4.6 Review

Peri-operative management of ophthalmic patients on anti-thrombotic agents: a literature review

期刊

EYE
卷 33, 期 7, 页码 1044-1059

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41433-019-0382-6

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is variability in the management of ophthalmic patients on anti-thrombotic agents (antiplatelets and anticoagulants) during the peri-operative period. A survey carried out in a UK teaching hospital on a cohort of ophthalmologists showed majority were comfortable with antiplatelet management but there was variability in managing patients on warfarin and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs); 40% were unaware of existing guidelines. We aim to review the recommendations in the literature with regards to managing anti-thrombotic agents during the peri-operative period of ophthalmic surgery. We reviewed incidences of complications, specifically, the haemorrhagic complications associated. Pubmed search was carried out on relevant keywords from January 2007 to August 2017. All relevant UK guidelines including the Royal College of Ophthalmologists and British Society of Haematology were reviewed. Literature recommendations for routine cataract surgery under topical or sub-Tenon's anaesthesia would be to continue all anti-thrombotic agents. For sharp needle anaesthesia, avoidance of dual antiplatelet therapy was recommended and warfarin could be continued if INR within therapeutic range. Recommendations for surgeries in glaucoma, vitreo-retinal, oculoplastic and lacrimal; and strabismus are presented. No evidence was found for corneal surgery. Haemorrhagic complications are reported in all groups. Limitations of this review include the retrospective nature, lack of randomized control trials and the limited evidence regarding DOACs. It is important for ophthalmologists to be aware of and balance the risk of thromboembolic events and risks of haemorrhagic complications for ophthalmic surgery. A multi-disciplinary approach is recommended for complex cases.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据