SynthesisWorld journal of surgery2017
Safety of Anticoagulation Interruption in Patients Undergoing Surgery or Invasive Procedures: A Systematic Review and Meta-analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials and Non-randomized Studies.
Synthesis in World journal of surgery, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- NOACs in Anesthesiology.Transfusion medicine and hemotherapy : offizielles Organ der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Transfusionsmedizin und Immunhamatologie · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe safety of anticoagulation interruption in patients requiring surgical or invasive procedures remains unclear. We thus performed a systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies (NRS).
methodsMEDLINE, Embase and Central databases were searched to March 2017 without date or language restrictions. We considered RCTs and NRS comparing anticoagulation interruption with any anticoagulation (continuation or heparin bridging) in adult surgical patients taking oral anticoagulation. Data were independently extracted. The quality of the evidence was assessed following recommendations from the Cochrane collaboration (GRADE approach). Risk ratios were calculated for 30-day events: thromboembolic (TE) events, major bleeding and mortality. Additional analyses explored the effects of different anticoagulation strategies.
resultsTwelve reports were included: 4 RCTs (2190 participants) and 8 NRS (18993 participants). Trials included mostly participants with atrial fibrillation. Interrupting anticoagulation did not seem to increase TE events (RR 0.65, 95% CI [0.33, 1.30]-4 studies, 2190 participants) and resulted in less bleeding (RR 0.41, 95% CI [0.22, 0.78]-3 studies, 2126 participants) compared to anticoagulation continuation or heparin bridging. The GRADE assessment was moderate. Similar results were found in non-randomized studies, but the quality of the evidence was low. Possible strategy-specific effects were identified: forgoing heparin bridging seemed beneficial, but these effects were less clear with other strategies.
conclusionInterrupting anticoagulation in patients requiring invasive procedures did not seem to result in harm and protected against major bleeding. Uncertainty remains regarding the safety of this strategy in indications other than atrial fibrillation and in moderate- to high-risk surgery. STUDY REGISTRATION: http://www.en.anaesthesie.usz.ch/research/Pages/Study-protocols.aspx.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.