This large retrospective study compared three different periprocedural anticoagulation regimes in patients undergoing left atrial ablation procedures. Bridging the VKA with LMWH was associated with a 3-fold higher risk of major complications and a 4.5 fold higher risk of bleeding complications compared to the other groups. Interrupted VKA (Bridging), at a comparable rate of minor complications, had a non-significant increased risk of groin haemorrhage. But it was less effective in preventing major complications compared to uninterrupted VKA and DOAC.
Periprocedural outcomes
The incidence of periprocedural thromboembolic events reported in the literature in patients undergoing AF ablation ranges from 0.1% to 1.1% [
2,
10], and bleeding complications were reported to occur within a range of 12% to 20% [
11]. In our study the overall rate of thromboembolic complications was 1.0% (
n = 8), the rate of major bleeding complication 2.4% and the rate of minor bleeding complications 7.6%. This is comparable, albeit lower than in previously reported studies.
Continuation of oral anticoagulation therapy with VKA during catheter ablation is the recommended periprocedural strategy in the recent HRS/EHRA/APHRS (Heart Rhythm Society/European HeartRhythm Association/Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society) consensus statement [
8]. For DOACs, the European Heart Rhythm Association’s practical guide on the use of non-VKA anticoagulants in patients with non-valvular AF recommends a cessation [
12], although large trials showed that uninterrupted DOACs were also safe during ablation procedure [
6,
7]. Nonetheless ‘bridging’ VKA-therapy is still a common strategy using different heparins and regimes [
5,
13]. Recently data were presented in VKA-treated patients, that bridging with LMWH has no benefit regarding thromboembolic events but is inferior concerning bleeding complications [
14,
15]. For catheter ablation an increase of groin hematoma and other bleeding complications has been described [
4].
Complication rate with bridging
We found a three times higher rate of major complications in the Bridging group (8.1%) than in patients using uninterrupted regimens (2.5% and 2.9%, respectively). This was mostly due to major vascular events and pericardial effusion requiring puncture, although the single endpoint missed statistical significance. There was also a trend for more groin hemorrhages in the Bridging group, which was significant for minor events only. Regarding particularly pericardial effusion and major bleedings that needed further intervention, it might be of special clinical interest that the risk of occurrence is even higher in the Bridging group. This was on the background that patient characteristics were fairly similar albeit with a higher HAS-BLED score for Bridging and VKA patients compared to DOAC patients (
p = 0.006) and more patients using aspirin and other anti-platelet drugs in the Bridging group compared to both other groups. Previous studies have shown excessive anticoagulation to be associated with a higher incidence of large effusion and tamponade [
16]; the higher level of anticoagulation in the bridging group may thus explain their nominally higher rate of major pericardial effusion.
Overall, patient-related bleeding risk was very low (median HAS-BLED Score 1). Therefore, its influence on the complications is rather negligible and it can be assumed that the complications tend to be due to the intervention and the periprocedural management. Upon a thorough literature review, we found a recent meta-analysis including 13 studies with over 17.000 patients that summarized major bleeding complication with either uninterrupted warfarin compared to interrupted warfarin or heparin bridging [
14]. Patients on uninterrupted warfarin had a lower risk of combined stroke/TIA compared with the bridging group (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.62;
p = 0.003). The results further confirm our finding of a reduced rate of major bleeding (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.95;
p = 0.02) as well as minor bleeding (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.52;
p < 0.0001) with uninterrupted warfarin compared to interrupted warfarin. This correspond to a recent published single-centre trial from Germany which was comparable to our study with respect to patient characteristics [
13]. A notable difference between the data and our results was that DOACs were paused 48 h prior to ablation. Gunawardene et al. showed bleeding rates of 5.22% in the DOAC group, 6.97% in VKA group, and 10.8% in the Bridging group. The combined complication risk (thromboembolic events and bleeding) was nearly 2-fold higher in the bridging group (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.0 to 3.7,
p = 0.049) compared to the others.
One potential reason for the high bleeding rate seen in the Bridging group may be borne from the difficulty to quantify hemostasis exactly when restarting VKA after the intervention [
13]. Recent guidelines recommend to give the first LMWH in procedures with high bleeding risk 48 – 72 h after the intervention [
17]. In our patient population, UFH was perfused until removal of the pressure bandage and LMWH was started as soon as possible if no bleeding complications were seen (until INR < 2.0).
Prior literature recommending bridging VKA was potentially based on a medium to high risk for thromboembolic events population where, at the same time the risk of bleeding was underestimated. In our particular population, the majority of enrolled patients (approx. 74%) was documented to have a low thromboembolic risk with a CHA
2DS
2-VASc of 2 or less (Table
2) which was comparable to other study reports [
13,
18,
19]. Further, we observed only a few thromboembolic events with a rate of about 1%, which is in agreement with other data [
6]. In agreement with our data, the recent guidelines do not recommend bridging low-risk patients (ACC: CHA
2DS
2-VASc score 0–4 with no prior stroke/TIA/SE; CHEST: CHADS
2-score less than two and no prior stroke/TIA) [
5,
20].
The HAS-BLED bleeding risk assessment we performed was based on the guidelines at the time of study initiation [
21]. Most patients were on low risk if categorized by HAS-BLED. This was comparable to other peri-ablation studies [
6,
14]. The ACC Guideline for periprocedural management now focus on an expanded HAS-BLED Score with regard on the patient’s individual bleeding risk (including prior bleed event within 3 months, quantitative or qualitative platelet abnormality, INR above the therapeutic range at the time of the procedure, bleeding history from previous bridging and bleed history with similar procedure) [
17]. This could be also a reason we missed to exclude patients from bridging.
Safety of DOAC
A recent meta-analysis has summarized major bleeding complications of uninterrupted DOAC vs. uninterrupted VKA [
6,
14]. They included 8 datasets covering 3.544 patients and found no difference in the risk of stroke/TIA (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.14 to 2.96;
p = 0.58) or major bleeding (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.87;
p = 0.87). In addition, no differences were observed in minor bleeding (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.28;
p = 0.66), cardiac tamponade (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.31;
p = 1.00) and all bleeding complications (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.29;
p = 0.65). They also reported no differences between DOACs [
6].
Our study shows similar rates for cerebrovascular events (OR 1.21, 95% CI (0.27 to 5.45;
p = 1.0), major complications (1.14, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.92;
p = 0.82) and minor complications (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.75;
p = 1.0) in the DOAC compared to the VKA group, confirming that DOACs can be used safely during catheter ablation. It is noteworthy that in the DOAC and the Bridging group there have been only TIAs, whereas in the VKA group strokes occurred (Table
6). The reason could be that bridged patients are at higher level of anticoagulation than the uninterrupted VKA patients and DOACs might be highly effective in preventing stroke, especially when not paused. The “simply-passed-on” strategy used in the study seems to be a safe regime not resulting in more complications and preventing major cerebrovascular events. In contrast to our study most DOAC-protocols use delayed (e.g., start after procedure), shortly interrupted (e.g., morning dose paused) or otherwise changed periprocedural DOAC regimes [
6,
13]. Our anticoagulation regime of giving the uninterrupted DOAC like prescribed is very simple and feasible for clinical practice. Further, in the DOAC group the rate of major pericardial effusion requiring further intervention was similar to the other groups with no statistical difference. As these left atrial procedures are classified as high-risk interventions due to the necessary transseptal puncture this result implicates that DOACs can be used unpaused without increasing the risk for this adverse event. In the recently presented RE-CIRCUIT study with 635 patients the uninterrupted DOAC was superior to VKA regarding the bleeding complications (1.6% in the dabigatran group vs 6.9% in the warfarin group) [
7].
The “simply-passed-on” strategy is currently under further examination in some large studies such as AXAFA (Apixaban;
clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02227550) and VENTURE-AF (Rivaroxaban). The latter with a patient number of 250 patient randomly assigned to either uninterrupted rivaroxaban vs. uninterrupted VKA found the use of uninterrupted oral rivaroxaban to be feasible and event rates being similar to those for uninterrupted VKA therapy [
22]. In contrast to our study these studies don’t compare to a VKA-Bridging group.
Limitations
This is an observational study with its known biases and limitations. There were no long-term information about hemostasis of the patients because the strategy and monitoring of anticoagulation management was based on the treating physician’s preferences. The post-procedure follow up was very short and only during the hospital stay. Additional follow up examinations might have brought up the long-term differences in the safety profile of the different regimes. Additionally, given that grouping was retrospective based on medical records, a modest proportional shift away from VKA use/bridging and towards DOAC use over time was seen, reflective of the latter’s increasing availability and uptake. As such, we cannot unequivocally rule out the potential influence of biases associated with temporal trends, such as movement towards use of cryobaloon ablation. The latter may have affected major PE rates, given that it most commonly occurs due to mechanical perforation (or steam pops) in patients undergoing radiofrequency ablation; nevertheless, there was substantial overlap in procedural timing between groups throughout the study.