Clinical outcomes with unfractionated heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin as bridging therapy in patients on long-term oral anticoagulants: The REGIMEN registry

Alex C. Spyropoulos, Alexander Turpie, Andrew S. Dunn, John Spandorfer, Jim Douketis, Alan Jacobson, F. J. Frost, Mike West, David Green, Mark Campbell, Richard Krasuski, Tom Ortel, Susan O'Shea, Steven Deitelzweig, Jim Muntz, Fred Spencer, Syed Jafri, Scott Kaatz

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

162 Scopus citations

Abstract

Background: Patients who receive long-term oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapy often require interruption of OAC for an elective surgical or an invasive procedure. Heparin bridging therapy has been used in these situations, although the optimal method has not been established. No large prospective studies have compared unfractionated heparin (UFH) withlow-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for the perioperative management of patients at risk of thromboembolism requiring temporary interruption of long-term OAC therapy. Patients/methods: This multicenter, observational, prospective registry conducted in North America enrolled 901 eligible patients on long-term OAC who required heparin bridging therapy for anelective surgical or invasive procedure. Practice patterns and clinical outcomeswere compared between patientswho received either UFH alone (n = 180) or LMWH alone (n = 721). Results: Overall, the majority of patients (74.5%) requiring heparin bridging therapy had arterial indications for OAC. LMWH, in mostly twice-daily treatment doses, represented approximately 80% of the study population. LMWH-bridged patients had significantly fewer arterial indications for OAC, a lower mean Charlson comorbidity score, and were less likely to undergo major or cardiothoracic surgery, receive intraprocedural anticoagulants or thrombolytics, or receive general anesthesia than UFH-bridged patients (all P < 0.05). The LMWH group had significantly more bridging therapy completed in an outpatient setting or with a < 24-h hospital stay vs. the UFH group (63.6% vs. 6.1%, P < 0.001). In the LMWH and UFH groups, similar rates of overall adverse events (16.2% vs. 17.1%, respectively, P = 0.81), major composite adverse events (arterial/venous thromboembolism, major bleed, and death; 4.2% vs. 7.9%, respectively, P = 0.07) and major bleeds (3.3% vs. 5.5%, respectively, P = 0.25) were observed. The thromboembolic event rates were 2.4% forUFH and 0.9% for LMWH. Logistic regression analysis revealed that for postoperative heparin use a Charlson comorbidity score > 1 was an independent predictor of a major bleed and that vascular, general, and major surgery were associated with nonsignificant trends towards an increased risk of major bleed. Conclusions: Treatment-dose LMWH, mostly in the outpatient setting, is used substantially more often than UFH as bridging therapy in patients with predominately arterial indications for OAC. Overall adverse events, including thromboembolism and bleeding, are similar for patients treated with LMWHor UFH. Postoperative heparin bridging should be used with caution in patients with multiple comorbidities and those undergoing vascular, general, and major surgery. These findings need to be confirmed using large randomized trials for specific patient undergoing specific procedures.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1246-1252
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis
Volume4
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 2006

Keywords

  • Bridging therapy
  • Low-molecular-weight heparin
  • Oral anticoagulants
  • Thrombosis
  • Unfractionated heparin

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Clinical outcomes with unfractionated heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin as bridging therapy in patients on long-term oral anticoagulants: The REGIMEN registry'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this