American Society of Hirudotherapy

Perioperative anticoagulation management in patients with left ventricular assist devices undergoing elective non-cardiac surgery: a retrospective study of bleeding and thrombosis

Research article published in Journal of thoracic disease (2026)

Last Updated: June 18, 2026Reviewed by: ASH Editorial Board
Research article — evidence reviewArticle reference
Evidence: Research reportSafety & Infection ControlLam et al. · Journal of thoracic disease, 2026

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Perioperative anticoagulation management for left ventricular assist device (LVAD) recipients undergoing elective non-cardiac surgery (NCS) remains uncertain, particularly in Asian populations. The safety of direct warfarin interruption without heparin bridging in procedures of different bleeding risks is a key knowledge gap. This study aimed to quantify 30-day thrombotic and bleeding outcomes after elective NCS in a predominantly Chinese LVAD cohort and identify predictors of perioperative bleeding. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult LVAD recipients undergoing elective NCS in Hong Kong (May 2020-April 2025). Anticoagulation strategies [warfarin continuation vs. interruption with/without low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) bridging] and outcomes were collected. Bleeding was classified by Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC). Univariable associations among bleeding and non-bleeding group were tested with t-tests and Chi-squared/Fisher's exact tests. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients (96.4% Chinese; 94.5% male) underwent 85 procedures [HeartMate II (HMII) 12.7%, HeartMate 3 (HM3) 76.4%, HeartWare 10.9%]; mean 2.52±2.0 years from LVAD implantation to NCS. Warfarin was interrupted without bridging in 84.7%, interrupted with bridging in 7.1%, and continued in 8.2%. Thrombotic events occurred in 1/85 (1.2%). Any bleeding (BARC ≥1) occurred in 10.6%; major bleeding (BARC ≥3a) in 8.2% (3.5% BARC 3a; 4.7% BARC 3b). Thirty-day mortality was 1.2% and readmission 8.2%. Predictors of bleeding included higher creatinine (P<0.001), lower haemoglobin (P=0.02), higher alanine aminotransferase (ALT) (P=0.03), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker/angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ACEi/ARB/ARNI) use (P=0.02), and heart failure etiology (P=0.03). Warfarin continuation (P=0.56), LMWH bridging (P=0.12), LVAD type (P=0.48), and procedural bleeding risk (>0.9) were not associated with bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: Elective NCS in LVAD recipients under locally lower international normalized ratio (INR) targets showed low thrombotic and acceptable bleeding rates. Direct warfarin interruption without bridging, predominantly for minor/low-risk procedures, appeared safe. Renal dysfunction, anemia, elevated ALT, ACEi/ARB/ARNI use, and heart failure etiology may guide individualized perioperative strategies.

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

Publication typeJournal Article

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 retrospective cohort of 55 predominantly Chinese left-ventricular-assist-device (LVAD) recipients undergoing 85 elective non-cardiac procedures found that direct warfarin interruption without heparin bridging (used in 84.7% of cases, mostly minor/low-risk procedures) was associated with low 30-day thrombosis (1.2%) and acceptable bleeding (10.6% any, 8.2% major), with renal dysfunction, anemia, elevated ALT, ACEi/ARB/ARNI use, and heart-failure etiology emerging as bleeding predictors rather than the anticoagulation strategy itself. For ASH this reinforces the central perioperative theme: managing patients who are systemically anticoagulated and undergoing surgery is fundamentally a bleeding-versus-thrombosis balancing act, the same equation relevant when medicinal leeches, which add a local anticoagulant effect, are considered in surgical patients, and it highlights comorbidity-driven bleeding risk factors a team would want to flag. The caveat is that this is a small, single-region retrospective cohort in a highly specific LVAD population with no leech involvement; its findings are population-specific and exploratory regarding predictors, and it serves as anticoagulation-context background only, not as evidence for or against hirudotherapy.

Citation

Perioperative anticoagulation management in patients with left ventricular assist devices undergoing elective non-cardiac surgery: a retrospective study of bleeding and thrombosis.

Lam et al. · Journal of thoracic disease, 2026

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.