Remaining activity of temporary interrupted direct oral anticoagulants and its impact on intra-ablation heparinization in patients with atrial fibrillation: Comparisons across four drugs and two dose regimens.
atrial fibrillation ablation
direct oral anticoagulants
heparin requirement
residual activity
temporary interruption
Journal
Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology
ISSN: 1540-8167
Titre abrégé: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9010756
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 2020
08 2020
Historique:
received:
27
01
2020
revised:
13
05
2020
accepted:
22
05
2020
pubmed:
28
5
2020
medline:
29
7
2021
entrez:
28
5
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation with minimally interrupted direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) may raise a concern about their remaining activity. We tested the residual activity of four different DOACs and its impact on intraprocedural heparinization in patients undergoing AF ablation. We measured the anti-factor Χa activity for rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban, and serum DOAC concentration for rivaroxaban, apixaban, and dabigatran, 24 hours after the last intake in patients undergoing AF ablation treated with standard or reduced doses of DOACs. The heparin requirement during the procedure was also measured. We enrolled 34 patients with rivaroxaban, 35 with apixaban, 32 with edoxaban, and 31 with dabigatran, and among them, 30 were treated with reduced doses. The anti-factor Χa activity was the highest in the apixaban group among the patients with standard doses. The DOAC concentration was paradoxically lower in patients with standard doses than in those with reduced doses among the patients with rivaroxaban (34.3 ± 19.8 vs 56.6 ± 7.7 ng/mL; P = .01) and dabigatran (12.6 ± 10.6 vs 23.4 ± 14.7 ng/mL; P = .03). The total heparin requirement per body surface area had significant correlations with the anti-factor Χa activity (r = -.36) and DOAC concentration (r = -.32). Two different multiple linear regression models (adjusted R Factors determining residual DOAC activity may include its type and dose regimen, and it may influence the heparin requirement during AF ablation.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation with minimally interrupted direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) may raise a concern about their remaining activity. We tested the residual activity of four different DOACs and its impact on intraprocedural heparinization in patients undergoing AF ablation.
METHODS
We measured the anti-factor Χa activity for rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban, and serum DOAC concentration for rivaroxaban, apixaban, and dabigatran, 24 hours after the last intake in patients undergoing AF ablation treated with standard or reduced doses of DOACs. The heparin requirement during the procedure was also measured.
RESULTS
We enrolled 34 patients with rivaroxaban, 35 with apixaban, 32 with edoxaban, and 31 with dabigatran, and among them, 30 were treated with reduced doses. The anti-factor Χa activity was the highest in the apixaban group among the patients with standard doses. The DOAC concentration was paradoxically lower in patients with standard doses than in those with reduced doses among the patients with rivaroxaban (34.3 ± 19.8 vs 56.6 ± 7.7 ng/mL; P = .01) and dabigatran (12.6 ± 10.6 vs 23.4 ± 14.7 ng/mL; P = .03). The total heparin requirement per body surface area had significant correlations with the anti-factor Χa activity (r = -.36) and DOAC concentration (r = -.32). Two different multiple linear regression models (adjusted R
CONCLUSIONS
Factors determining residual DOAC activity may include its type and dose regimen, and it may influence the heparin requirement during AF ablation.
Substances chimiques
Anticoagulants
0
Pharmaceutical Preparations
0
Pyridones
0
Rivaroxaban
9NDF7JZ4M3
Dabigatran
I0VM4M70GC
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1996-2004Informations de copyright
© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Wazni OM, Beheiry S, Fahmy T, et al. Atrial fibrillation ablation in patients with therapeutic international normalized ratio: comparison of strategies of anticoagulation management in the periprocedural period. Circulation. 2007;116:2531-2534.
Calkins H, Hindricks G, Document Reviewers, et al. 2017 HRS/EHRA/ECAS/APHRS/SOLAECE expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation. Europace. 2018;20(1):157-208.
Sairaku A, Nakano Y, Kihara Y. Does dabigatran interfere with intraablation heparinization? Thromb Res. 2014;134:742-743.
Cappato R, Marchlinski FE, VENTURE-AF Investigators, et al. Uninterrupted rivaroxaban vs. uninterrupted vitamin K antagonists for catheter ablation in non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Eur Heart J. 2015;36(28):1805-1811.
Calkins H, Willems S, RE-CIRCUIT Investigators, et al. Uninterrupted dabigatran versus warfarin for ablation in atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:1627-1636.
Steffel J, Verhamme P, ESC Scientific Document Group, et al. The 2018 European Heart Rhythm Association Practical Guide on the use of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation. Eur Heart J. 2018;39:1330-1393.
Godier A, Dincq AS, Martin AC, et al. Predictors of pre-procedural concentrations of direct oral anticoagulants: a prospective multicentre study. Eur Heart J. 2017;38:2431-2439.
Denny NDR, Keighley L, Siganporia Z, Thachil J, Nash MJ. A level-headed approach to measuring direct oral anticoagulants: a 2-year retrospective analysis of DOAC levels from a tertiary UK centre. Int J Lab Hematol. 2019;41:200-207.
Sairaku A, Nakano Y, Onohara Y, et al. Residual anticoagulation activity in atrial fibrillation patients with temporary interrupted direct oral anticoagulants: comparisons across 4 drugs. Thromb Res. 2019;183:119-123.
Connolly SJ, Ezekowitz MD, RE-LY Steering Committee and Investigators, et al. Dabigatran versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:1139-1151.
Granger CB, Alexander JH, ARISTOTLE Committees and Investigators, et al. Apixaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:981-992.
Giugliano RP, Ruff CT, ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 Investigators, et al. Edoxaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:2093-2104.
Patel MR, Mahaffey KW, ROCKET AF Investigators, et al. Rivaroxaban versus warfarin in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:883-891.
Hori M, Matsumoto M, J-ROCKET AF study investigators, et al. Safety and efficacy of adjusted dose of rivaroxaban in Japanese patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation: subanalysis of J-ROCKET AF for patients with moderate renal impairment. Circ J. 2013;77:632-638.
Farmakis D, Davlouros P, Giamouzis G, et al. Direct oral anticoagulants in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: practical considerations on the choice of agent and dosing. Cardiology. 2018;140:126-132.
Levy JH, Ageno W, Subcommittee on Control of Anticoagulation, et al. When and how to use antidotes for the reversal of direct oral anticoagulants: guidance from the SSC of the ISTH. J Thromb Haemost. 2016;14:623-627.
Watanabe R, Sairaku A, Yoshida Y, et al. Head-to-head comparison of acute and chronic pulmonary vein stenosis for cryoballoon versus radiofrequency ablation. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2018;41:376-382.
Cappato R, Marchlinski FE, VENTURE-AF Investigators, et al. Uninterrupted rivaroxaban vs. uninterrupted vitamin K antagonists for catheter ablation in non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Eur Heart J. 2015;36:1805-1811.
Calkins H, Willems S, RE-CIRCUIT Investigators, et al. Uninterrupted dabigatran versus warfarin for ablation in atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:1627-1636.