4.5 Article

Postoperative bleeding risk for oral surgery under continued rivaroxaban anticoagulant therapy

期刊

CLINICAL ORAL INVESTIGATIONS
卷 20, 期 6, 页码 1279-1282

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-015-1627-9

关键词

Rivaroxaban; Bleeding; Oral anticoagulants; Direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC); Oral osteotomy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this study was to assess the risk of postoperative bleeding complications after oral procedures performed under continued mono or dual anticoagulation therapy with rivaroxaban (and aspirin). This retrospective single-center observational study included 52 oral procedures performed under continued oral anticoagulant therapy with rivaroxaban (20 mg/day). Among them, two procedures were performed under continued dual therapy with aspirin (100 mg/day) added to the regimen. Postoperative bleeding events were compared with 285 oral procedures in patients without any anticoagulation/antiplatelet therapy. Postoperative bleeding complications after oral surgery occurred significantly more often in patients under continued rivaroxaban therapy (11.5 %) than in the control cases without anticoagulation/antiplatelet medication (0.7 %). All of the bleeding events were manageable: Two of them were treated with local compression, three by applying new fibrin glue with (one case) or without (two cases) secondary sutures, one occurred during a weekend and was therefore treated under inpatient conditions with suture replacement. All postoperative bleeding episodes occurred during the first postoperative week. According to our data, continued anticoagulation therapy with rivaroxaban significantly increases postoperative bleeding risk for oral surgical procedures, although the bleeding events were manageable. Oral surgeons, cardiologists, general physicians, and patients should be aware of the increased bleeding risk after oral surgical procedures. Close observation up to 1 week postoperatively is advisable to prevent excessive bleeding.

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

4.5
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