Regional anesthesia and anticoagulation

Current Opinion in Anaesthesiology (Impact Factor: 1.98). 10/2004; 17(5):427-433. DOI: 10.1097/00001503-200410000-00013


Purpose of review:
Patients receiving perioperative anticoagulation are a challenge for anesthesiologists when regional anesthesia would be a beneficial component of the anesthetic plan. Newly approved antithrombotic drugs maintain the need for updated review articles and recommendations.

Recent findings:
Due to the very low incidence of bleeding complications, guidelines are solely based on retrospective analyses of case reports and pharmacological considerations. Hence, they should not be taken as evidence-based 'cook books'. Recommendations of well established anticoagulants like heparin and non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs may have a solid basis. However, the lack of data on new antithrombotic drugs including GII/GIIIA antagonists, factor X and thrombin-inhibitors requires a more conservative approach when regional anesthesia is considered. Current literature emphasizes postoperative monitoring; clear recommendations of its performance, however, are missing.

Decisions to perform regional anesthesia in patients under anticoagulation should always be made on an individual risk-benefit assessment. A vigilant preoperative evaluation of the patient's medication and physical findings are as important as awareness of postoperative plans for anticoagulation.

0 Reads
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Neuraxial anesthetic techniques are commonly used during the peripartum period to provide effective pain relief for labor and anesthesia during cesarean delivery. Major neurologic complications are rare after neuraxial anesthesia; however, spinal hematoma is associated with catastrophic neurologic outcomes (including lower-limb paralysis). Anticoagulant and antithrombotic drugs can increase the risk of spinal hematoma after neuraxial anesthesia, and better understanding of the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of anticoagulants has led to greater appreciation for withholding anticoagulation before and after neuraxial anesthesia. A number of national anesthetic societies have produced guidelines for performing neuraxial anesthesia in patients receiving anticoagulation. However, there is limited information about anesthetic implications of anticoagulation during the peripartum period. This article will review the risks of spinal hematoma after neuraxial anesthesia in pregnant patients; current guidelines for neuraxial anesthesia for anticoagulated patients; and relevant pharmacological data of specific anticoagulant and antithrombotic drugs in pregnancy.
    Journal of perinatology: official journal of the California Perinatal Association 02/2011; 31(2):73-84. DOI:10.1038/jp.2010.64 · 2.07 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: The impact of intraoperative ventilation on postoperative pulmonary complications is not defined. The authors aimed at determining the effectiveness of protective mechanical ventilation during open abdominal surgery on a modified Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score as primary outcome and postoperative pulmonary function. Methods: Prospective randomized, open-label, clinical trial performed in 56 patients scheduled to undergo elective open abdominal surgery lasting more than 2 h. Patients were assigned by envelopes to mechanical ventilation with tidal volume of 9 ml/kg ideal body weight and zero-positive end-expiratory pressure (standard ventilation strategy) or tidal volumes of 7 ml/kg ideal body weight, 10 cm H2O positive end-expiratory pressure, and recruitment maneuvers (protective ventilation strategy). Modified Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score, gas exchange, and pulmonary functional tests were measured preoperatively, as well as at days 1, 3, and 5 after surgery. Results: Patients ventilated protectively showed better pulmonary functional tests up to day 5, fewer alterations on chest x-ray up to day 3 and higher arterial oxygenation in air at days 1, 3, and 5 (mmHg; mean ± SD): 77.1 ± 13.0 versus 64.9 ± 11.3 (P = 0.0006), 80.5 ± 10.1 versus 69.7 ± 9.3 (P = 0.0002), and 82.1 ± 10.7 versus 78.5 ± 21.7 (P = 0.44) respectively. The modified Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score was lower in the protective ventilation strategy at days 1 and 3. The percentage of patients in hospital at day 28 after surgery was not different between groups (7 vs. 15% respectively, P = 0.42). Conclusion: A protective ventilation strategy during abdominal surgery lasting more than 2 h improved respiratory function and reduced the modified Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score without affecting length of hospital stay.
    Anesthesiology 03/2013; 118(6). DOI:10.1097/ALN.0b013e31829102de · 5.88 Impact Factor