4.7 Article

Impact of direct-acting oral anticoagulants and warfarin on postendoscopic GI bleeding and thromboembolic events in patients undergoing elective endoscopy

期刊

GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY
卷 92, 期 2, 页码 284-+

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2020.02.038

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Aims: An increasing number of patients are undergoing GI endoscopic procedures with active prescriptions for direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). DOACs have been associated with a higher risk of GI bleeding (GIB) compared with warfarin. Our aims were to compare the risk of postendoscopic GIB and thromboembolic (TE) events among patients on DOACs versus warfarin. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients aged 18 years or older in a large integrated health care system in Southern California, who had undergone an outpatient GI endoscopic procedure and were taking a DOAC or warfarin between January 1, 2013, and October 1, 2019. We compared bleeding and thrombosis risk in the 30 days after the endoscopic procedure between the warfarin and DOAC groups using multivariate logistic regression analysis adjusted for covariates. Results: Between January 1, 2013, and October 1, 2019, we identified 6765 outpatient GI endoscopic procedures in which patients received preprocedure prescriptions for either a DOAC (1587) or warfarin (5178). Overall, there was no significant difference in postprocedure GIB (odds ratio [OR], 1.165; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.881.55; P=.291) or TE (OR, 0.929; 95% CI, 0.64-1.35; P=.703) between the DOAC and warfarin groups). Subgroup analysis revealed a higher risk of GIB associated with DOAC specifically with EGD procedures (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.15-2.83; P=.011). Conclusions: There was no significant difference in the overall postendoscopic risk of GIB and TE events among patients with preprocedure use of DOACs compared with patients on warfarin. There may be a higher risk of GIB in patients taking DOACs and undergoing EGD.

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

4.7
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