Evidence Hub

Interrupted versus uninterrupted anticoagulation therapy for catheter ablation in adults with arrhythmias

Bawazeer GA, Alkofide HA, Alsharafi AA, Babakr NO, Altorkistani AM, Kashour TS, Miligkos M, AlFaleh KM et al.

The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2021

4,714 participants · 5 citations

Abstract

Background: The management of anticoagulation therapy around the time of catheter ablation (CA) procedure for adults with arrhythmia is critical and yet is variable in clinical practice. The ideal approach for safe and effective perioperative management should balance the risk of bleeding during uninterrupted anticoagulation while minimising the risk of thromboembolic events with interrupted therapy.

Objectives: To compare the efficacy and harms of interrupted versus uninterrupted anticoagulation therapy for catheter ablation (CA) in adults with arrhythmias.

Search methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and SCI-Expanded on the Web of Science for randomised controlled trials on 5 January 2021. We also searched three registers on 29 May 2021 to identify ongoing or unpublished trials. We performed backward and forward searches on reference lists of included trials and other systematic reviews and contacted experts in the field. We applied no restrictions on language or publication status.

Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials comparing uninterrupted anticoagulation with any modality of interruption with or without heparin bridging for CA in adults aged 18 years or older with arrhythmia.

Data collection and analysis: Two review authors conducted independent screening, data extraction, and assessment of risk of bias. A third review author resolved disagreements. We extracted data on study population, interruption strategy, ablation procedure,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 4,714 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free