Search

Abstract Background New-onset postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) is a common complication after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery, increasing the risk of embolism and stroke. There is a lack of information on the use of anticoagulants in this context. The choice between Warfarin and Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) also is not well-established. This randomized study aimed to compare the feasibility and safety of Warfarin and Rivaroxaban in preventing thrombotic events in POAF patients after isolated CABG. Methods A total of 66 patients were randomized parallelly with 1:1 allocation to receive either Rivaroxaban (n = 34) or Warfarin (n = 32). Major bleeding events within 30 days after discharge were the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included minor bleeding events and thrombotic episodes. Clinical characteristics, medication regimens, and left atrial diameter were assessed. Statistical analyses were performed using appropriate tests. Results No thrombotic episodes were observed in either treatment arm. No major bleeding events occurred in either group. Four minor bleeding events were reported, with no significant difference between the treatment groups (P = 0.6). Patients with atrial fibrillation had significantly larger left atrial diameters compared to those with normal sinus rhythm (40.5 vs. 37.8 mm, P = 0.01). Conclusions This pilot study suggests that Warfarin and Rivaroxaban are both safe and effective for preventing thrombotic episodes in POAF patients after isolated CABG. No significant differences in major bleeding events were observed between the two anticoagulants. These findings may support the preference for DOACs like Rivaroxaban due to their convenience and easier maintenance. Trial registration Number IRCT20200304046696N1, Date 18/03/2020 https//irct.behdasht.gov.ir/ .

Background: New-onset postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) is a common complication after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery, increasing the risk of embolism and stroke. There is a lack of information on the use of anticoagulants in this context. The choice between Warfarin and Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) also is not well-established. This randomized study aimed to compare the feasibility and safety of Warfarin and Rivaroxaban in preventing thrombotic events in POAF patients after isolated CABG. Methods: A total of 66 patients were randomized parallelly with 1:1 allocation to receive either Rivaroxaban (n = 34) or Warfarin (n = 32). Major bleeding events within 30 days after discharge were the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included minor bleeding events and thrombotic episodes. Clinical characteristics, medication regimens, and left atrial diameter were assessed. Statistical analyses were performed using appropriate tests. Results: No thrombotic episodes were observed in either treatment arm. No major bleeding events occurred in either group. Four minor bleeding events were reported, with no significant difference between the treatment groups (P = 0.6). Patients with atrial fibrillation had significantly larger left atrial diameters compared to those with normal sinus rhythm (40.5 vs. 37.8 mm, P = 0.01). Conclusions: This pilot study suggests that Warfarin and Rivaroxaban are both safe and effective for preventing thrombotic episodes in POAF patients after isolated CABG. No significant differences in major bleeding events were observed between the two anticoagulants. These findings may support the preference for DOACs like Rivaroxaban due to their convenience and easier maintenance. Trial registration: Number IRCT20200304046696N1, Date 18/03/2020 https//irct.behdasht.gov.ir/. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Patients with cancer are at high risk of blood clots in the arteries, leading to complications, such as stroke and heart attack. In this review, we discuss the risk factors associated with arterial blood clots in cancer patients, provide explanations on the cause of the arterial blood clots, and report on the current strategies for the prevention and treatment of arterial blood clots in cancer patients. Patients with cancer are at increased risk of arterial thromboembolic disease due to the presence of risk factors common to both the development of cancer and arterial thrombosis, the cancer itself, and the treatments provided to treat cancer. We review here the epidemiology and pathophysiology of arterial thromboembolic disease in cancer, along with its prevention and treatment strategies. We also propose a generalized approach for the management of arterial thromboembolic disease in this patient population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a main contributor to morbidity and mortality in cancer patients. Biomarkers with the potential to predict cancer-associated VTE are continually sought. Of these, markers of thrombin generation present a likely option. The present systematic review examines the ability of three widely used biomarkers of thrombin generation: prothrombin fragment 1.2 (F1.2), thrombin-antithrombin complex (TAT), and ex vivo thrombin generation, to predict VTE in both solid and hematologic adult cancer patients. Relevant studies were identified in the PubMed and Embase databases, and the review conformed to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Each study was evaluated using the quality assessment tool from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The review protocol was published on PROSPERO with identifier CRD42022362339. In total, 24 papers were included in the review: 11 reporting data on F1.2, 9 on TAT, and 12 on ex vivo thrombin generation. The quality ratings of the included studies varied from good (n = 13), fair (n = 8), to poor (n = 3) with a high heterogenicity. However, F1.2, TAT complex, and ex vivo thrombin generation were all found to be associated with the development of VTE. This association was most pronounced for F1.2. Furthermore, the determination of F1.2 was able to improve the precision of several established risk assessment scores. In conclusion, markers of thrombin generation were found to be elevated in cancer patients with VTE, and particularly, F1.2 was found to be a promising predictor of cancer-associated VTE. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We report an elderly male patient with frequent episodes of dizziness due to a complete atrioventricular block who underwent temporary pacemaker insertion in a local hospital. After the implantation of a permanent pacemaker and removal of the temporary pacemaker lead, the patient developed sudden neurological symptoms, upon which an acute cerebellar infarction was diagnosed via head CT. We will discuss the adequacy of the periprocedural administration.

Background: We conducted a single‐center, retrospective comparison of adult patients who received warfarin and ASA or warfarin alone after HeartMate 3 (HM3) LVAD placement. Methods: The primary outcome was a composite of bleeding and thrombotic events. Results: Of 81 patients, 53 patients received warfarin and ASA, and 28 patients received warfarin alone. A primary outcome event occurred in 22 of 53 patients (41.4%) in the warfarin and ASA group and in 2 of 28 patients (7.1%) in the warfarin alone group (p = 0.0533). The odds of a bleeding event occurring were higher in the warfarin and ASA group (32.1% vs. 7.1%, p = 0.01309). The odds of a thrombotic event occurring were not significantly different between the warfarin and ASA group and the warfarin alone group (9.4% vs. 0%, respectively, p = 0.1582). Conclusion: The complete omission of ASA from the antithrombotic regimen of patients with a HM3 LVAD was associated with less bleeding events without an increase in thrombotic events. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The perioperative management of patients medicated with antithrombotic agents who require elective spinal surgery is extremely challenging because of the increased risk of surgical bleeding and the concurrent need to minimize the thromboembolic risk. The aims of the present systematic review are to: (1) identify clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and recommendations (CPRs) on this topic and (2) assess their methodological quality and reporting clarity. An electronic systematic search of the English Medical Literature up to January 31, 2021 was conducted using PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus. Two raters assessed the methodological quality and reporting clarity of the gathered CPGs and CPRs using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool. The agreement between the two raters was assessed using Cohen’s kappa. Of the initially gathered 38 CPGs and CPRs, 16 fulfilled our eligibility criteria and were evaluated using the AGREE II instrument. The reports published by “Narouze 2018” and “Fleisher 2014” were scored as being of “high-quality” and having an adequate interrater agreement (Cohen’s kappa ≥0.60). Overall, the AGREE II domains of “clarity of presentation” and “scope and purpose” yielded the highest scores (100%), whereas the domain “stakeholder involvement” scored the lowest score (48.5%). The perioperative management of antiplatelet and anticoagulant agents in elective spine surgery may be challenging. Because of the lack of high-quality data in this field, uncertainty remains regarding the optimal practices to balance the risk of thromboembolism against that of bleeding.

The perioperative management of patients medicated with antithrombotic agents who require elective spinal surgery is extremely challenging because of the increased risk of surgical bleeding and the concurrent need to minimize the thromboembolic risk. The aims of the present systematic review are to: (1) identify clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and recommendations (CPRs) on this topic and (2) assess their methodological quality and reporting clarity. An electronic systematic search of the English Medical Literature up to January 31, 2021 was conducted using PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus. Two raters assessed the methodological quality and reporting clarity of the gathered CPGs and CPRs using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool. The agreement between the two raters was assessed using Cohen's kappa. Of the initially gathered 38 CPGs and CPRs, 16 fulfilled our eligibility criteria and were evaluated using the AGREE II instrument. The reports published by "Narouze 2018" and "Fleisher 2014" were scored as being of "high-quality" and having an adequate interrater agreement (Cohen's kappa =0.60). Overall, the AGREE II domains of "clarity of presentation" and "scope and purpose" yielded the highest scores (100%), whereas the domain "stakeholder involvement" scored the lowest score (48.5%). The perioperative management of antiplatelet and anticoagulant agents in elective spine surgery may be challenging. Because of the lack of high-quality data in this field, uncertainty remains regarding the optimal practices to balance the risk of thromboembolism against that of bleeding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Objective The present study describes the preferences and current practices of a sample of knee surgeons in Brazil regarding thromboprophylaxis in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Method In the present internet survey, surgeons from the Brazilian Knee Surgery Society (SBCJ, in the Portuguese acronym) voluntarily answered an anonymous questionnaire including time of personal surgical experience, perceptions about the best thromboprophylaxis options, and actual practices in their work environment. Results From December 2020 to January 2021, 243 participants answered the questionnaire. All, except for 3 (1.2%), reported using thromboprophylaxis, and most (76%) combined pharmacological and mechanical techniques. The most prescribed drug was enoxaparin (87%), which changed to rivaroxaban (65%) after discharge. The time of thromboprophylaxis initiation varied according to the length of training of the knee surgeon (p ≤ 0.03), and their preferences and practices differed according to the Brazilian region (p< 0.05) and the health system in which the surgeons work (public or private sector; p= 0.024). The option for mechanical thromboprophylaxis also depended on the training time of the surgeon. Conclusion Thromboprophylaxis preferences and practices in TKA are diverse across Brazilian regions and health systems (public or private sectors). Given the lack of a national clinical guideline, most orthopedists follow either their hospital guidelines or none. The mechanical prophylaxis method and the little use of aspirin are the points that most diverge from international guidelines and practices.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is common in patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). The optimal heparin regimen remains unknown and should balance thromboembolic and bleeding risks. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of standard or higher heparin regimens for the prevention of VTE in patients hospitalized due to COVID-19. We performed a systematic literature search; studies reporting on hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who received standard heparin prophylaxis vs. high (intermediate or therapeutic) heparin regimens were included if outcome events were reported by treatment group and more than 10 patients were included. Primary study outcome was in-hospital VTE. Secondary study outcomes were major bleeding (MB), all-cause death, fatal bleeding and fatal pulmonary embolism. Overall, 33 studies (11,387 patients) were included. Venous thromboembolic events occurred in 5.2% and in 8.2% of patients who received heparin prophylaxis with at high-dose or standard-dose, respectively (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.55–0.90, I2 48.8%). MB was significantly higher in patients who received high- compared to the standard-dose (4.2% vs 2.2%, RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.47–2.56, I2 18.1%). Sub-analyses showed a slight benefit associated with high-dose heparin in patients admitted to non-intensive care unit (ICU) but not in those to ICU. No significant differences were observed for mortality outcomes. Heparin prophylaxis at high-dose reduces the risk of VTE, but increased the risk of MB compared to the standard-dose. No clinical benefit for heparin high-dose was observed for ICU setting, but its role in the non-ICU deserves further evaluation. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021252550. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]