Israel Medical Association Journal

Background: The management of aspirin therapy before an invasive procedure poses a frequent clinical dilemma due to uncertainty regarding b[AS1] leeding versus thromboembolic risks associated with continuation or withdrawal of the drug. There is no evidence-based data to refer to.

Objectives: To assess the opinions of internal medicine physicians regarding aspirin therapy prior to an invasive procedure.

Methods: A questionnaire presenting nine hypothetical cases with different combinations of bleeding and thromboembolic risk was given to physicians in an Internal Medicine Division during a personal interview. For each case the participants had to choose between withdrawal of aspirin prior to an invasive procedure, continuation of aspirin, or substitution of low molecular weight heparin for aspirin. Results: Sixty-one physicians participated in the survey. For a patient with low thromboembolic risk, 77% (95% confidence interval 65.3–86.3%), 95% (87.2–98.7%) and 97% (89.6–99.5%) of physicians elected to discontinue aspirin prior to a low, intermediate or high bleeding risk procedure, respectively. For intermediate risk patients, 23% (95% CI[1] 13.7–34.7%), 59% (46.4–70.8%) and 74% (61.7–83.6%) would discontinue aspirin prior to a low, intermediate or high risk procedure, and 5% (95% CI 1.3–12.8%), 23% (13.7–34.7%) and 18% (9.9–29.2%) would substitute LMWH[2] for aspirin. For a patient with high thromboembolic risk, 1.6% (95% CI 0.08–7.8%), 11.5% (5.2–21.4%) and 18% (9.9–29.2%) recommended discontinuing aspirin prior to a low, intermediate or high risk procedure, respectively. In these situations, 18% (95% CI 9.9–29.2%), 53% (40.0–64.7%) and 57% (44.8–69.3%), respectively, would substitute LMWH for aspirin.

Conclusions: The results of the current investigation may help practicing physicians to decide whether to discontinue aspirin therapy prior to invasive procedures. The possible use of LMWH to replace aspirin as suggested here should be further evaluated in a controlled clinical study.

 

Background: Venous thromboembolic diseases are treated initially with low molecular weight heparin followed by oral coumarins.

Objectives: To investigate an orally available direct thrombin inhibitor for the acute treatment of venous thromboembolism as well as for prophylaxis of recurrent events.

Methods: The direct thrombin inhibitor ximelagatran was compared with subcutaneous LMW[1] heparins followed by oral warfarin in a double-blind randomized prospective multicenter trial in patients with acute VTE[2]. A pharmacokinetic study was performed in the VTE patients. For assessing the prevention of recurrent VTE, double-blind prospective randomized studies were conducted as follows: a) ximelagatran compared to warfarin for 6 months, and b) prolonged anticoagulation of ximelagatran vs. placebo for 18 months after termination of 6 months coumarin therapy.

Results: Two dose-finding studies and the pharmacokinetic analysis of ximelagatran in acute VTE were completed. About 2,500 patients were randomized to investigate 2 x 36 mg ximelagatran versus 2 x 1 mg/kg body weight enoxaparin followed by warfarin. The study hypothesized that the efficacy was equal in both treatment regimens for recurrent VTE documented by objective methods. The second study, with 1,234 patients, aimed to demonstrate a reduced incidence of recurrent thromboembolic events documented by objective methods after 18 months of treatment with 2 x 24 mg ximelagatran daily compared to placebo.

Conclusion: These large-scale clinical trials will soon yield the results of the comparison between oral ximelagatran and subcutaneous LMW heparin for treatment of acute VTE, and of warfarin for prophylaxis of recurrent events for 6 months and for a prolonged prophylaxis for another 18 months.

______________________________

[1] LMW = low molecular weight

[2] VTE = venous thromboembolism