Американское общество гирудотерапии

Anticoagulation of patients on chronic warfarin undergoing arrhythmia device surgery: wide variability of perioperative bridging in Canada.

Research article published in Heart rhythm (2009)

Последнее обновление: June 18, 2026Рецензент: ASH Editorial Board
Research article — evidence reviewArticle reference
Evidence: Research reportКлинические исследованияKrahn et al. · Heart rhythm, 2009

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In patients undergoing cardiac rhythm device surgery, it is common practice to discontinue oral anticoagulation and to perform heparin bridging in order to reduce the risk of bleeding and minimize the risk of thromboembolic events. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the perioperative anticoagulation strategies currently in use. METHODS: A survey presented four clinical scenarios of patients on oral anticoagulation undergoing cardiac rhythm device surgery. The scenarios represented a gradient of perceived thromboembolic risk based on the presence of atrial fibrillation, a mechanical heart valve, previous stroke, and the remainder of the CHADS(2) risk factors (congestive heart failure, hypertension, age >75 years, diabetes, previous stroke or transient ischemic attack). Respondents were offered six options that included discontinuing oral anticoagulation without heparin, three different heparin bridging protocols, and ongoing oral anticoagulation with reduced or therapeutic dose warfarin. RESULTS: Based on responses from 38 (61%) of 62 electrophysiologists surveyed across Canada, 83% of respondents held warfarin without bridging in a low-risk, 78-year-old patient with atrial fibrillation (CHADS(2) score 1). In three higher-risk patient scenarios, 67% to 100% of respondents chose heparin bridging or ongoing warfarin; 38% to 72% of respondents chose heparin bridging, with 23% to 36% choosing variable use of ongoing warfarin. In all three cases where respondents indicated that they would bridge, each of the three heparin regimens was chosen by at least 20% of respondents. CONCLUSION: There is a wide range of approaches to perioperative management in patients on oral anticoagulation undergoing cardiac rhythm device surgery. Clinical equipoise is evident and supports the need for comparative studies.

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

Publication typeJournal Article
Indexed MeSH termsAgedAnticoagulantsAtrial FibrillationCanadaCardiac Pacing, ArtificialCardiac Surgical ProceduresChronic DiseaseHealth Care SurveysHemorrhageHumansPerioperative CareRisk Assessment

Резюме

Anticoagulation of patients on chronic warfarin undergoing arrhythmia device surgery: wide variability of perioperative bridging in Canada.

Почему это важно для гирудотерапии

This study surveyed electrophysiologists across Canada to determine the perioperative anticoagulation strategies used for patients on chronic warfarin undergoing arrhythmia device surgery. It found a wide variability in practices regarding heparin bridging versus continuing oral anticoagulants, highlighting clinical equipoise. There is no defensible link to hirudotherapy, the leech secretome, or the American Society of Hirudotherapy's domain in this abstract. The research focuses exclusively on perioperative management using warfarin and heparin. Neither leeches nor leech-derived anticoagulants like hirudin are mentioned, rendering it entirely unrelated to the society's research focus.

Цитирование

Anticoagulation of patients on chronic warfarin undergoing arrhythmia device surgery: wide variability of perioperative bridging in Canada.

Krahn et al. · Heart rhythm, 2009

Связанный клинический контекст

Узнайте, как это исследование связано с клинической практикой

Добавлено в библиотеку ASH: May 28, 2026 · Последнее обновление сайта: June 18, 2026

Этот сайт предоставляет образовательную информацию и не является медицинской консультацией, диагнозом или рекомендацией по лечению. Гирудотерапия сопряжена с клинически значимыми рисками и должна проводиться только квалифицированными клиницистами в рамках институционально утверждённых протоколов. Разрешение FDA 510(k) для медицинских пиявок ограничено определёнными показаниями; обсуждения исследовательского и нелицензионного применения отмечены соответствующим образом. Для индивидуальных медицинских рекомендаций обратитесь к квалифицированному медицинскому специалисту.