ReviewFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2022
Uninterrupted DOACs Approach for Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation: Do DOACs Levels Matter?
Review in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2022. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety and Efficacy of Uninterrupted Oral Anticoagulation in Patients Undergoing Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation with Different Techniques.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Most patients present for catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (CAAF) with residual or full effect of vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). In daily practice, it has been observed that the activated clotting time (ACT) was actually poorly sensitive to the effect of DOACs and that patients on DOACs required more unfractionated heparin (UFH) to achieve the ACT target of 300 s during the procedure, leading some authors to worry about potential overdosing. Conversely, we hypothesize that these higher doses of UFH are necessary to achieve adequate hemostasis during CAAF regardless of the residual effect of DOACs. During CAAF, thrombosis is promoted mainly by the presence of thrombogenic sheaths and catheters in the bloodstream. Preclinical data suggest that only high doses of DOACs are able to mitigate catheter-induced thrombin generation, whereas low dose UFH already do so. In addition, the effect of UFH seems to be lower in patients on DOACs, compared to patients on VKAs, explaining part of the differences observed in heparin requirements. Clinical studies could not identify increased bleeding risk in patients on DOACs compared to those on VKAs despite similar efficacy during CAAF procedures. Moreover, targeting a lower ACT was associated with an increased periprocedural thrombotic risk for both DOAC and VKA patients. Therefore, the low sensitivity of the ACT to the residual effect of DOACs should not be a major concern in its use in the interventional cardiology laboratory.
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.