Abdominal Injuries ; Antithrombins/adverse effects* ; Atrial Fibrillation ; Dabigatran/adverse effects* ; Humans ; Thoracic Injuries

Objective: To investigate the timing of pericardial drainage catheter removal and restart of the anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) suffered from perioperative pericardial tamponade during atrial fibrillation catheter ablation and uninterrupted dabigatran. Methods: A total of 20 patients with pericardial tamponade, who underwent AF catheter ablation with uninterrupted dabigatran in Beijing Anzhen Hospital from January 2019 to August 2021, were included in this retrospective analysis. The clinical characteristics of enrolled patients, information of catheter ablation procedures, pericardial tamponade management, perioperative complications, the timing of pericardial drainage catheter removal and restart of anticoagulation were analyzed. Results: All patients underwent pericardiocentesis and pericardial effusion drainage was successful in all patients. The average drainage volume was (427.8±527.4) ml. Seven cases were treated with idarucizumab, of which 1 patient received surgical repair. The average timing of pericardial drainage catheter removal and restart of anticoagulation in 19 patients without surgical repair was (1.4±0.7) and (0.8±0.4) days, respectively. No new bleeding, embolism and death were reported during hospitalization and within 30 days following hospital discharge. Time of removal of pericardial drainage catheter, restart of anticoagulation and hospital stay were similar between patients treated with idarucizumab or not. Conclusion: It is safe and reasonable to remove pericardial drainage catheter and restart anticoagulation as soon as possible during catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation with uninterrupted dabigatran independent of the idarucizumab use or not in case of confirmed hemostasis.
Humans ; Atrial Fibrillation/drug therapy* ; Dabigatran/therapeutic use* ; Cardiac Tamponade/complications* ; Anticoagulants/therapeutic use* ; Retrospective Studies ; Treatment Outcome ; Drainage/adverse effects* ; Catheter Ablation ; Catheters/adverse effects*

OBJECTIVE: Prescription rate of dabigatran and rivaroxaban, which are the direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC), has increased. We have analyzed the prescription trend and medication use of dabigatran and rivaroxaban in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). METHODS: It was retrospectively studied from September 2012 to April 2014 using the electronic medical records and the progress notes. Patients with NVAF (n=424) were evaluated on the medication use, prescribing preferences, adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and the availability of prescription reimbursement of dabigatran (n=210) and rivaroxaban (n=214). RESULTS: Dabigatran was prescribed higher than rivaroxaban (23.3% versus 7.5%, p<0.001) in the neurology department, but rivaroxaban was prescribed higher compared to dabigatran in the cardiology department (87.4% versus 74.3%, p<0.001). Dabigatran was prescribed more than rivaroxaban in high risk patients with CHADS2 score ≥ 3 (44.3% versus 31.3%, p=0.006). Dabigatran patients seemed to have more ADRs than patients with rivaroxaban (25.2% versus 11.2%, p<0.001), but no serious thrombotic events and bleeding were found. Only 35.6% (n=151) were eligible for prescription reimbursement by the National Health Insurance (NHI). Bridging therapy (86, 31.5%) and direct-current cardioversion (57, 20.2%) were main reasons of ineligibility for reimbursement. CONCLUSION: Prescription preferences were present in choosing either dabigatran or rivaroxaban for patients with NVAF. Inpatient protocols and procedures considering patient-factors in NVAF need to be developed.
Anticoagulants ; Atrial Fibrillation* ; Cardiology ; Dabigatran* ; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions ; Electric Countershock ; Electronic Health Records ; Hemorrhage ; Humans ; Inpatients ; National Health Programs ; Neurology ; Prescriptions ; Retrospective Studies ; Rivaroxaban* ; Stroke*

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The risk of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding with dabigatran when compared to warfarin has been controversial in the literature. The aim of our study was to assess this risk with the use of dabigatran. METHODS: We examined the medical records of patients who were started on dabigatran or warfarin from October 2010 to October 2012. The study was conducted in two hospitals. RESULTS: A total of 417 patients were included (208 dabigatran vs. 209 warfarin). GI bleeding occurred in 10 patients (4.8%) in the dabigatran group compared to 21 patients (10.1%) in the warfarin group (p=0.0375). Multivariate analysis showed that patients who were on dabigatran for < or =100 days had a higher incidence of GI bleeding than those who were on it for >100 days (p=0.0007). The odds of GI bleeding in patients who were on dabigatran for < or =100 days was 8.2 times higher compared to those who were on the drug for >100 days. The incidence of GI bleeding in patients >65 years old was higher than in those <65 years old (p=0.0453, OR=3). History of previous GI bleeding was another risk factor for GI bleeding in the dabigatran group (p=0.036, OR=6.3). The lower GI tract was the most common site for GI bleeding in the dabigatran group (80.0% vs. 38.1%, p=0.014). CONCLUSIONS: The risk of GI bleeding was lower with dabigatran. The risk factors for GI bleeding with dabigtran were the first 100 days, age >65 years, and a history of previous GI bleeding.
Age Factors ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Anticoagulants/*adverse effects/therapeutic use ; Atrial Fibrillation/drug therapy ; Dabigatran/*adverse effects/therapeutic use ; Female ; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage/*chemically induced/epidemiology/mortality ; Humans ; Incidence ; Kaplan-Meier Estimate ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Multivariate Analysis ; Odds Ratio ; Retrospective Studies ; Risk Factors ; Warfarin/*adverse effects/therapeutic use