Abstract-Because of the recent publication of several important studies, there has been a major change in how we think about perioperative management of anticoagulation. Because of these changes, existing consensus guidelines are suddenly out of date and can no longer be used as is, particularly the 2012 American College of Chest Physicians Antithrombotic Guidelines, version 9. We estimate that well over 90% of patients receiving warfarin therapy should not receive bridging anticoagulation during periprocedural interruptions of therapy, except under unusual circumstances and with appropriate justification. Accumulating evidence also suggests that bridging is not indicated among patients receiving direct-acting oral anticoagulant therapy. The large number of patients potentially affected represents an important safety concern and requires an immediate change in practice. Anticoagulation, with warfarin or a direct-acting oral anticoagulant (DOAC), is extremely effective for treating and preventing thromboembolism. However, anticoagulation often must be interrupted to allow a procedure to occur safely. For years, clinicians have wrestled with the issue of how best to treat patients during such a pause in therapy. In the case of warfarin, the period during which the patient is subtherapeutic can be 2 weeks or even longer in some cases, and there is concern for increased risk of thromboembolism during this period. There is longstanding controversy over the phenomenon of rebound hypercoagulability after the cessation of anticoagulation. 1 Although some studies do seem to confirm that there is activation of the coagulation system shortly after interruption of therapy, 2-4 it is unclear if this phenomenon is clinically meaningful, or how important it would be in the context of a brief periprocedural interruption. For example, a meta-analysis of studies of patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) found that there is a transient increase of 2% in the rate of recurrent VTE during the 2 months after cessation of anticoagulant therapy.5 This difference is small and likely of minimal clinical significance, and would be further eroded in the context of a briefer (10-14 days) interruption.In any case, there is clearly a nonzero risk of thromboembolism during a brief interruption of therapy, although it may be small in absolute terms. A desire to mitigate this risk led to the practice called bridging anticoagulation, which refers to the use of parenteral anticoagulation with either low-molecular weight heparin or intravenous unfractionated heparin to bridge the patient during most of the period when the warfarin therapy is absent. Interestingly, the practice of bridging is based solely on expert opinion; no study has ever demonstrated that this practice prevents thromboembolism (ie, produces any benefit), much less that it prevents more problems than it causes (ie, produces net benefit).
Status Quo Ante: How We Practiced Until RecentlyFor many years, clinical practice in the area of anticoagulation has been largely guided by t...