A randomized controlled trial of dabigatran versus warfarin for periablation anticoagulation in patients undergoing ablation of atrial fibrillation.
Research article published in Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE (2013)
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We aimed to evaluate the feasibility of an oral direct thrombin inhibitor, dabigatran, as a periprocedural anticoagulant for use with ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS: Consecutive patients scheduled to undergo an AF ablation were randomly assigned to receive dabigatran (n = 45) or warfarin (n = 45) to compare their clinical feasibility. Both of those oral anticoagulants were discontinued the day before the ablation and were resumed after confirming hemostasis of the venipuncture site. A bridging therapy with heparin was not used in either of the patient groups. RESULTS: Dabigatran was switched to warfarin before the ablation because of dyspepsia in three patients. An occurrence of rebleeding from the venipuncture site was less common in dabigatran-allocated patients than in warfarin-allocated patients (20% vs 44%; P = 0.013). The reduction in the D-dimer level after the initiation of oral anticoagulants was greater in the dabigatran-allocated patients than in the warfarin-allocated patients. The time from the initiation of the anticoagulants to the ablation was significantly shorter in the dabigatran-allocated patients than in the warfarin-allocated patients (43 ± 7 vs 63 ± 13 days; P < 0.0001). There was only one fatal periprocedural complication in a patient receiving warfarin, who had a mesenteric arterial thrombosis after the ablation. CONCLUSIONS: An anticoagulation strategy with dabigatran may surpass that with warfarin in reducing both the periprocedural risk of minor bleeding and a hypercoagulable state, and the time to ablation in patients undergoing ablation of AF.
Abstract sourced from PubMed (NCBI) for the cited record. See the original publication for the authoritative version.
Summary
A randomized controlled trial of dabigatran versus warfarin for periablation anticoagulation in patients undergoing ablation of atrial fibrillation.
Why This Matters for Hirudotherapy
This randomized controlled trial compared dabigatran (n=45) versus warfarin (n=45) for periprocedural anticoagulation in patients undergoing atrial fibrillation ablation, finding less rebleeding from venipuncture sites, greater D-dimer reduction, and shorter time to ablation with dabigatran. While dabigatran is a direct oral thrombin inhibitor conceptually related to hirudin (the leech-derived thrombin inhibitor), the study has no connection to leeches, hirudotherapy, or the leech secretome. The abstract focuses entirely on comparing two pharmaceutical anticoagulants in a cardiac electrophysiology context, so relevance to ASH's domain is negligible.
Citation
A randomized controlled trial of dabigatran versus warfarin for periablation anticoagulation in patients undergoing ablation of atrial fibrillation.
Nin et al. · Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE, 2013
Added to ASH library: May 28, 2026 · Site last updated: June 18, 2026