Barkun, Alan N

Abstract Optimal management of anticoagulation for patients with aortic mechanical heart valves (MHVs) receiving vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures is clinically challenging. Risk of bleeding from an unanticipated polypectomy or biopsy further complicates this issue. Current guidelines on use of bridging with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for these procedures are based on low-quality evidence. We conducted a subanalysis of a retrospective, multicenter observational study of adult patients with aortic MHVs receiving VKAs who underwent elective gastrointestinal endoscopies (colonoscopy or upper endoscopy). We included patients who underwent the procedure between July 1, 2020, and July 1, 2023, at five centers in Canada and the United States Patients with procedures performed on separate days within a 30-day period were excluded. Efficacy and safety outcomes included thromboembolic events, major bleeding (MB), and clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB) in the 30 days post procedure. A total of 192 endoscopic procedures were analyzed. Median (interquartile range [IQR]) patient age was 66 years (58.2–72.8) and 22% were female. Warfarin was interrupted for 185 procedures (96%). Among these, 119 (64%) received LMWH bridging: 33 (17%) pre-procedure only, 10 (5%) post-procedure only, and 76 (40%) both pre- and post-procedure. Post-procedure LMWH was initiated a median (IQR) of 1 day (1–1) and discontinued 5 days post-procedure (3–8). MB occurred in two patients (1%), CRNMB in two patients (1%), and one death (0.5%) was identified; no thromboembolic events occurred. Prior to propensity score matching (PSM), post-procedure LMWH with or without pre procedure LMWH was associated with the composite outcome of MB and CRNMB (P = 0.034), although not with MB or CRNMB individually. After stepwise regression and PSM analyses, no significant differences in bleeding outcomes were observed between patients who received LMWH bridging and those who did not. Our findings indicate that although adverse thrombotic events were rare and use of post-procedure LMWH bridging was significantly associated with a small absolute increased risk of bleeding, it was not significant after PSM. Larger prospective studies are needed to better inform antithrombotic management guidelines for patients with aortic MHVs undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Abstract Background and study aims Use of fluoroscopy in gastrointestinal endoscopy is an essential aid in advanced endoscopic interventions. However, it also raises concerns about radiation exposure. This study aimed to develop consensus-based statements for safe and effective use of fluoroscopy in gastrointestinal endoscopy, prioritizing the safety and well-being of healthcare workers and patients. Methods A modified Delphi approach was employed to achieve consensus over three rounds of surveys. Proposed statements were generated in Round 1. In the second round, panelists rated potential statements on a 5-point scale, with consensus defined as ≥80% agreement. Statements were subsequently prioritized in Round 3, using a 1 (lowest priority) to 10 (highest priority) scale. Results Forty-six experts participated, consisting of 34 therapeutic endoscopists and 12 endoscopy nurses from six continents, with an overall 45.6% female representation (n = 21). Forty-three item statements were generated in the first round. Of these, 31 statements achieved consensus after the second round. These statements were categorized into General Considerations (n = 6), Education (n = 10), Pregnancy (n = 4), Family Planning (n = 2), Patient Safety (n = 4), and Staff Safety (n = 5). In the third round, accepted statements received mean priority scores ranging from 7.28 to 9.36, with 87.2% of statements rated as very high priority (mean score ≥ 9). Conclusions This study presents consensus-based statements for safe and effective use of fluoroscopy in gastrointestinal endoscopy, addressing the well-being of healthcare workers and patients. These consensus-based statements aim to mitigate risks associated with radiation exposure while maintaining benefits of fluoroscopy, ultimately promoting a culture of safety in healthcare settings.

INTRODUCTION: The periprocedural management of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) using a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) undergoing elective gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedure remains uncertain. We investigated the safety of a standardized periprocedural DOAC management strategy. METHODS: The Periprocedural Anticoagulation Use for Surgery Evaluation cohort study enrolled adult patients receiving a DOAC (apixaban, rivaroxaban, or dabigatran) for AF scheduled for an elective procedure or surgery. This analysis addresses patients undergoing digestive endoscopy. Standardized periprocedural management consisted of DOAC interruption 1 day preendoscopy with resumption 1 day after procedure at low-moderate risk of bleeding or 2 days in case of a high bleeding risk. Thirty-day outcomes included GI bleeding, thromboembolic events, and mortality. RESULTS: Of 556 patients on a DOAC (mean [SD] age of 72.5 [8.6] years; 37.4% female; mean CHADS 2 score 1.7 [1.0]), 8.6% were also on American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) and 0.7% on clopidogrel. Most of the patients underwent colonoscopies (63.3%) or gastroscopies (14.0%), with 18.9% having both on the same procedural day. The mean total duration of DOAC interruption was 3.9 ± 1.6 days. Four patients experienced an arterial thromboembolic event (0.7%, 0.3%–1.8%) within 24.2 ± 5.9 days of DOAC interruption. GI bleeding events occurred in 2.5% (1.4%–4.2%) within 11.1 ± 8.1 days (range: 0.6; 25.5 days) of endoscopy, with major GI bleeding in 0.9% (0.4%–2.1%). Three patients died (0.5%; 0.2%–1.6%) 15.6–22.3 days after the endoscopy. DISCUSSION: After a contemporary standardized periprocedural management strategy, patients with AF undergoing DOAC therapy interruption for elective digestive endoscopy experienced low rates of arterial thromboembolism and major bleeding.

We conducted systematic reviews of predefined clinical questions and used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach to develop recommendations for the periendoscopic management of anticoagulant and antiplatelet drugs during acute gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and the elective endoscopic setting. The following recommendations target patients presenting with acute GI bleeding: For patients on warfarin, we suggest against giving fresh frozen plasma or vitamin K; if needed, we suggest prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) compared with fresh frozen plasma administration; for patients on direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), we suggest against PCC administration; if on dabigatran, we suggest against the administration of idarucizumab, and if on rivaroxaban or apixaban, we suggest against andexanet alfa administration; for patients on antiplatelet agents, we suggest against platelet transfusions; and for patients on cardiac acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) for secondary prevention, we suggest against holding it, but if the ASA has been interrupted, we suggest resumption on the day hemostasis is endoscopically confirmed. The following recommendations target patients in the elective (planned) endoscopy setting: For patients on warfarin, we suggest continuation as opposed to temporary interruption (1–7 days), but if it is held for procedures with high risk of GI bleeding, we suggest against bridging anticoagulation unless the patient has a mechanical heart valve; for patients on DOACs, we suggest temporarily interrupting rather than continuing these; for patients on dual antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention, we suggest temporary interruption of the P2Y 12 receptor inhibitor while continuing ASA; and if on cardiac ASA monotherapy for secondary prevention, we suggest against its interruption. Evidence was insufficient in the following settings to permit recommendations. With acute GI bleeding in patients on warfarin, we could not recommend for or against PCC administration when compared with placebo. In the elective periprocedural endoscopy setting, we could not recommend for or against temporary interruption of the P2Y 12 receptor inhibitor for patients on a single P2Y 12 inhibiting agent. We were also unable to make a recommendation regarding same-day resumption of the drug vs 1–7 days after the procedure among patients prescribed anticoagulants (warfarin or DOACs) or P2Y 12 receptor inhibitor drugs because of insufficient evidence.

Performance of endoscopic procedures is associated with a risk of infection from COVID-19. This risk can be reduced by the use of personal protective equipment (PPE). However, shortage of PPE has emerged as an important issue in managing the pandemic in both traditionally high and low-resource areas. A group of clinicians and researchers from thirteen countries representing low, middle, and high-income areas has developed recommendations for optimal utilization of PPE before, during, and after gastrointestinal endoscopy with particular reference to low-resource situations. We determined that there is limited flexibility with regard to the utilization of PPE between ideal and low-resource settings. Some compromises are possible, especially with regard to PPE use, during endoscopic procedures. We have, therefore, also stressed the need to prevent transmission of COVID-19 by measures other than PPE and to conserve PPE by reduction of patient volume, limiting procedures to urgent or emergent, and reducing the number of staff and trainees involved in procedures. This guidance aims to optimize utilization of PPE and protection of health care providers.