Cancer provides challenges to the continuity of anticoagulant treatment in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), e.g. through cancer-related surgery or complications. We aimed to provide data on the incidence and reasons for interrupting and discontinuing anticoagulant treatment in AF patients with cancer and to assess its contribution to the risk of thromboembolism (TE) and major bleeding (MB).

This retrospective study identified AF patients with cancer in two hospitals between 2012 and 2017. Data on anticoagulant treatment, TE and MB were collected during two-year follow-up. Incidence rates (IR) per 100 patient-years and adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) were obtained for TE and MB occurring during on- and off-anticoagulant treatment, during interruption and after resumption, and after permanent discontinuation.

1213 AF patients with cancer were identified, of which 140 patients permanently discontinued anticoagulants and 426 patients experienced one or more interruptions. Anticoagulation was most often interrupted or discontinued due to cancer-related treatment (n = 441, 62 %), bleeding (n = 129, 18 %) or end of life (n = 36, 5 %). The risk of TE was highest off-anticoagulation and during interruptions, with IRs of 19 (14-25)) and 105 (64-13), and aHRs of 3.1 (1.9-5.0) and 4.6 (2.4-9.0), respectively. Major bleeding risk were not only increased during an interruption, but also in the first 30 days after resumption, with IRs of 33 (12-72) and 30 (17-48), and aHRs of 3.3 (1.1-9.8) and 2.4 (1.2-4.6), respectively.

Interruption of anticoagulation therapy harbors high TE and MB risk in AF patients with cancer. The high incidence rates call for better (periprocedural) anticoagulant management strategies tailored to the cancer setting.

Literature reviews support continuing anticoagulation during dental procedures. However, studies often present grouped anticoagulation data, and information on individual anticoagulant management would be helpful to dentists. The Edoxaban Management in Diagnostic and Therapeutic Procedures (EMIT-AF/VTE) programme (NCT02950168; NCT02951039) demonstrated low periprocedural bleeding and thrombotic event rates in patients with atrial fibrillation receiving edoxaban.

To report periprocedural edoxaban interruption and clinical events in patients from EMIT-AF/VTE who underwent dental procedures.

Dental procedures were categorised by type (cleaning/noncleaning). Edoxaban interruption, bleeding events, and thrombotic events were observed 5 days preprocedure through 29 days postprocedure.

Overall, 196 patients underwent 350 cleaning and/or noncleaning procedures; most patients (171/196 [87.2%]) underwent noncleaning procedures (282/350 [80.6%]), whereas 48/196 (24.5%) underwent 68/350 (19.4%) cleaning procedures. Edoxaban was uninterrupted for most cleanings (53/68 [77.9%]). Preprocedural interruption was common for single and multiple tooth extractions (single, 67/100 [67.0%]; multiple, 16/30 [53.3%]). The only major bleeding occurred after an unrelated cleaning. Minor bleeding occurred in 1/68 (1.5%) cleaning and 4/282 (1.4%) noncleaning procedures. There were no thrombotic events.

For most cleanings, edoxaban was not interrupted, whereas preprocedural interruption was more common for tooth extractions. Overall, bleeding rates were low, and no thrombotic events occurred.

Most patients diagnosed with venous thromboembolism (VTE) are currently treated with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Before an invasive procedure or surgery, clinicians face the challenging decision of how to best manage DOACs. Should the DOAC be held, for how long, and are there instances where bridging with other anticoagulants should be considered? Although clinical trials indicate that most patients taking DOACs for atrial fibrillation do not require bridging anticoagulation, the optimal strategy for patients with a history of VTE is undefined. In this review, we present a case-based discussion for DOAC interruption perioperatively in patients receiving anticoagulation for management of VTE.

Differences in clinical outcomes following a temporary interruption of warfarin or a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) for a surgical procedure are not well described. Differences in patient characteristics from practice-based cohorts have not typically been accounted for in prior analyses.

To describe risk-adjusted differences in postoperative outcomes following an interruption of warfarin vs DOACs.

Patients receiving care at six anticoagulation clinics participating in the Michigan Anticoagulation Quality Improvement Initiative were included if they had at least one oral anticoagulant interruption for a procedure. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to balance baseline differences between the warfarin cohort and DOAC cohort. Bleeding and thromboembolic events within 30 days following the procedure were compared between the IPTW cohorts using the Poisson distribution test.

A total of 525 DOAC patients were matched with 1323 warfarin patients, of which 923 were nonbridged warfarin patients and 400 were bridged warfarin patients. The occurrence of postoperative minor bleeding (10.8% vs. 4.7%, p < .001), major bleeding (2.9% vs. 1.1%, p = .01) and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (CRNMB) (6.5% vs. 3.0%, p = .002) was greater in the DOAC cohort compared with the nonbridged warfarin cohort. The rates of postoperative bleeding outcomes were similar between the DOAC and the bridged warfarin cohorts.

Perioperative interruption of DOACs, compared with warfarin without bridging, is associated with a higher incidence of 30-day minor bleeds, major bleeds, and CRNMBs. Further research investigating the perioperative outcomes of these two classes of anticoagulants is warranted.

The role of endoscopic procedures, in both diagnostic and therapeutic purposes is continually expanding and evolving rapidly. In this context, endoscopists will encounter patients prescribed on anticoagulant and antiplatelet medications frequently. This poses an increased risk of intraprocedural and delayed gastrointestinal bleeding. Thus, there is now greater importance on optimal pre, peri and post-operative management of anticoagulant and/or antiplatelet therapy to minimise the risk of post-procedural bleeding, without increasing the risk of a thromboembolic event as a consequence of therapy interruption. Currently, there are position statements and guidelines from the major gastroenterology societies. These are available to assist endoscopists with an evidenced-based systematic approach to anticoagulant and/or antiplatelet management in endoscopic procedures, to ensure optimal patient safety. However, since the publication of these guidelines, there is emerging evidence not previously considered in the recommendations that may warrant changes to our current clinical practices. Most notably and divergent from current position statements, is a growing concern regarding the use of heparin bridging therapy during warfarin cessation and its associated risk of increased bleeding, suggestive that this practice should be avoided. In addition, there is emerging evidence that anticoagulant and/or antiplatelet therapy may be safe to be continued in cold snare polypectomy for small polyps (< 10 mm).