When patients on target-specific oral anticoagulants need surgery

Rivaroxaban, a factor Xa inhibitor

Rivaroxaban is an oral direct factor Xa inhibitor. It has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the prevention of stroke in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, for VTE treatment, and for VTE prophylaxis after hip replacement or knee replacement (Table 1).^14–20 It has not yet been studied in patients with hip fracture.

Pharmacokinetics of rivaroxaban. Rivaroxaban is manufactured as a tablet that is best absorbed in the stomach (Table 2).¹⁴ In contrast to dabigatran, it can be crushed and, for example, mixed with applesauce for patients who have trouble swallowing. It can also be mixed with water and given via nasogastric tube; however, postpyloric administration should be avoided.

Plasma concentrations peak within a few hours after ingestion. Rivaroxaban is highly protein-bound, so it cannot be eliminated by hemodialysis.

The drug relies on renal elimination to a smaller degree than dabigatran, with one-third of the dose eliminated unchanged in the urine, one-third eliminated in the urine as inactive metabolite, and the remaining one-third eliminated in the feces. However, enough parent compound is cleared through the kidneys that the half-life of rivaroxaban increases from 8.3 hours in healthy individuals to 9.5 hours in patients whose creatinine clearance is less than 30 mL/min.²¹ As with dabigatran, the dose must be adjusted for renal impairment (Table 1).

Rivaroxaban has significant liver metabolism, specifically through the cytochrome P450 3A4 enzyme, and it is also a substrate of P-glycoprotein. Therefore, potential drug-drug interactions must be taken into account, as they may lead to important alterations in plasma concentrations (Table 3).

Apixaban, a factor Xa inhibitor

Apixaban is also an oral direct factor Xa inhibitor. It is the newest of the oral anticoagulants to be approved in the United States, specifically for preventing stroke in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (Table 1).²²

Pharmacokinetics of apixaban. Apixaban is produced as a tablet that is absorbed slowly through the gastrointestinal tract, mainly the distal small bowel and ascending colon (Table  2).²³

Peak plasma concentrations are reached a few hours after ingestion. Like rivaroxaban, apixaban is highly protein-bound, so it cannot be removed by hemodialysis.

Apixaban is similar to rivaroxaban in that 27% of the parent compound is cleared through the kidneys, it undergoes significant hepatic metabolism through cytochrome P450 3A4, and it is a substrate for P-glycoprotein.

Drug-drug interactions must be considered as a potential source of altered drug exposure and clearance (Table 3).

Unlike dabigatran and rivaroxaban, dose reduction is not based on the calculated creatinine clearance. Instead, a reduced dose is required if the patient meets two of the following three criteria:

• Serum creatinine level ≥ 1.5 mg/dL
• Age ≥ 80
• Weight ≤ 60 kg (Table 1).

The American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guidelines further recommend against using apixaban in patients with a creatinine clearance less than 25 mL/min.²⁴

Edoxaban, a factor Xa inhibitor in development

Edoxaban (Savaysa), another factor Xa inhibitor, is available in Japan and has been submitted for approval in the United States for treating VTE and for preventing stroke in patients with

PERIOPERATIVE CONSIDERATIONS IN ANTICOAGULATION

Before addressing the perioperative management of TSOACs, let us review the evidence guiding the perioperative management of any chronic anticoagulant.

In fact, no large prospective randomized trial has clearly defined the risks and benefits of using or withholding a bridging anticoagulation strategy around surgery and other procedures, though the PERIOP 2 and BRIDGE trials are currently ongoing.^25,26 There are some data regarding continuing anticoagulation without interruption, but they have mainly been derived from specific groups (eg, patients on warfarin undergoing cardiac pacemaker or defibrillator placement) and in procedures that pose a very low risk of bleeding complications (eg, minor dental extractions, cataract surgery, dermatologic procedures).^2,27 Recommendations are, therefore, necessarily based on small perioperative trials and data gleaned from cohort review and from studies that did not involve surgical patients.

Ultimately, the decisions whether to discontinue oral anticoagulants and whether to employ bridging anticoagulation are based on assumptions about the risks of bleeding and the risk of thrombotic events, with similar assumptions regarding the effects of anticoagulants on both outcomes. In addition, the relative acceptance of bleeding vs thrombotic risks implicitly guides these complex decisions.

Perioperative bleeding risk

Many risk factors specific to the patient and to the type of surgery affect the rates and severity of perioperative bleeding.²⁸

As for patient-specific risk factors, a small retrospective cohort analysis revealed that a HAS-BLED score of 3 or higher was highly discriminating in predicting perioperative bleeding in atrial fibrillation patients receiving anticoagulation.²⁹ (The HAS-BLED score is based on hypertension, abnormal renal or liver function, stroke, bleeding, labile international normalized ratio [INR], elderly [age > 65] and drug therapy.³⁰) However, there are no widely validated tools that incorporate patient-specific factors to accurately predict bleeding risk in an individual patient.

Therefore, the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) guidelines suggest coarsely categorizing bleeding risk as either low or high solely on the basis of the type of procedure.² Procedures considered “high-risk” have a risk greater than 1.5% to 2% and include urologic surgery involving the prostate or kidney, colonic polyp resections, surgeries involving highly vascular organs such as the liver or spleen, joint replacements, cancer surgeries, and cardiac or neurosurgical procedures.

Perioperative thrombotic risk

The ACCP guidelines² place patients with atrial fibrillation, VTE, or mechanical heart valves in three risk groups for perioperative thromboembolism without anticoagulation, based on their annual risk of a thrombotic event:

• High risk—annual risk of a thrombotic event > 10%
• Moderate risk—5% to 10%
• Low risk—< 5%.

Comparing the risks calculated by these methods with the real-world risk of perioperative thrombosis highlights the problem of applying nonperioperative risk calculations: the perioperative period exposes patients to a higher risk than these models would predict.³¹ Nonetheless, these risk categorizations likely have some validity in stratifying patients into risk groups, even if the absolute risks are inaccurate.

Perioperative bridging for patients taking warfarin

Many patients with atrial fibrillation, VTE, or a mechanical heart valve need to interrupt their warfarin therapy because of the bleeding risk of an upcoming procedure.

The perioperative management of warfarin and other vitamin K antagonists is challenging because of the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of these drugs. Because it has a long half-life, warfarin usually must be stopped 4 to 5 days before a procedure in order to allow not only adequate clearance of the drug itself, but also restoration of functional clotting factors to normal or near-normal levels.¹² Warfarin can generally be resumed 12 to 24 hours after surgery, assuming adequate hemostasis has been achieved, and it will again take several days for the INR to reach the therapeutic range.

The ACCP guidelines recommend using the perioperative risk of thromboembolism to make decisions about the need for bridging anticoagulation during warfarin interruption.² They suggest that patients at high risk of thrombosis receive bridging with an alternative anticoagulant such as low-molecular-weight heparin or unfractionated heparin, because of the prolonged duration of subtherapeutic anticoagulation.

There has been clinical interest in using a TSOAC instead of low-molecular-weight or unfractionated heparin for bridging in the perioperative setting. Although this approach may be attractive from a cost and convenience perspective, it cannot be endorsed as yet because of the lack of information on the pros and cons of such an approach.

Patients at low thrombotic risk do not require bridging. In patients at moderate risk, the decision to bridge or not to bridge is based on careful consideration of patient-specific and surgery-specific factors.