Meta-analysis of uninterrupted as compared to interrupted oral anticoagulation with or without bridging in patients undergoing coronary angiography with or without percutaneous coronary intervention

Mariusz Kowalewski, Piotr Suwalski, Giuseppe Maria Raffa, Artur Słomka, Magdalena Ewa Kowalkowska, Krzysztof Aleksander Szwed, Alina Borkowska, Janusz Kowalewski, Pietro Giorgio Malvindi, Anetta Undas, Jerzy Windyga, Wojciech Pawliszak, Lech Anisimowicz, Thierry Carrel, Domenico Paparella, Gregory Y H Lip

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Objectives To assess safety and effectiveness of different periprocedural antithrombotic strategies in patients receiving long-term oral anticoagulation and undergoing coronary angiography with or without percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods Studies comparing uninterrupted oral anticoagulation (UAC) with vit. K antagonists vs interrupted oral anticoagulation (IAC) with or without bridging anticoagulation before coronary procedures were eligible for inclusion in the current meta-analysis. Endpoints selected were 30-day composite of major adverse cardiovascular or cerebrovascular and thromboembolic events (MACCE) and major bleeding. Results Eight studies (7 observational and 1 randomized controlled trial [N = 2325pts.]) were included in the analysis. There was no difference in MACCE between UAC and IAC; RR (95%CIs): 0.74 (0.34–1.64); p = 0.46 but there was a statistically significant MACCE risk reduction with UAC as compared to IAC with bridging: 0.52 (0.29–0.95); p = 0.03. Likewise, there were no statistically significant differences between UAC vs IAC in regard to major bleeding: 0.62 (0.16–2.43); p = 0.49; but as compared to IAC with bridging, UAC was associated with statistically significant 65% lower risk of major bleeding: 0.35 (0.13–0.92); p = 0.03. Additionally, meta-regression analysis revealed significant linear correlation between log RR of MACCE (β = − 4.617; p < 0.001) and major bleeding (β = 6.665; p = 0.022) and mean value of target INR suggestive of higher thrombotic and secondary haemorrhagic risk below estimated INR cut-off of 2.17–2.27 within 30 days. Conclusions Uninterrupted OAC is at least as safe as interrupted OAC, and seems to be much safer than interrupted OAC with bridging anticoagulation in patients undergoing coronary angiography with or without PCI.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)185-194
Number of pages10
JournalInternational Journal of Cardiology
Volume223
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Nov 15 2016

Keywords

  • Atrial fibrillation
  • Bridging anticoagulation
  • Heparin
  • Meta-analysis
  • Oral anticoagulation
  • Percutaneous coronary intervention

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Meta-analysis of uninterrupted as compared to interrupted oral anticoagulation with or without bridging in patients undergoing coronary angiography with or without percutaneous coronary intervention'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this

    Kowalewski, M., Suwalski, P., Raffa, G. M., Słomka, A., Kowalkowska, M. E., Szwed, K. A., Borkowska, A., Kowalewski, J., Malvindi, P. G., Undas, A., Windyga, J., Pawliszak, W., Anisimowicz, L., Carrel, T., Paparella, D., & Lip, G. Y. H. (2016). Meta-analysis of uninterrupted as compared to interrupted oral anticoagulation with or without bridging in patients undergoing coronary angiography with or without percutaneous coronary intervention. International Journal of Cardiology, 223, 185-194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.08.089