Meta-analysis of uninterrupted as compared to interrupted oral anticoagulation with or without bridging in patients undergoing coronary angiography with or without percutaneous coronary intervention

ObjectivesTo assess safety and effectiveness of different periprocedural antithrombotic strategies in patients receiving long-term oral anticoagulation and undergoing coronary angiography with or without percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).MethodsStudies comparing uninterrupted oral anticoagulation (UAC) with vit. K antagonists vs interrupted oral anticoagulation (IAC) with or without bridging anticoagulation before coronary procedures were eligible for inclusion in the current meta-analysis. Endpoints selected were 30-day composite of major adverse cardiovascular or cerebrovascular and thromboembolic events (MACCE) and major bleeding.ResultsEight studies (7 observational and 1 randomized controlled trial [N = 2325pts.]) were included in the analysis. There was no difference in MACCE between UAC and IAC; RR (95%CIs): 0.74 (0.34-1.64); p = 0.46 but there was a statistically significant MACCE risk reduction with UAC as compared to IAC with bridging: 0.52 (0.29-0.95); p = 0.03. Likewise, there were no statistically significant differences between UAC vs IAC in regard to major bleeding: 0.62 (0.16-2.43); p = 0.49; but as compared to IAC with bridging, UAC was associated with statistically significant 65% lower risk of major bleeding: 0.35 (0.13-0.92); p = 0.03. Additionally, meta-regression analysis revealed significant linear correlation between log RR of MACCE (β = − 4.617; p < 0.001) and major bleeding (β = 6.665; p = 0.022) and mean value of target INR suggestive of higher thrombotic and secondary haemorrhagic risk below estimated INR cut-off of 2.17-2.27 within 30 days.ConclusionsUninterrupted OAC is at least as safe as interrupted OAC, and seems to be much safer than interrupted OAC with bridging anticoagulation in patients undergoing coronary angiography with or without PCI.