American Society of Hirudotherapy

Epistaxis Versus Nonepistaxis Bleeding in Anticoagulated Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: Results From the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 Trial

Research article published in Journal of the American Heart Association (2025)

Last Updated: June 18, 2026Reviewed by: ASH Editorial Board
Research article — evidence reviewArticle reference
Evidence: Randomized controlled trialSafety & Infection ControlSemco et al. · Journal of the American Heart Association, 2025

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Epistaxis is common with antithrombotic therapy and is often troublesome to patients, yet its frequency, severity, and outcomes are poorly characterized. METHODS AND RESULTS: Effective Anticoagulation with Factor Xa Next Generation in Atrial Fibrillation-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 48 (ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48) randomized 21 105 patients with atrial fibrillation and CHADS2 risk score ≥2 to higher-dose edoxaban regimen (60 mg daily, dose-reduced to 30 mg), lower-dose edoxaban regimen (30 mg, dose reduced to 15 mg, daily), or warfarin. Bleeds were adjudicated using International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis criteria. Patients with intracranial hemorrhage during follow-up were excluded; those with >1 bleeding event were categorized according to their most severe event. The safety cohort with interval censoring during drug interruption was analyzed. Proportions were compared using Pearson's chi-square test and treatment arms were compared using a Cox proportional hazards model. Among 5247 patients with a bleeding event, 1008 (19.2%) had epistaxis and 4239 (80.8%) had nonepistaxis bleeding. Epistaxis events were less severe than nonepistaxis bleeds (International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis major: 3.2% versus 20.7%; clinically relevant nonmajor: 64.7% versus 60.1%; minor: 32.1% versus 19.2%; P<0.001). Permanent drug discontinuation was similar following epistaxis versus nonepistaxis bleeding in patients with major (59.4% versus 53.6%; P=0.52) or clinically relevant nonmajor (32.5% versus 33.3%; P=0.70) bleeding but was significantly higher in patients with minor epistaxis versus other minor bleeds (33.3% versus 23.9%; P=0.001). Compared with warfarin, higher-dose edoxaban regimen had similar risk of epistaxis (hazard ratio [HR], 1.09 [95% CI, 0.95-1.26]), whereas lower-dose edoxaban regimen conferred reduced risk (HR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.62-0.86]). CONCLUSIONS: Epistaxis was frequent, and despite being overall less severe than nonepistaxis bleeding, was associated with similar rates of anticoagulant discontinuation. Compared with warfarin, lower-dose edoxaban regimen reduced the risk of epistaxis by 27% whereas higher-dose edoxaban regimen had no effect. REGISTRATION: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov; Unique Identifier: NCT00781391.

Abstract sourced from PubMed (NCBI) for the cited record. See the original publication for the authoritative version.

Publication typeJournal ArticleRandomized Controlled TrialComparative StudyMulticenter Study
Indexed MeSH termsHumansAtrial FibrillationMaleFemaleEpistaxisAgedWarfarinPyridinesFactor Xa InhibitorsThiazolesAnticoagulantsMiddle Aged

Summary

Peer-reviewed research on safety and infection-control considerations relevant to leech therapy and anticoagulation. Indexed in PubMed and verified against the NCBI record.

Why This Matters for Hirudotherapy

This secondary analysis of the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 randomized trial characterized bleeding in 21,105 anticoagulated atrial-fibrillation patients, finding that among 5,247 with a bleeding event, epistaxis (19.2%) was generally less severe than nonepistaxis bleeding yet drove similar rates of permanent anticoagulant discontinuation, and that the lower-dose edoxaban regimen reduced epistaxis risk versus warfarin (HR 0.73) while the higher dose did not. For hirudotherapy this is contextual rather than direct: leech therapy produces a localized, hirudin-mediated anticoagulant effect, and this trial is a useful reminder that even comparatively minor bleeding (epistaxis-like oozing) materially influences clinical decisions and treatment tolerability — relevant when assessing leech therapy in patients already on systemic anticoagulants. The honest caveat is that this is a post-hoc analysis of a pharmacologic anticoagulation trial in atrial fibrillation with no leech component, so any bearing on leech-related bleeding is by analogy only.

Citation

Epistaxis Versus Nonepistaxis Bleeding in Anticoagulated Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: Results From the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 Trial.

Semco et al. · Journal of the American Heart Association, 2025

Added to ASH library: May 28, 2026 · Site last updated: June 18, 2026

This website provides educational information and does not constitute medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment recommendations. Medicinal leech therapy carries clinically meaningful risks and should be performed only by qualified clinicians under institutionally approved protocols. FDA 510(k) clearance for medicinal leeches is limited to specific indications; investigational and off-label discussions are labeled accordingly. For patient-specific guidance, consult a qualified healthcare provider.