...
首页> 外文期刊>Frontiers in Medicine >Minimally Interrupted Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants vs. Bridging Therapy and Uninterrupted Vitamin K Antagonists During Atrial Fibrillation Ablation: A Retrospective Single-Center Study
【24h】

Minimally Interrupted Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants vs. Bridging Therapy and Uninterrupted Vitamin K Antagonists During Atrial Fibrillation Ablation: A Retrospective Single-Center Study

机译:在心房颤动消融期间,微量中断的非维生素K拮抗剂口腔抗凝血剂与桥接治疗和不间断的维生素K拮抗剂:回顾性单中心研究

获取原文
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Objectives: Although the latest international guidelines recommend the use of uninterrupted non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOAC) during atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation, it does not reflect current clinical practice, as most centers still use a minimally interrupted NOAC strategy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of minimally interrupted NOAC compared with bridging therapy and uninterrupted vitamin K antagonist (VKA) for nonvalvular AF ablation. Patients and Methods: A total of 4520 patients who underwent AF ablation between January 2010 and December 2018 were included in the analysis. According to their periprocedural anticoagulation strategies, patients were divided into three groups: Bridging heparin group ( n = 1848); Uninterrupted VKA group ( n = 796) and Minimally interrupted NOAC group (Total n = 1876; dabigatran: n = 865; rivaroxaban, n = 1011). A combined complication endpoint (CCE) as composed of any bleeding complications and thromboembolic events was analyzed. Results: Rates of thromboembolisms were similar among the three groups (0.22% for Bridging heparin group, 0.25% for Uninterrupted VKA group, and 0.11% for Minimally interrupted NOAC group, p = 0.626). There was a significant difference among the three groups for the incidence of overall bleeding events (8.50% for Bridging heparin group, 4.52% for Uninterrupted VKA group, and 2.67% for Minimally interrupted NOAC group, p 0.001). A significant difference of CCE rates was shown in the Minimally interrupted NOAC group as compared with the Uninterrupted VKA group (2.77 vs. 4.77%, p = 0.008) and the Bridging heparin group (2.77 vs. 8.71%, p 0.001). There was no significant difference in CCE rates among the different NOACs (dabigatran 2.89% vs. rivaroxaban 2.67%, p = 0.773). Conclusions: In patients undergoing AF ablation, minimally interrupted NOACs during the periprocedural period appears safer and equally effective when compared to the bridging heparin and uninterrupted VKA therapy.
机译:目标:虽然最新的国际指南建议使用不间断的非维生素K拮抗剂口服抗凝血剂(NOAC)在心房颤动(AF)消融期间,它不反映当前的临床实践,因为大多数中心仍然使用最小中断的诺克策略。本研究的目的是评估与桥接治疗和不间断的维生素K拮抗剂(VKA)相比,对NOAC的巨淀(VKA)进行巨大中断的NOAC的安全性和有效性。患者和方法:2010年1月至2018年1月至2018年12月期间,共有4520名患者被纳入分析。根据其霸权抗凝策略,患者分为三组:桥接肝素组(n = 1848);不间断的VKA组(n = 796)和最小中断的诺卡基组(总n = 1876; dabigatran:n = 865; rivaroxaban,n = 1011)。分析了由任何出血并发症和血栓栓塞事件组成的组合并发症终点(CCE)。结果:三组血栓栓塞率相似(桥接肝素组0.22%,对于不间断的VKA组0.25%,对于微小的Noac基团,P = 0.626,0.11%,P = 0.626)。对于整体出血事件发生率的三组(对于桥接肝素组的8.50%,对于不间断的VKA基团的4.52%,4.52%,对于最小中断的NOAC基团,P <0.001),这三个群体中存在显着差异。与不间断的VKA基团(2.77对4.77%,P = 0.008)和桥接肝素组(2.77 vs.8.71%,P <0.001)相比,CCE速率的显着差异显示在最小中断的诺卡克组中。 CCE率不同的NOACs(Dabigatran 2.89%Vs. rivaroxaban 2.67%,P = 0.773)没有显着差异。结论:在经历AF消融的患者中,与桥接肝素和不间断的VKA疗法相比,在围教社会期间的患者中,在围边渗透期间的巨珠显得更安全,同样有效。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号