BACKGROUND: In patients with an indication for oral anticoagulation (OAC) with warfarin, the management of OAC peri-procedure of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is still not fully defined. To investigate clinical practice and outcomes associated with continuation vs interruption of OAC, with or without bridging with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), we examined the database of the observational, prospective, multicenter Italian WAR-STENT registry. METHODS: The WAR-STENT registry was conducted in 2008-2010 in 37 Italian centers and included 411 consecutive patients in 157 of whom the peri-procedural international normalized ratio (INR) value was available. In relation to the continuation vs interruption of OAC, patients were divided into group 1 (n = 106) and group 2 (n = 51) respectively, and compared. RESULTS: The basal characteristics of the two groups were similar. The most frequent indication for OAC was atrial fibrillation and for PCI acute coronary syndromes, respectively. The pre-procedural mean value of INR was significantly different in group 1 vs group 2 (2.3 ± 0.4 vs 1.5 ± 0.2; p <0.001), while the use of antithrombotic drugs did not differ, except for LMWH which, albeit limited to only 14% of cases, was used significantly more frequently in group 2 (14% vs 2%; p=0.006). The radial approach was used significantly more often in group 1 vs group 2 (72% vs 45%; p=0.002). The in-hospital incidence of major bleeding complications was similar in groups 1 and 2 (4% vs 8%; p=0.27), as well as the occurrence of major adverse cardio-cerebrovascular events, including cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, re-revascularization of the treated vessel, stent thrombosis, stroke and venous thromboembolism (6% vs 6%; p=0.95). There was a tendency towards a higher incidence of minor access-site bleeding complications in group 1 patients treated by the femoral route. CONCLUSIONS: In unselected patients with an indication for OAC with warfarin and undergoing PCI, the continuation vs interruption of OAC (essentially without LMWH bridging) strategies appears similar in terms of efficacy and safety. In consideration of the superior convenience, peri-procedural continuation of OAC should therefore generally be preferred, with the possible exception of patients in whom the femoral approach is required for the procedure.
Periprocedural management of anticoagulation therapy and in-hospital outcomes in patients with warfarin indication undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Data from the WAR-STENT registry
Calabro' P.;
2021
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In patients with an indication for oral anticoagulation (OAC) with warfarin, the management of OAC peri-procedure of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is still not fully defined. To investigate clinical practice and outcomes associated with continuation vs interruption of OAC, with or without bridging with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), we examined the database of the observational, prospective, multicenter Italian WAR-STENT registry. METHODS: The WAR-STENT registry was conducted in 2008-2010 in 37 Italian centers and included 411 consecutive patients in 157 of whom the peri-procedural international normalized ratio (INR) value was available. In relation to the continuation vs interruption of OAC, patients were divided into group 1 (n = 106) and group 2 (n = 51) respectively, and compared. RESULTS: The basal characteristics of the two groups were similar. The most frequent indication for OAC was atrial fibrillation and for PCI acute coronary syndromes, respectively. The pre-procedural mean value of INR was significantly different in group 1 vs group 2 (2.3 ± 0.4 vs 1.5 ± 0.2; p <0.001), while the use of antithrombotic drugs did not differ, except for LMWH which, albeit limited to only 14% of cases, was used significantly more frequently in group 2 (14% vs 2%; p=0.006). The radial approach was used significantly more often in group 1 vs group 2 (72% vs 45%; p=0.002). The in-hospital incidence of major bleeding complications was similar in groups 1 and 2 (4% vs 8%; p=0.27), as well as the occurrence of major adverse cardio-cerebrovascular events, including cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, re-revascularization of the treated vessel, stent thrombosis, stroke and venous thromboembolism (6% vs 6%; p=0.95). There was a tendency towards a higher incidence of minor access-site bleeding complications in group 1 patients treated by the femoral route. CONCLUSIONS: In unselected patients with an indication for OAC with warfarin and undergoing PCI, the continuation vs interruption of OAC (essentially without LMWH bridging) strategies appears similar in terms of efficacy and safety. In consideration of the superior convenience, peri-procedural continuation of OAC should therefore generally be preferred, with the possible exception of patients in whom the femoral approach is required for the procedure.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
