in red cell blood loss for the main procedure, mainly reflecting differences in surgical techniques. Similarly, classifications into different surgery bleeding risks according to the severity of trauma and the risk of periprocedural bleeding [12, 60, 6265] are not always easy to use in daily practice. Therefore, it is recommended to develop an institutional guideline and a hospital-wide policy concerning perioperative anticoagulation management in different procedures [63].

5.3. Interval between Last Dose and Invasive Procedure or Surgery

The interval between the last dose and the invasive procedure or surgery depends on the bleeding risk of the procedure and the drug half-life (Table 3).

5.3.1. The Invasive Procedure or Surgery

Some procedures defined as minimal procedures with little tissue trauma are at low risk for bleeding [14, 63, 66] and can be achieved without interruption of NOACs (e.g., superficial skin and oral mucosal surgery, wound revisions, nonextraction dental treatment, or cataract surgery). Gastrointestinal endoscopic biopsy without cessation of DE seems to be safe according to current Japanese guidelines [67]. It is recommended to perform the procedure at the trough drug concentration (12 or 24 hours after the last intake) [13, 63, 68].

5.3.2. Drug Metabolism and Elimination

The percentage of drug eliminated after 2, 3, 4, and 5 half-lives is 75%, 87.5%, 93.8%, and 96.9%, respectively [69]. Dabigatran etexilate, rivaroxaban, and apixaban have different drug metabolic and elimination pathways (Table 3). Creatinine clearance (CrCl) must be assessed by the Cockroft and Gault method. Estimation of renal function by Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Equation 4 (MDRD 4) leads to an overestimation of the renal function at lower levels. Thus, many elderly patients with AF would either become incorrectly eligible for NOACs or would receive a too high dose, which may explain the serious incidences of bleeding reported [9, 30].

Some specific populations have an increased half-life of NOACs’ elimination and need therefore special attention. This concerns patients with renal or hepatic impairment, particularly the elderly with fluctuating renal function, diuretic use, hypovolemia, liver chronic infections, liver cirrhosis, alcohol abuse, obstructed bile flow, hepatorenal syndrome, and associated coagulopathy. Assessing both renal and liver function must be done preoperatively for every patient on NOACs. The three agents can be used in mild hepatic impairment (Child-Pugh A), while DE and apixaban are allowed in moderate hepatic impairment (Child-Pugh B), but not in severe hepatic impairment (Child-Pugh C) [70].

It is also important to check preoperatively any off-label use or misuse of these NOACs, including the concomitant medications (verapamil, dronedarone, ketoconazole, amiodarone, tacrolimus, etc.), older ages, and extreme body weights. All of these groups should probably require a longer interval of NOACs’ arrest, and a measurement of the anticoagulant residual activity should be considered before an invasive procedure.

Several interval schemes based on expert’s opinions are proposed taking into account NOACs’ pharmacokinetics, patient, and/or type of invasive procedure or surgery (Table 6).

tab6
Table 6: Schemes of discontinuation of NOACs.

The “Groupe d’Intérêt en Hémostase Périopératoire” (GIHP) proposes a unique scheme: 1 day of interruption in case of low risk bleeding surgery or procedure and 5 for other procedures, whatever the molecule, renal function, and concomitant medications [13]. The duration of stopping is proposed empirically to ensure no residual anticoagulant effect in the absence of a validated antidote.

Except for minimal procedures which can be achieved without stopping NOACs, other experts or expert groups propose a window without any NOAC, according to the CrCl and/or the type of surgery. An interval of at least 48 hours (about 3 half-lives) should be maintained for a patient with a CrCl above 50 mL/min to perform surgery or invasive procedure, whatever the molecule. The free interval is increased to at least 4 days for patients on DE with CrCl between 30 and 50 mL/min or for patients on rivaroxaban/apixaban with a CrCl between 15 and 30 mL/min (Table 6). Further large prospective studies are needed to confirm the safety of these perioperative procedures.

5.4. To Bridge or Not to Bridge during the Perioperative Interruption

For patients on VKA, the procedure is well established [12, 60]. Guidelines recommend to bridge patients at high risk for thromboembolism (mechanical heart valve, AF, or VTE) with LMWH. For patients at low risk for thromboembolism, they suggest no bridging in case of stopping [60, 71]. Patients classified as being at high risk have more than 10% annual risk for thromboembolism while this risk is reduced to less than 5% for those classified as being at low risk [60].

For VKAs, Siegal et al. [71] as well as Feng et al. [72] showed an increased risk of bleeding with similar thrombotic risk among patients who underwent periprocedural bridging therapy with heparin bridging. Recently, Omran et al. [73] have validated a HAS-BLED score ≥ 3 as the most predictive variable for hemorrhage for patients who had heparin bridging during a perioperative interruption of VKAs before an elective invasive procedure.

Expert’s opinions recommend no heparin bridging for NOACs [62, 63, 74], except the GIHP [13]. The last group proposes to stop NOACs 5 days before a surgery with medium or high risk of bleeding, to ensure a complete elimination of the drug in all patients. And if the patient is at high thromboembolic risk (e.g., AF with a history of stroke), they suggest bridging with LMWH or UFH.

Beyer-Westendorf et al. [14] had recently presented the first prospective data from a national registry that supported the concept of short-term interruption without heparin bridging.

They concluded that if a surgery or an invasive procedure requires a NOAC’s arrest, most patients can safely interrupt NOACs for a short period without heparin bridging. In case of heparin bridging therapy, the rate of cardiovascular events is not reduced. There is a significantly higher rate of bleeding complications due to heparin bridging or major procedures. However, patients at cardiovascular risk undergoing major procedures may benefit from heparin bridging because their outcome in terms of cardiovascular risk is increased and because, in this particular setting, heparin bridging is not an independent factor for bleeding risk.

Those data do not support a systematic bridging therapy but highlight its probable benefit in patients at cardiovascular risk undergoing high risk surgery. Table 7 shows categories of procedures defined by the severity of tissue trauma and the risk for periprocedural bleeding [14].

tab7
Table 7: Categories of procedures according to the severity of tissue trauma and the risk for peri-procedural bleeding.

During the ROCKET-AF trial, patients who required temporary interruption of anticoagulant therapy for surgery and invasive procedure were bridged only in 6% of the cases, predominantly by LMWH. The rate of major bleeding was similar in bridged and nonbridged patients. The incidence of bleeding (major and nonmajor clinically relevant bleeding according to International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis definitions [75]) was higher in case of bridging therapy, while stroke and systemic embolism were similar in both groups [42]. The study suffers several biases such as the use of bridging therapy in a nonrandomized way and the too low number of events.

Devices implants in most of Canadian centers are performed with NOAC interruption without LMWH bridging [76]. Again, this study demonstrates the necessity of an individual assessment of each patient, on a case-by-case basis [77].

Thus, there is no universal strategy for periprocedural management of NOACs, but a stepwise approach can be considered. Some prerequisites are essential to allow periprocedural decision (Table 8).

tab8
Table 8: Essential prerequisites allowing perioperative decisions.

The decision about perioperative NOACs management should be written in the medical record.

5.5. A Particular Case: Anesthesia Procedures
5.5.1. Neuraxial Anesthesia

For patients without thrombotic risk (assessed by CHA2D2-VASc score), Benzon et al. [78] recommend 5 half-life intervals between NOAC’s discontinuation and a neuraxial puncture (with or without epidural catheter placement). For patients with high risk of stroke or VTE, this interval can be shortened to 2 or 3 half-lives, or it can stay at 5 half-lives if LMWH bridging is associated. Llau and Ferrandis [79] provided recommendations based on NOAC’s pharmacokinetics in the setting of thromboprophylaxis. For spinal anesthesia, if the puncture is atraumatic, the first dose of DE can be administrated 1–4 hours after the end of surgery and after 6–8 hours for rivaroxaban. If the puncture is traumatic or hemorrhagic, the first dose of DE or rivaroxaban is delayed by 24 hours. For epidural anesthesia, DE cannot be administrated if a permanent catheter is inserted. For rivaroxaban, the first dose after epidural anesthesia is administered 6–10 hours after the end of surgery. An interval of 18 hours is recommended before the removal of the epidural catheter (22–26 hours for elderly patients) and at least 4 hours after removal. The European Society of Anaesthesiology (ESA) [80] recommends extreme caution when using neuraxial blockade in the presence of rivaroxaban/apixaban. For dabigatran, the manufacturer advises against its use in the presence of neuraxial blockade. Because of a potential risk of retroperitoneal hematoma in lumbar plexus and paravertebral blocks, ESA recommends the same guidelines for these two peripheral nerve blocks as for neuraxial blockades [78, 80].

5.5.2. Other Peripheral Nerve Blocks

ESA does not routinely apply the same guidelines as for neuraxial blockades [81], but the American Society of Regional Anesthesia (ASRA) does [78].

5.6. A Particular Case: Atrial Fibrillation Ablation

Uninterrupted warfarin therapy with therapeutic anticoagulation has been shown to be associated with lower risk of periprocedural thromboembolic events after AF ablation and is increasingly being accepted as the preferred anticoagulation strategy [82]. However, increasingly more patients are being treated with NOACs, thereby complicating the periprocedural anticoagulation management.

For dabigatran, there is no consensus regarding the management of patients taking dabigatran who are referred for AF ablation. The results depend on the period of dabigatran interruption. Nearly uninterrupted anticoagulation (holding the morning dose), which theoretically has a better protection from periprocedural thromboembolism, was associated with both increased bleeding and thromboembolic events, especially in the nonparoxysmal AF [83]. Other observational studies with a more interrupted approach showed equivalent bleeding and embolic events compared to therapeutic warfarin [8487].

For rivaroxaban, uninterrupted rivaroxaban appears to be a feasible and safe alternative to uninterrupted warfarin therapy in patients undergoing AF ablation. Future larger and randomized trials are needed to confirm those preliminary data [83].

6. Management in an Emergency Situation

In case of a surgery or invasive procedure, the degree of emergency should be assessed in order to decrease the bleeding risk: NOACs must be discontinued, timing of the last dose intake should be known, and if possible, invasive procedure should be delayed until the NOACs reach trough concentration. Waiting and postponing semiurgent procedures may be a reasonable strategy to prevent bleeding. In case of bleeding emergencies under NOACs, several difficulties are encountered: there is currently no antidote and no rapid quantitative measurement of the anticoagulant effect (see laboratory testing for NOACs in a perioperative setting), strategies to reverse the anticoagulant effect are poor, and, depending on the residual concentration of NOACs, administration of factors is rendered ineffective [15, 63].

It is very important to establish a hospital-wide policy for bleeding management in patients taking NOACs, based on the available blood products and laboratory assays in each institution. The procedure must be easily accessible (e.g., intranet site, personal digital assistant (PDA)). Some workgroups propose algorithms based on NOAC’s plasma concentration, but their quantitative measurements are not currently routinely performed [88].

In case of bleeding that does not respond to supportive measures (surgical hemostasis, embolization, fluid replacement, etc.) in patients taking DE, ensure adequate diuresis and suggest hemodialysis. Dabigatran is 35% bound to plasma proteins, theoretically allowing its elimination by hemodialysis, but clinical experience is limited [8991]. However, hemodialysis might be more effective than unspecific reversal treatment with factor concentrates. A single-center study including patients with end-stage renal disease measured DE elimination with hemodialysis. Four hours of hemodialysis with 200 mL/min and 400 mL/min targeted blood flow removed 48.8% and 59.3% of total dabigatran from the central compartment, respectively. There was a linear relation between anticoagulant activity of dabigatran and its plasma levels. Minor redistribution of dabigatran (<16%) after the end of the hemodialysis session occurred. These results support hemodialysis as a suitable approach to eliminate dabigatran in emergency situations [92]. An extracorporeal renal replacement therapy filter can also be easily added during emergent cardiac surgery [93]. However, a special care to bleeding at the punctures sites is necessary and therefore ultrasound guided techniques are very useful. Hemoperfusion over a charcoal filter is under evaluation [89]. Oral activated charcoal may be effective only in case of a recent ingestion within 2 hours [89].

An analysis of major bleeding patients in the RE-LY study concludes that the overall resources required to manage bleeding were not greater than those after warfarin-related bleeding. For patients treated with DE, red cells transfusions were higher, plasma transfusions were lower, the stay in intensive care unit was shorter, and there was a lower trend in mortality compared with patients treated with warfarin. Based on these results, they concluded on a safety profile of DE [94].

There is currently no specific hemostatic agent for the reversal of NOACs in case of bleeding or in emergency situations but different antidotes are under development. Andexanet alfa (PRT064445) is a truncated form of enzymatically inactive FXa: it reverses dose-dependently the inhibitory activity and corrects ex vivo clotting times [95]. For dabigatran, a humanized selective and specific monoclonal antibody fragment (idarucizumab) is under development [96]. Aripazine (PER977), another small synthetic molecule, reverses anticoagulant activity of all clinically used NOACs in rat bleeding models [97].

Hemostatic agents used for life-threatening bleeding are shown in Table 9.

tab9
Table 9: Coagulation factor and pro-hemostatic agents.

7. Laboratory Testing for NOACs in a Perioperative Setting

NOACs do not require routine coagulation monitoring. This point is considered as an advantage for the physicians and an improvement of quality of life for their patients. However, point measurement of NOACs may be required in several clinical situations including the perioperative setting [8, 10, 11, 78, 98, 99].

For VKAs, it is well established that, at time of surgery (INR on the day before surgery), an elevated INR (i.e., ≥2) will increase the risk of bleeding and a near normal or normal INR (i.e., ≤1.5) will not [60]. But, for NOACs, the residual drug level that can be considered as safe is not known, except for dabigatran. The residual dabigatran concentration that is recommended before special intervention (such as surgery) is provided in the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) assessment report from the European Medicine Agency that states “(…) dabigatran concentration under 48 ng/mL is equivalent to at least 75% of dabigatran’s elimination and should be recommended” [100]. A French group of experts called GIHP proposed the threshold of 30 ng/mL (for dabigatran and rivaroxaban) [88].

Details of these recommendations are presented in Table 10 [88].

tab10
Table 10: Perioperative management of NOACs (dabigatran and rivaroxaban)—Proposal for recommendations from the GIHP (“Groupe d’Intérêt en Hémostase Périopératoire”).
7.1. Which Laboratory Tests Should We Use in the Perioperative Setting and How to Interpret Them?

Activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) and prothrombin time (PT) are global assays not reflecting plasma NOACs concentrations. They are not suitable for precise quantification of the anticoagulant effect. Thrombin time (TT) was demonstrated to be too sensitive towards dabigatran [89, 101]. However, this may guide the clinician in the perioperative setting since a normal TT indicates no clinically relevant anticoagulant effect of dabigatran. The strong sensitivity of TT towards dabigatran leads to the development of a calibrated diluted thrombin time (dTT) with dabigatran standards to calculate the dabigatran plasma concentration. Several studies showed that the dTT or the ecarin chromogenic assay (ECA) highly correlates with dabigatran plasma concentrations measured by LC-MS/MS in patient’s plasma [102104]. However, one limitation of dTT is that, in case of switching therapy (i.e., from heparins/heparinoids to dabigatran etexilate or from hirudin and derivatives to dabigatran etexilate), they will be slightly influenced by the presence of such inhibitors in the plasma. This implies the necessity of an accurate anamnesis of the drugs taken by the patient to avoid overestimation of drug concentrations in plasma. In addition, for the accurate determination of dabigatran plasma concentrations below 50 ng/mL, the more sensitive liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry/mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) method is still required [102, 104].

For rivaroxaban, chromogenic anti-Xa assay has been proven to accurately estimate the plasma rivaroxaban concentrations > 30 ng/mL [105]. Due to their good sensitivity towards the inhibition of FXa by apixaban, chromogenic anti-Xa assays calibrated with specific apixaban calibrators should be performed to estimate plasma drug concentration [106108]. However, taking into account the lower sensitivity of chromogenic assays compared to LC-MS/MS and the variability of coagulation analysers that may further increase the imprecision at the lowest concentrations, detection and quantitation of lower levels (<30 ng/mL for rivaroxaban and <15 ng/mL for apixaban) still require LC-MS/MS analyses [108, 109].

Even if these specific coagulation tests to assess NOACs are promising, they suffer from difficulties to be implemented easily in the clinical setting. Moreover, assessment of lower levels of NOACs encountered in the perioperative setting is challenging due to the limit of quantitation of these tests but improvements in the low range are under development by several companies.

In addition, to correctly interpret the results of laboratory assay, some information needs to be collected: drug, indication, and the timing of the last dose administration (due to the short half-life of NOACs) [110]. The interpretation of the results requires education of the front staff in many specialties [98]. Finally, it has been clearly shown that NOACs influence the results of different coagulation assays used in the perioperative setting leading to misinterpretations [41] (Table 11).

tab11
Table 11: Influence of dabigatran, rivaroxaban and apixaban on coagulation tests used in the perioperative setting.
7.2. A Particular Case: Atrial Fibrillation Ablation

The ideal management of oral anticoagulation during catheter ablation for AF 112–114 is still controversial with a wide range of procedures available. During AF ablation, it is now recommended to achieve and maintain an ACT of 300 to 400 seconds in order to reduce the risk of systemic thromboembolism [111]. However, the ACT is affected by a lot of preanalytical [112] and analytical variables [113, 114]. Finally, target ACT should be redetermined for the periprocedural use of NOACs for AF ablation [111117].

8. Resumption of the NOACs after Invasive Procedure or Surgery

Once again, in the postoperative period, the bleeding risk must be weighted with the thromboembolic risk; however the risk for major bleeding exceeds the risk for thromboembolic complications after surgery [118]. Regarding the thromboembolic risk, Kaatz et al. [119] concluded that patients with chronic AF had twice as much risks of postoperative stroke, especially in neurosurgery and vascular surgery. The bleeding risk in the postoperative period is mainly due to patient’s characteristics (bridging therapy, mitral mechanic heart valve, active cancer, prior bleeding history, and reinitiation of heparin therapy within 24 hours after surgery), even if a premature heparin resumption is an avoidable risk factor [120]. But first of all surgical bleeding risk must be under control [121]. For NOACs, given the fact that full anticoagulation occurs between 2 and 4 hours (Table 3) and that no antidote is available, resumption of DE, rivaroxaban, and apixaban should be performed at least 48 hours after the high risk procedures [12]. This delay can expose patients at risk for thromboembolism. Twenty-four hours are recommended before resuming oral anticoagulation after a procedure at low risk of bleeding [60, 62]. Other schemes exist in order to minimize bleeding risks: consider a stepwise resumption of NOACs [16, 77] or administer prophylactic doses of LMWH early after the surgery, and restart full doses of NOACs only after 3 or 4 days [122]. Heparin bridging can be useful if the patient cannot tolerate oral medication (e.g., in ileus or postoperative nausea and vomiting) [66]. In the postoperative setting, it is essential to reassess patient’s renal function, especially for elderly who are subject to dehydration and for patients taking DE. For LMWH, doses must be adapted in case of extreme body weight (body mass index above 30 kg/m²) and poor renal function. If CrCl is less than 30 mL/min, the use of unfractionated heparin is more indicated [12, 123].

9. Conclusions

In the field of oral anticoagulation, clinicians will be more frequently confronted about their management of NOACs in the pre- and postoperative setting. Prerequisites are essential for NOAC’s pharmacokinetics, indications, drug interactions, and alterations of standard laboratory assays. Actual data are based mainly on expert’s opinions, except one national registry study. In some situation, interruption periods of NOACs are necessary and should be based on their respective half-life, on the bleeding risk of procedures, and on the thromboembolic risk of patients. Some scores such as CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED should help clinicians in their decisions. Given their shorter half-life, no heparin bridging during the interruption interval seems necessary, except for patients at high cardiovascular risk undergoing major surgery.

Further clinical trials over perioperative management of patients under NOACs are still required. Emergency surgeries, invasive procedures, or bleeding patients remain a real challenge given the absence of antidote. Possibilities of reversal are poor and based on few experimental data and case reports. Furthermore, rapid quantitative measurements of the anticoagulant effect are not available in most institutions. Awaiting future clinical trial data, it seems to be important to establish a hospital-wide policy for bleeding management in patients taking NOACs, in accordance to the available blood products and laboratory assays of each institution.

Conflict of Interests

The authors have no conflict of interests to disclose.

Authors’ Contribution

Anne-Sophie Dincq and Sarah Lessire contributed equally to this work.

References

  1. S. Husted, R. de Caterina, F. Andreotti, et al., “Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs): no longer new or novel,” Thrombosis and Haemostasis, vol. 111, no. 5, pp. 781–782, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  2. European Medicine Agency, Xarelto: Summary of Product Characteristics, 2013, http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Product_Information/human/000944/WC500057108.pdf.
  3. European Medicine Agency, “Pradaxa: Summary of Product Characteristics,” 2013, http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Product_Information/human/000829/WC500041059.pdf.
  4. European Medicine Agency, Eliquis: Summary of Product Characteristics, 2014, http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Product_Information/human/002148/WC500107728.pdf.
  5. Food and Drug Administration, “Pradaxa: Full Prescribing Information,” 2013, http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2013/022512s017lbl.pdf.
  6. Food and Drug Administration, Xarelto: Full Prescribing Information, 2014, http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2013/022406s004lbl.pdf.
  7. Food and Drug Administration—Eliquis: Full Prescribing Information, 2014, http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2013/022512s017lbl.pdf.
  8. J. H. Levy, D. Faraoni, J. L. Spring, J. D. Douketis, and C. M. Samama, “Managing new oral anticoagulants in the perioperative and intensive care unit setting,” Anesthesiology, vol. 118, no. 6, pp. 1466–1474, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. A. Helldén, I. Odar-Cederlöf, G. Nilsson et al., “Renal function estimations and dose recommendations for dabigatran, gabapentin and valaciclovir: a data simulation study focused on the elderly,” BMJ Open, vol. 3, no. 4, Article ID e002686, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. M. M. Samama, J. Amiral, C. Guinet, L. L. Flem, and J. Seghatchian, “Monitoring plasma levels of factor Xa inhibitors: how, why and when?” Expert Review of Hematology, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 155–164, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. H. Ten Cate, “Monitoring new oral anticoagulants, managing thrombosis, or both?” Thrombosis and Haemostasis, vol. 107, no. 5, pp. 803–805, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. T. H. Baron, P. S. Kamath, and R. D. McBane, “Management of antithrombotic therapy in patients undergoing invasive procedures,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 368, no. 22, pp. 2113–2124, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. P. Sié, C. M. Samama, A. Godier et al., “Surgery and invasive procedures in patients on long-term treatment with direct oral anticoagulants: thrombin or factor-Xa inhibitors. Recommendations of the Working Group on perioperative haemostasis and the French Study Group on thrombosis and haemostasis,” Archives of Cardiovascular Diseases, vol. 104, no. 12, pp. 669–676, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. J. Beyer-Westendorf, V. Gelbricht, K. Forster, et al., “Peri-interventional management of novel oral anticoagulants in daily care: results from the prospective Dresden NOAC registry,” European Heart Journal, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  15. D. M. Siegal and M. A. Crowther, “Acute management of bleeding in patients on novel oral anticoagulants,” European Heart Journal, vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 489–500, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. S. Schulman and M. A. Crowther, “How I treat with anticoagulants in 2012: new and old anticoagulants, and when and how to switch,” Blood, vol. 119, no. 13, pp. 3016–3023, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. J. L. Mega, E. Braunwald, S. D. Wiviott et al., “Rivaroxaban in patients with a recent acute coronary syndrome,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 366, no. 1, pp. 9–19, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. R. Bauersachs, S. D. Berkowitz, B. Brenner, et al., “Oral rivaroxaban for symptomatic venous thromboembolism,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 363, pp. 2499–2510, 2010.
  19. S. Schulman, A. K. Kakkar, S. Z. Goldhaber, et al., “Treatment of acute venous thromboembolism with dabigatran or warfarin and pooled analysis,” Circulation, vol. 129, no. 7, pp. 764–772, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  20. C. B. Granger, J. H. Alexander, J. J. McMurray, et al., “Apixaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 365, pp. 981–992, 2011.
  21. M. R. Patel, K. W. Mahaffey, J. Garg et al., “Rivaroxaban versus warfarin in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 365, no. 10, pp. 883–891, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  22. S. J. Connolly, M. D. Ezekowitz, S. Yusuf, et al., “Dabigatran versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 361, no. 27, pp. 1139–1151, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  23. M. R. Lassen, A. Gallus, G. E. Raskob, G. Pineo, D. Chen, and L. M. Ramirez, “Apixaban versus enoxaparin for thromboprophylaxis after hip replacement,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 363, no. 26, pp. 2487–2498, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  24. M. R. Lassen, G. E. Raskob, A. Gallus, G. Pineo, D. Chen, and P. Hornick, “Apixaban versus enoxaparin for thromboprophylaxis after knee replacement (ADVANCE-2): a randomised double-blind trial,” The Lancet, vol. 375, no. 9717, pp. 807–815, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  25. B. I. Eriksson, O. E. Dahl, N. Rosencher et al., “Oral dabigatran etexilate vs. subcutaneous enoxaparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism after total knee replacement: the RE-MODEL randomized trial,” Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis, vol. 5, no. 11, pp. 2178–2185, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  26. B. I. Eriksson, O. E. Dahl, M. H. Huo et al., “Oral dabigatran versus enoxaparin for thromboprophylaxis after primary total hip arthroplasty (RE-NOVATE II): a randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority trial,” Thrombosis and Haemostasis, vol. 105, no. 4, pp. 721–729, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  27. B. I. Eriksson, A. K. Kakkar, A. G. Turpie, et al., “Oral rivaroxaban for the prevention of symptomatic venous thromboembolism after elective hip and knee replacement,” The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, vol. 91, pp. 636–644, 2009.
  28. B. I. Eriksson, D. J. Quinlan, and J. I. Weitz, “Comparative pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of oral direct thrombin and factor Xa inhibitors in development,” Clinical Pharmacokinetics, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 1–22, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  29. J. Stangier and A. Clemens, “Pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of dabigatran etexilate, an oral direct thrombin inhibitor,” Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis, vol. 15, supplement 1, pp. 9S–16S, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  30. P. K. Maccallum, R. Mathur, S. A. Hull, et al., “Patient safety and estimation of renal function in patients prescribed new oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: a cross-sectional study,” BMJ Open, vol. 3, Article ID e003343, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  31. D. W. Cockcroft and M. H. Gault, “Prediction of creatinine clearance from serum creatinine,” Nephron, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 31–41, 1976. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  32. R. Ferrandis, J. Castillo, J. de Andrés et al., “The perioperative management of new direct oral anticoagulants: a question without answers,” Thrombosis and Haemostasis, vol. 110, no. 3, pp. 515–522, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  33. J. H. Levy, N. S. Key, and M. S. Azran, “Novel oral anticoagulants : implications in the perioperative setting,” Anesthesiology, vol. 113, no. 3, pp. 726–745, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  34. J. Stangier, K. Rathgen, H. Stähle, D. Gansser, and W. Roth, “The pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and tolerability of dabigatran etexilate, a new oral direct thrombin inhibitor, in healthy male subjects,” British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, vol. 64, no. 3, pp. 292–303, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  35. W. Mueck, J. Stampfuss, D. Kubitza, and M. Becka, “Clinical pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile of rivaroxaban,” Clinical Pharmacokinetics, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 1–16, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  36. J. D. Douketis, “Pharmacologic properties of the new oral anticoagulants: a clinician-oriented review with a focus on perioperative management,” Current Pharmaceutical Design, vol. 16, no. 31, pp. 3436–3441, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  37. N. Raghavan, C. E. Frost, Z. Yu et al., “Apixaban metabolism and pharmacokinetics after oral administration to humans,” Drug Metabolism and Disposition, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 74–81, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  38. J. Stangier and A. Clemens, “Pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of dabigatran etexilate, an oral direct thrombin inhibitor,” Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis, vol. 15, supplement 1, pp. 9S–16S, 2009. View at Scopus
  39. S. Lessire, A.-S. Dincq, J. Douxfils, et al., “Preventive strategies against bleeding due to nonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants,” BioMed Research International, vol. 2014, Article ID 616405, 14 pages, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  40. V. Pengo, L. Crippa, A. Falanga et al., “Questions and answers on the use of dabigatran and perpectives on the use of other new oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation; a consensus document of the Italian federation of thrombosis centers (FCSA),” Thrombosis and Haemostasis, vol. 106, no. 5, pp. 868–876, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  41. J. S. Healey, J. Eikelboom, J. Douketis et al., “Periprocedural bleeding and thromboembolic events with dabigatran compared with warfarin: results from the randomized evaluation of long-term anticoagulation therapy (RE-LY) randomized trial,” Circulation, vol. 126, no. 3, pp. 343–348, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  42. M. W. Sherwood, J. D. Douketis, M. R. Patel, et al., “Outcomes of temporary interruption of rivaroxaban compared with warfarin in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: results from the rivaroxaban once daily, oral, direct factor Xa inhibition compared with vitamin K antagonism for prevention of stroke and embolism trial in atrial fibrillation (ROCKET AF),” Circulation, vol. 129, pp. 1850–1859, 2014.
  43. A. C. Spyropoulos, R. M. Bauersachs, H. Omran, and M. Cohen, “Periprocedural bridging therapy in patients receiving chronic oral anticoagulation therapy,” Current Medical Research and Opinion, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 1109–1122, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  44. P. A. Wolf, R. D. Abbott, and W. B. Kannel, “Atrial fibrillation as an independent risk factor for stroke: the Framingham study,” Stroke, vol. 22, no. 8, pp. 983–988, 1991. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  45. A. J. Camm, G. Y. Lip, R. de Caterina, et al., “2012 focused update of the ESC guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation: an update of the 2010 ESC guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation—developed with the special contribution of the European Heart Rhythm Association,” Europace, vol. 14, no. 10, pp. 1385–1413, 2012.
  46. G. Y. H. Lip, R. Nieuwlaat, R. Pisters, D. A. Lane, and H. J. G. M. Crijns, “Refining clinical risk stratification for predicting stroke and thromboembolism in atrial fibrillation using a novel risk factor-based approach: the Euro Heart Survey on atrial fibrillation,” Chest, vol. 137, no. 2, pp. 263–272, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  47. G. Y. H. Lip, F. Andreotti, L. Fauchier et al., “Bleeding risk assessment and management in atrial fibrillation patients: executive summary of a position document from the european heart rhythm association [EHRA], endorsed by the european society of cardiology [ESC] working group on thrombosis,” Thrombosis and Haemostasis, vol. 106, no. 6, pp. 997–1011, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  48. I. G. E. Zarraga and J. Kron, “Oral anticoagulation in elderly adults with atrial fibrillation: integrating new options with old concepts,” Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 143–150, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  49. R. D. Lopes, J. H. Alexander, S. M. Al-Khatib et al., “Apixaban for reduction in stroke and other ThromboemboLic events in atrial fibrillation (ARISTOTLE) trial: design and rationale,” The American Heart Journal, vol. 159, no. 3, pp. 331–339, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  50. R. D. Lopes, S. M. Al-Khatib, L. Wallentin, et al., “Efficacy and safety of apixaban compared with warfarin according to patient risk of stroke and of bleeding in atrial fibrillation: a secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial,” The Lancet, vol. 380, no. 9855, pp. 1749–1758, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  51. C. Kearon, E. A. Akl, A. J. Comerota et al., “Antithrombotic therapy for VTE disease: antithrombotic therapy and prevention of thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines,” Chest, vol. 141, no. 2, pp. e419S–e494S, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  52. P. G. de Jong, M. Coppens, and S. Middeldorp, “Duration of anticoagulant therapy for venous thromboembolism: balancing benefits and harms on the long term,” British Journal of Haematology, vol. 158, no. 4, pp. 433–441, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  53. H. Gombotz and H. Knotzer, “Preoperative identification of patients with increased risk for perioperative bleeding,” Current Opinion in Anaesthesiology, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 82–90, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  54. R. Pisters, D. A. Lane, R. Nieuwlaat, C. B. De Vos, H. J. G. M. Crijns, and G. Y. H. Lip, “A novel user-friendly score (HAS-BLED) to assess 1-year risk of major bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation: the euro heart survey,” Chest, vol. 138, no. 5, pp. 1093–1100, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  55. M. C. Fang, A. S. Go, Y. Chang et al., “A new risk scheme to predict warfarin-associated hemorrhage: the ATRIA (Anticoagulation and Risk Factors in Atrial Fibrillation) Study,” Journal of the American College of Cardiology, vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 395–401, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  56. B. F. Gage, Y. Yan, P. E. Milligan et al., “Clinical classification schemes for predicting hemorrhage: results from the National Registry of Atrial Fibrillation (NRAF),” The American Heart Journal, vol. 151, no. 3, pp. 713–719, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  57. S. Apostolakis, D. A. Lane, Y. Guo, H. Buller, and G. Y. H. Lip, “Performance of the HEMORR 2HAGES, ATRIA, and HAS-BLED bleeding risk-prediction scores in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing anticoagulation: the AMADEUS (Evaluating the use of SR34006 compared to warfarin or acenocoumarol in patients with atrial fibrillation) study,” Journal of the American College of Cardiology, vol. 60, no. 9, pp. 861–867, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  58. S. Apostolakis, D. A. Lane, Y. Guo, H. Buller, and G. Y. H. Lip, “Performance of the HEMORR2HAGES, ATRIA, and HAS-BLED bleeding risk-prediction scores in nonwarfarin anticoagulated atrial fibrillation patients,” Journal of the American College of Cardiology, vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 386–387, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  59. J. A. Nieto, R. Solano, N. Trapero Iglesias et al., “Validation of a score for predicting fatal bleeding in patients receiving anticoagulation for venous thromboembolism,” Thrombosis Research, vol. 132, pp. 175–179, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  60. J. D. Douketis, A. C. Spyropoulos, F. A. Spencer, et al., “Perioperative management of antithrombotic therapy: antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines,” Chest, vol. 141, pp. e326S–e350S, 2012.
  61. A. Vuylsteke, C. Pagel, C. Gerrard et al., “The Papworth Bleeding Risk Score: a stratification scheme for identifying cardiac surgery patients at risk of excessive early postoperative bleeding,” European Journal of Cardio-thoracic Surgery, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 924–930, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  62. A. C. Spyropoulos and J. D. Douketis, “How I treat anticoagulated patients undergoing an elective procedure or surgery,” Blood, vol. 120, no. 15, pp. 2954–2962, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  63. H. Heidbuchel, P. Verhamme, M. Alings, et al., “European Heart Rhythm Association Practical Guide on the use of new oral anticoagulants in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Europace: European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology,” Europace, vol. 15, pp. 625–651, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  64. A. Liew and J. Douketis, “Perioperative management of patients who are receiving a novel oral anticoagulant,” Internal and Emergency Medicine, vol. 8, pp. 477–484, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  65. J. D. Douketis, “Perioperative anticoagulation management in patients who are receiving oral anticoagulant therapy: a practical guide for clinicians,” Thrombosis Research, vol. 108, no. 1, pp. 3–13, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  66. J. D. Douketis, P. B. Berger, A. S. Dunn et al., “The perioperative management of antithrombotic therapy: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (8th edition),” Chest, vol. 133, no. 6, pp. 299S–339S, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  67. M. Fujita, A. Shiotani, T. Murao, et al., “Safety of gastrointestinal endoscopic biopsy in patients taking antithrombotics,” Digestive Endoscopy, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  68. J. I. Weitz, D. J. Quinlan, and J. W. Eikelboom, “Periprocedural management and approach to bleeding in patients taking dabigatran,” Circulation, vol. 126, no. 20, pp. 2428–2432, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  69. D. J. Greenblatt, “Elimination half-life of drugs: value and limitations,” Annual Review of Medicine, vol. 36, pp. 421–427, 1985. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  70. J. Graff and S. Harder, “Anticoagulant therapy with the oral direct factor Xa inhibitors rivaroxaban, apixaban and edoxaban and the thrombin inhibitor dabigatran etexilate in patients with hepatic impairment,” Clinical Pharmacokinetics, vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 243–254, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  71. D. Siegal, J. Yudin, S. Kaatz, J. D. Douketis, W. Lim, and A. C. Spyropoulos, “Periprocedural heparin bridging in patients receiving vitamin K antagonists: systematic review and meta-analysis of bleeding and thromboembolic rates,” Circulation, vol. 126, no. 13, pp. 1630–1639, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  72. L. Feng, Y. Li, J. Li, and B. Yu, “Oral anticoagulation continuation compared with heparin bridging therapy among high risk patients undergoing implantation of cardiac rhythm devices: a meta-analysis,” Thrombosis & Haemostasis, vol. 108, no. 6, pp. 1124–1131, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  73. H. Omran, R. Bauersachs, S. Rubenacker, F. Goss, and C. Hammerstingl, “The HAS-BLED score predicts bleedings during bridging of chronic oral anticoagulation. Results from the national multicentre BNK Online bRiDging REgistRy (BORDER),” Thrombosis and Haemostasis, vol. 108, pp. 65–73, 2012.
  74. A. C. Spyropoulos, J. D. Douketis, G. Gerotziafas, S. Kaatz, T. L. Ortel, and S. Schulman, “Periprocedural antithrombotic and bridging therapy: recommendations for standardized reporting in patients with arterial indications for chronic oral anticoagulant therapy,” Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 692–694, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  75. S. Schulman and C. Kearon, “Definition of major bleeding in clinical investigations of antihemostatic medicinal products in non-surgical patients,” Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 692–694, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  76. T. Nascimento, D. H. Birnie, J. S. Healey, et al., “Managing novel oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing device surgery: Canadian survey,” Canadian Journal of Cardiology, vol. 30, pp. 231–236, 2014.
  77. J. P. Patel and R. Arya, “The current status of bridging anticoagulation,” British Journal of Haematology, vol. 164, no. 5, pp. 619–629, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  78. H. T. Benzon, M. J. Avram, D. Green, and R. O. Bonow, “New oral anticoagulants and regional anaesthesia,” British Journal of Anaesthesia, vol. 111, supplement 1, pp. i96–i113, 2013.
  79. J. V. Llau and R. Ferrandis, “New anticoagulants and regional anesthesia,” Current Opinion in Anaesthesiology, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 661–666, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  80. W. Gogarten, E. Vandermeulen, H. van Aken, S. Kozek, J. V. Llau, and C. M. Samama, “Regional anaesthesia and antithrombotic agents: recommendations of the European Society of Anaesthesiology,” European Journal of Anaesthesiology, vol. 27, no. 12, pp. 999–1015, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  81. T. T. Horlocker, D. J. Wedel, H. Benzon et al., “Regional anesthesia in the anticoagulated patient: defining the risks (the second ASRA Consensus Conference on Neuraxial Anesthesia and Anticoagulation),” Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 172–197, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  82. D. Lakkireddy, Y. M. Reddy, L. Di Biase, et al., “Feasibility and safety of uninterrupted rivaroxaban for periprocedural anticoagulation in patients undergoing radiofrequency ablation for atrial fibrillation: results from a multicenter prospective registry,” Journal of the American College of Cardiology, vol. 63, no. 10, pp. 982–988, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  83. D. Lakkireddy, Y. M. Reddy, L. di Biase et al., “Feasibility and safety of dabigatran versus warfarin for periprocedural anticoagulation in patients undergoing radiofrequency ablation for atrial fibrillation: results from a multicenter prospective registry,” Journal of the American College of Cardiology, vol. 59, no. 13, pp. 1168–1174, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  84. J. Kim, F. She, K. Jongnarangsin et al., “Dabigatran vs warfarin for radiofrequency catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation,” Heart Rhythm, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 483–489, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  85. H. Yamaji, T. Murakami, K. Hina et al., “Usefulness of dabigatran etexilate as periprocedural anticoagulation therapy for atrial fibrillation ablation,” Clinical Drug Investigation, vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 409–418, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  86. T. Nin, A. Sairaku, Y. Yoshida et al., “A randomized controlled trial of dabigatran versus warfarin for periablation anticoagulation in patients undergoing ablation of atrial fibrillation,” PACE—Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 172–179, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  87. R. A. Winkle, R. H. Mead, G. Engel, M. H. Kong, and R. A. Patrawala, “The use of dabigatran immediately after atrial fibrillation ablation,” Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 264–268, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  88. G. Pernod, P. Albaladejo, A. Godier et al., “Management of major bleeding complications and emergency surgery in patients on long-term treatment with direct oral anticoagulants, thrombin or factor-Xa inhibitors: proposals of the working group on perioperative haemostasis (GIHP)—March 2013,” Archives of Cardiovascular Diseases, vol. 106, no. 6-7, pp. 382–393, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  89. J. Van Ryn, J. Stangier, S. Haertter et al., “Dabigatran etexilate—a novel, reversible, oral direct thrombin inhibitor: interpretation of coagulation assays and reversal of anticoagulant activity,” Thrombosis and Haemostasis, vol. 103, no. 6, pp. 1116–1127, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  90. T. E. Warkentin, P. Margetts, S. J. Connolly, A. Lamy, C. Ricci, and J. W. Eikelboom, “Recombinant factor VIIa (rFVIIa) and hemodialysis to manage massive dabigatran-associated postcardiac surgery bleeding,” Blood, vol. 119, no. 9, pp. 2172–2174, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  91. M. R. Wanek, E. T. Horn, S. Elapavaluru, S. C. Baroody, and G. Sokos, “Safe use of hemodialysis for dabigatran removal before cardiac surgery,” Annals of Pharmacotherapy, vol. 46, article e21, no. 9, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  92. D. Khadzhynov, F. Wagner, S. Formella et al., “Effective elimination of dabigatran by haemodialysis: a phase I single-centre study in patients with end-stage renal disease,” Thrombosis & Haemostasis, vol. 109, no. 4, pp. 596–605, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  93. S. A. Kozek-Langenecker, “Perioperative management issues of direct oral anticoagulants,” Seminars in Hematology, vol. 51, pp. 112–120, 2014.
  94. A. Majeed, H. G. Hwang, S. J. Connolly, et al., “Management and outcomes of major bleeding during treatment with dabigatran or warfarin,” Circulation, vol. 128, pp. 2325–2332, 2013.
  95. G. Lu, F. R. Deguzman, S. J. Hollenbach et al., “A specific antidote for reversal of anticoagulation by direct and indirect inhibitors of coagulation factor Xa,” Nature Medicine, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 446–451, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  96. O. Grottke, J. van Ryn, H. M. Spronk, and R. Rossaint, “Prothrombin complex concentrates and a specific antidote to dabigatran are effective ex-vivo in reversing the effects of dabigatran in an anticoagulation/liver trauma experimental model,” Critical Care, vol. 18, no. 2, article R27, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  97. A. Majeed and S. Schulman, “Bleeding and antidotes in new oral anticoagulants,” Best Practice and Research: Clinical Haematology, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 191–202, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  98. T. Baglin, A. Hillarp, A. Tripodi, I. Elalamy, H. Buller, and W. Ageno, “Measuring oral direct inhibitors of thrombin and factor Xa: a recommendation from the Subcommittee on Control of Anticoagulation of the Scientific and Standardization Committee of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis,” Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 756–760, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  99. P. Gallego, S. Apostolakis, and G. Y. H. Lip, “Bridging evidence-based practice and practice-based evidence in periprocedural anticoagulation,” Circulation, vol. 126, no. 13, pp. 1573–1576, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  100. European medicine Agency—Pradaxa-H-C-829-X-13: EPAR—Assessment Report—Extension, 2011, http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Assessment_Report_-_Variation/human/000829/WC500110875.pdf.
  101. J. Douxfils, F. Mullier, S. Robert, C. Chatelain, B. Chatelain, and J. Dogné, “Impact of dabigatran on a large panel of routine or specific coagulation assays: Laboratory recommendations for monitoring of dabigatran etexilate,” Thrombosis and Haemostasis, vol. 107, no. 5, pp. 985–997, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  102. J. P. Antovic, M. Skeppholm, J. Eintrei et al., “Evaluation of coagulation assays versus LC-MS/MS for determinations of dabigatran concentrations in plasma,” European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, vol. 69, no. 11, pp. 1875–1881, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  103. E. M. Hawes, A. M. Deal, D. Funk-Adcock et al., “Performance of coagulation tests in patients on therapeutic doses of dabigatran: a cross-sectional pharmacodynamic study based on peak and trough plasma levels,” Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis, vol. 11, no. 8, pp. 1493–1502, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  104. J. Douxfils, J. M. Dogné, F. Mullier et al., “Comparison of calibrated dilute thrombin time and aPTT tests with LC-MS/MS for the therapeutic monitoring of patients treated with dabigatran etexilate,” Thrombosis & Haemostasis, vol. 110, no. 3, pp. 543–549, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  105. J. Douxfils, A. Tamigniau, B. Chatelain, et al., “Comparison of calibrated chromogenic anti-Xa assay and PT tests with LC-MS/MS for the therapeutic monitoring of patients treated with rivaroxaban,” Thrombosis and Haemostasis, vol. 110, pp. 723–731, 2013.
  106. J. Douxfils, C. Chatelain, B. Chatelain, J. Dogné, and F. Mullier, “Impact of apixaban on routine and specific coagulation assays: a practical laboratory guide,” Thrombosis and Haemostasis, vol. 110, no. 2, pp. 283–294, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  107. C. Frost, J. Wang, S. Nepal et al., “Apixaban, an oral, direct factor Xa inhibitor: single dose safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and food effect in healthy subjects,” The British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, vol. 75, no. 2, pp. 476–487, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  108. I. Gouin-Thibault, C. Flaujac, X. Delavenne, et al., “Assessment of apixaban plasma levels by laboratory tests: suitability of three anti-Xa assays. A multicentre French GEHT study,” Thrombosis and Haemostasis, vol. 111, no. 2, pp. 240–248, 2014.
  109. S. J. Francart, E. M. Hawes, A. M. Deal et al., “Performance of coagulation tests in patients on therapeutic doses of rivaroxaban. A cross-sectional pharmacodynamic study based on peak and trough plasma levels,” Thrombosis and Haemostasis, vol. 111, no. 6, pp. 1133–1140, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  110. A. Tamigniau, J. Douxfils, and J. B. Nicolas, “Why, when and how to monitor new oral anticoagulants,” Revue Médicale Suisse, vol. 10, pp. 326–333, 2014.
  111. H. Calkins, K. H. Kuck, R. Cappato et al., “2012 HRS/EHRA/ECAS expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation: recommendations for patient selection, procedural techniques, patient management and follow-up, definitions, endpoints, and research trial design,” Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 171–257, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  112. D. R. Jobes, N. Ellison, and F. W. Campbell, “Limit(ation)s for ACT (I),” Anesthesia and Analgesia, vol. 69, no. 1, pp. 142–144, 1989. View at Scopus
  113. B. Jude, D. Lasne, C. Mouton, and P. de Moerloose, “Monitoring of heparin therapy during extracorporeal bypass: what are the remaining questions?” Annales Francaises d'Anesthesie et de Reanimation, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 589–596, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  114. H. M. Hussein, A. L. Georgiadis, and A. I. Qureshi, “Point-of-care testing for anticoagulation monitoring in neuroendovascular procedures,” The American Journal of Neuroradiology, vol. 33, no. 7, pp. 1211–1220, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  115. E. B. Saad, I. P. Costa, R. E. da Costa et al., “Safety of ablation for atrial fibrillation with therapeutic INR: comparison with transition to low-molecular-weight heparin,” Arquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia, vol. 97, no. 4, pp. 289–296, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  116. R. Cappato, H. Calkins, S. Chen et al., “Updated worldwide survey on the methods, efficacy, and safety of catheter ablation for human atrial fibrillation,” Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 32–38, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  117. R. Cappato, H. Calkins, S.-A. Chen et al., “Worldwide survey on the methods, efficacy, and safety of catheter ablation for human atrial fibrillation,” Circulation, vol. 111, no. 9, pp. 1100–1105, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  118. A. C. Spyropoulos and A. G. G. Turpie, “Perioperative bridging interruption with heparin for the patient receiving long-term anticoagulation,” Current Opinion in Pulmonary Medicine, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 373–379, 2005. View at Scopus
  119. S. Kaatz, J. D. Douketis, H. Zhou, B. F. Gage, and R. H. White, “Risk of stroke after surgery in patients with and without chronic atrial fibrillation,” Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 884–890, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  120. A. J. Tafur, R. McBane, W. E. Wysokinski et al., “Predictors of major bleeding in peri-procedural anticoagulation management,” Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 261–267, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  121. A. G. Turpie, R. Kreutz, J. Llau, B. Norrving, and S. Haas, “Management consensus guidance for the use of rivaroxaban—an oral, direct factor Xa inhibitor,” Thrombosis & Haemostasis, vol. 108, no. 5, pp. 876–886, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  122. M. V. Huisman, G. Y. H. Lip, H. Diener, M. Brueckmann, J. van Ryn, and A. Clemens, “Dabigatran etexilate for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation: resolving uncertainties in routine practice,” Thrombosis and Haemostasis, vol. 107, no. 5, pp. 838–847, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  123. E. A. Nutescu, S. A. Spinler, A. Wittkowsky, and W. E. Dager, “Low-molecular-weight heparins in renal impairment and obesity: available evidence and clinical practice recommendations across medical and surgical settings,” Annals of Pharmacotherapy, vol. 43, no. 6, pp. 1064–1083, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus