Chongprasertpon Napohn, Zebrauskaite Aiste, Coughlan John Joseph, Ibrahim Abdalla, Arnous Samer, Hennessy Terence, Kiernan Thomas John
Cardiology, University Hospital Limerick, Dooradoyle, Ireland.
Cardiology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Open Heart. 2019 May 22;6(1):e001026. doi: 10.1136/openhrt-2019-001026. eCollection 2019.
We sought to assess the safety of performing diagnostic radial access coronary angiography with uninterrupted anticoagulation on patients receiving direct oral anticoagulant therapy.
Direct oral anticoagulants have become a popular choice for the prevention of thromboembolism. Risk factors for thromboembolism are common among cardiovascular conditions and indications for direct oral anticoagulant therapy as well as coronary angiography often overlap in patients. It has been hypothesised that uninterrupted direct oral anticoagulant therapy would increase haemorrhagic and access site complications, however data in this area is limited.
This was a prospective observational analysis of 49 patients undergoing elective diagnostic coronary angiography while receiving uninterrupted anticoagulation with direct oral anticoagulants. This population was compared with a control group of 49 unselected patients presenting to the cardiology service for elective diagnostic coronary angiography. Continuous variables were analysed using the independent samples t-test and categorical variables using Pearson's χ test.
The mean duration of radial compression for the control group was 235.8±62.8 min and for the uninterrupted direct oral anticoagulant group was 258.4±56.5 min. There was no significant difference in mean duration of radial compression (p=0.07; 95% CI=-1.4 to 46.5). There was also no difference in the complication rate between the two groups (p=1).
We observed similar complication rates and radial artery compression time postangiography in both groups. This small prospective observational study suggests that uninterrupted continuation of direct oral anticoagulants during coronary angiography is safe. Larger randomised control studies in this area would be beneficial.
我们试图评估在接受直接口服抗凝治疗的患者中,进行诊断性桡动脉入路冠状动脉造影时持续抗凝的安全性。
直接口服抗凝剂已成为预防血栓栓塞的常用选择。血栓栓塞的危险因素在心血管疾病中很常见,直接口服抗凝治疗的适应证与冠状动脉造影的适应证在患者中常常重叠。据推测,持续直接口服抗凝治疗会增加出血和穿刺部位并发症,然而该领域的数据有限。
这是一项对49例接受直接口服抗凝剂持续抗凝的择期诊断性冠状动脉造影患者的前瞻性观察分析。将该人群与49例未经过筛选的因择期诊断性冠状动脉造影就诊于心脏病科的患者组成的对照组进行比较。连续变量采用独立样本t检验分析,分类变量采用Pearson卡方检验分析。
对照组桡动脉压迫的平均持续时间为235.8±62.8分钟,持续直接口服抗凝剂组为258.4±56.5分钟。桡动脉压迫的平均持续时间无显著差异(p = 0.07;95%可信区间=-1.4至46.5)。两组间并发症发生率也无差异(p = 1)。
我们观察到两组造影后的并发症发生率和桡动脉压迫时间相似。这项小型前瞻性观察研究表明,冠状动脉造影期间持续直接口服抗凝剂是安全的。该领域进行更大规模的随机对照研究将是有益的。