Peri-procedural antithrombotic management: time to burn the bridge?

Emerging evidence suggests the use of peri-procedural bridging during interruptions in warfarin therapy increases bleed risk without reducing thromboembolic events. We implemented a peri-procedural anticoagulant management risk assessment tool in a single, outpatient anticoagulation clinic within an academic teaching institution. In this retrospective, pre-post observational study, we evaluated adults who required an interruption in warfarin therapy for an invasive procedure. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who received bridging prior to and following implementation of the tool. Secondary outcomes included major bleeding, clinically relevant non-major bleeding, thromboembolic events, and other surgical complications within 30 days of the index procedure. In total, 149 patients were included. Bridging was recommended in 60% of the pre-intervention group and in 39.3% of the post-intervention group (p = 0.012). There were no significant differences in the secondary outcomes between the groups. However, patients who received bridging had numerically more bleeding events than patients who did not (12.3 vs. 3.9%, p = 0.102), and patients who received therapeutic dose bridging had more bleeding events than those who received modified dose bridging (10.9 vs. 1.4%, p = 0.466). Following implementation of the tool, there was a statistically significant decrease in the number of patients who received bridging without an increase in thromboembolic events. There were numerically higher rates of bleeding in those who received bridging. Additional research is needed to evaluate efficacy and safety of prophylactic versus treatment dose bridging and how implementation of peri-procedural antithrombotic tools reflecting the emerging evidence will affect patient outcomes, satisfaction and healthcare costs.