Antithrombotics are increasingly used for the management and prevention of cardiovascular diseases, and endoscopists often have to decide whether to continue or stop these medications before endoscopy. The development of novel antithrombotics, such as direct oral anticoagulants, has complicated their management before endoscopy. Although the discontinuation of anticoagulants may decrease the incidence of bleeding after endoscopic procedures, discontinuation may also lead to more serious cardiovascular complications. Although the majority of current practice guidelines recommend continuation of antithrombotics before elective endoscopy and biopsy, surveys have shown that many endoscopists do not adhere to these guidelines, probably due to legal aspirations from post endoscopic bleeding. Thus, we examined the current guidelines for the management of antithrombotics before endoscopy.
Anticoagulants ; Aspirations (Psychology) ; Biopsy ; Cardiovascular Diseases ; Endoscopy ; Hemorrhage ; Incidence

Purpose: Nivolumab and regorafenib are second-line therapies for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We aimed to compare the effectiveness of nivolumab and regorafenib. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients with HCC treated with nivolumab or regorafenib after sorafenib failure. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed. An inverse probability of treatment weighting using the propensity score (PS) was performed to reduce treatment selection bias. Results: Among the 189 patients recruited, 137 and 52 patients received regorafenib and nivolumab after sorafenib failure, respectively. Nivolumab users showed higher Child-Pugh B patients (42.3% vs. 24.1%) and shorter median sorafenib maintenance (2.2 months vs. 3.5 months) compared to regorafenib users. Nivolumab users showed shorter median OS (4.2 months vs. 7.4 months, p=0.045) than regorafenib users and similar median PFS (1.8 months vs. 2.7 months, p=0.070). However, the median overall and PFS did not differ between the two treatment groups after the 1:1 PS matching (log-rank p=0.810 and 0.810, respectively) and after the stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting (log-rank p=0.445 and 0.878, respectively). In addition, covariate-adjusted Cox regression analyses showed that overall and PFS did not significantly differ between nivolumab and regorafenib users after 1:1 PS matching and stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting (all p>0.05). Conclusion Clinical outcomes of patients treated with nivolumab and regorafenib after sorafenib treatment failure did not differ significantly.