Haines David E, Mead-Salley Michelle, Salazar Miguel, Marchlinski Francis E, Zado Erica, Calkins Hugh, Yarmohammadi Hirad, Nademanee Koonlawee, Amnueypol Montawatt, Skanes Allan C, Saklani Pradyot
Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine and Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, MI 48073, USA.
J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2013 Sep;37(3):233-9. doi: 10.1007/s10840-013-9800-z. Epub 2013 Jun 6.
Systemic thromboembolism and bleeding remain the two most common and serious complications of catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation. A variety of periprocedure anticoagulation strategies have been proposed to mitigate these risks. Although operators are now routinely administering dabigatran for anticoagulation in this setting, its relative safety and effectiveness compared to warfarin are unknown.
A total of 202 patients received dabigatran as part of their periprocedural anticoagulation regimen at the time of initial or redo catheter ablation for symptomatic atrial fibrillation. A comparison group of 202 patients treated with warfarin was randomly selected from patients undergoing atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation during the same time period. AF types were paroxysmal in 223 patients, persistent in 158 patients, and longstanding persistent in 13 patients. Mean age was 60.0 ± 10.5 years, 55 % had a history of hypertension, and mean CHADS-VASc score was 1.7 ± 1.3. "Continuous" warfarin or dabigatran was administered in 80 and 32 % of patients, respectively. Time to first dose of dabigatran post-procedure was 12.2 ± 10.3 h. Two dabigatran and no warfarin-treated patients had systemic thromboembolism (p = NS); five dabigatran and three warfarin-treated patients had bleeding complications (p = NS, combined endpoint p = 0.116). One dabigatran patient had severe pericardial bleeding (3 L blood loss).
In a retrospective pilot trial comparing the risks of systemic thromboembolism or bleeding complications in patients treated with warfarin or dabigatran anticoagulation, the outcomes were similar. A prospective trial is warranted.
系统性血栓栓塞和出血仍然是心房颤动导管消融术最常见且最严重的两种并发症。人们已经提出了多种围手术期抗凝策略来降低这些风险。尽管目前在这种情况下,术者常规使用达比加群进行抗凝治疗,但其与华法林相比的相对安全性和有效性尚不清楚。
共有202例患者在初次或再次进行症状性心房颤动导管消融术时,接受达比加群作为围手术期抗凝方案的一部分。从同一时期接受心房颤动(AF)消融术的患者中随机选取202例接受华法林治疗的患者作为对照组。223例患者为阵发性房颤,158例为持续性房颤,13例为长期持续性房颤。平均年龄为60.0±10.5岁,55%有高血压病史,平均CHADS-VASc评分为1.7±1.3。分别有80%和32%的患者接受“持续”华法林或达比加群治疗。术后首次服用达比加群的时间为12.2±10.3小时。两名接受达比加群治疗而未接受华法林治疗的患者发生系统性血栓栓塞(p=无统计学意义);五名接受达比加群治疗和三名接受华法林治疗的患者出现出血并发症(p=无统计学意义,联合终点p=0.116)。一名接受达比加群治疗的患者发生严重心包出血(失血3升)。
在一项比较接受华法林或达比加群抗凝治疗患者的系统性血栓栓塞或出血并发症风险的回顾性试点试验中,结果相似。有必要进行一项前瞻性试验。