Aims: Bridging anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients who need to interrupt vitamin K antagonists for procedures is a clinical dilemma. Currently, guidelines recommend clinicians to take the stroke and bleeding risk into consideration, but no clear thresholds are advised. To aid clinical decision making, we aimed to develop a model in which periprocedural bridging therapy is compared with withholding anticoagulation in AF patients, for several bleeding and stroke risk groups.
Methods and results: A model was developed to simulate both a bridge and a non-bridge cohort, using simulated international normalized ratio (INR) values for patients on warfarin, acenocoumarol, and phenprocoumon. For both clinical strategies, stroke and bleeding risks were included and outcomes were stratified by CHA2DS2-VASc or CHADS2 and HAS-BLED groups. Quality-adjusted life expectancy was the main outcome considered. Our analyses show bridging to only be beneficial for patients with HAS-BLED scores equal or lower to 2 and with CHA2DS2-VASc scores of 6 or higher. For patients using acenocoumarol bridging may be beneficial starting at a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 7. Post-procedural time to therapeutic INR has a significant influence on the results: no significant benefit of bridging was found for patients reaching therapeutic INR values within 5 days.
Conclusion: When deciding whether to bridge anticoagulation, clinicians should consider the patient's individual stroke and bleeding risk, while also considering the patient's post-procedural INR management. In practice, only a small subset of patients is expected to benefit from bridging anticoagulation treatment.
Keywords: Anticoagulation; Bridging; Modelling; Periprocedural management; Vitamin K antagonists.
Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2019. For permissions, please email: [email protected].