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.
Resumen
A randomized controlled trial of dabigatran versus warfarin for periablation anticoagulation in patients undergoing ablation of atrial fibrillation.
Por qué esto importa para la hirudoterapia
Este ensayo controlado aleatorizado comparó dabigatrán (n=45) frente a warfarina (n=45) para la anticoagulación periprocedimiento en pacientes sometidos a ablación por fibrilación auricular, encontrando menos resangrado en los sitios de punción venosa, mayor reducción del dímero D y un tiempo más corto hasta la ablación con dabigatrán. Si bien el dabigatrán es un inhibidor directo oral de la trombina conceptualmente relacionado con la hirudina (el inhibidor de la trombina derivado de la sanguijuela), el estudio no tiene conexión alguna con las sanguijuelas, la hirudoterapia ni el secretoma de la sanguijuela. El resumen se centra por completo en comparar dos anticoagulantes farmacéuticos en un contexto de electrofisiología cardíaca, por lo que la relevancia para el dominio de ASH es insignificante.
Citación
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
Contexto clínico relacionado
Explore cómo esta investigación se conecta con la práctica clínica
Añadido a la biblioteca ASH: May 28, 2026 · Última actualización del sitio: June 18, 2026