Advertisement

Perioperative management of direct oral anticoagulants in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: results of a prospective assessment

  • Ann Beckmann
  • Julia Spalteholz
  • Florian Langer
  • Hans Heinzer
  • Lars Budäus
  • Derya Tilki
  • Uwe Michl
  • Armin Soave
  • Thomas Steuber
  • Valia Veleva
  • Georg Salomon
  • Alexander Haese
  • Hartwig Huland
  • Markus Graefen
  • Hendrik IsbarnEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Introduction and objectives

In the perioperative setting, temporary interruption of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) is recommended. However, the safety of these recommendations is based on non-urological surgical experiences. Our objective was to verify the safety of these recommendations in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP).

Materials and methods

Patients regularly receiving a DOAC and scheduled for RP at our institution were prospectively assessed. DOAC intake was usually stopped 48 h before surgery without any preoperative bridging therapy. Postoperatively, patients received risk-adapted low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH). On the third day after unremarkable RP, DOAC intake was restarted and the administration of LMWH was stopped. We assessed perioperative outcomes and 30-day morbidity.

Results

Thirty-two consecutive patients receiving DOAC underwent RP at our institution between 12/2017 and 07/2018. Time of surgery (median, 177 min) and intraoperative blood loss (median, 500 mL) were unremarkable. DOACs were restarted on the third postoperative day in 30 patients (94%). No patient had a significant hemoglobin level reduction after DOAC restart. Overall, 28% of patients experienced complications within 30 days after surgery. Most of which were minor (Clavien ≤ 2), three patients (9%), however, had Clavien ≥ 3 complications.

Conclusion

Our report is the first to prospectively assess current guideline recommendations regarding DOAC restarting after major urological surgery. RP can safely be performed, if DOACs are correctly paused before surgery. Moreover, in case of an uneventful postoperative clinical course, DOACs can be safely restarted on the third postoperative day. A 9% Clavien ≥ 3 30-day morbidity warrants attention and should be further explored in future studies.

Keywords

Radical prostatectomy DOAC Prostate cancer 

Notes

Author contributions

AB project development, data collection, manuscript writing. JS project development, data collection, manuscript writing. FL project development, data collection, manuscript writing. HH data collection, manuscript writing. LB data collection, manuscript writing. DT data collection, manuscript writing. UM data collection, manuscript writing. AS data collection, manuscript writing. TS data collection, manuscript writing. VV data collection, manuscript writing. GS data collection, manuscript writing. AH data collection, manuscript writing. HH data collection, manuscript writing. MG data collection, manuscript writing. HI project development, data collection, manuscript writing, data analysis

Funding

Hendrik Isbarn has received lecture fees from Daiichi Sankyo. Florian Langer has received lecture fees, honoraria for advisory boards, travel and/or research support from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer and Sanofi.

Compliance with ethical standards

Research involving human participants and/or animals

Human participants: yes. Animals: no.

Informed consent

Provided by all patients.

References

  1. 1.
    Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Briers E, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M et al (2017) EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 71(4):618–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rose DK, Bar B (2018) Direct oral anticoagulant agents: pharmacologic profile, indications, coagulation monitoring, and reversal agents. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 27(8):2049–2058CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kaatz S, Mahan CE, Nakhle A, Gunasekaran K, Ali M, Lavender R et al (2017) Management of elective surgery and emergent bleeding with direct oral anticoagulants. Curr Cardiol Rep 19(12):124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kristensen SD, Knuuti J, Saraste A, Anker S, Botker HE, De Hert S et al (2014) 2014 ESC/ESA guidelines on non-cardiac surgery: cardiovascular assessment andmanagement. Kardiol Pol 72(11):857–918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Walz J, Epstein JI, Ganzer R, Graefen M, Guazzoni G, Kaouk J et al (2016) A critical analysis of the current knowledge of surgical anatomy of the prostate related to optimisation of cancer control and preservation of continence and erection in candidates for radical prostatectomy: an update. Eur Urol 70(2):301–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Saily VM, Petas A, Joutsi-Korhonen L, Taari K, Lassila R, Rannikko AS (2014) Dabigatran for thromboprophylaxis after robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: retrospective analysis of safety profile and effect on blood coagulation. Scand J Urol 48(2):153–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schlomm T, Heinzer H, Steuber T, Salomon G, Engel O, Michl U et al (2011) Full functional-length urethral sphincter preservation during radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 60(2):320–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schlomm T, Tennstedt P, Huxhold C, Steuber T, Salomon G, Michl U et al (2012) Neurovascular structure-adjacent frozen-section examination (NeuroSAFE) increases nerve-sparing frequency and reduces positive surgical margins in open and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: experience after 11,069 consecutive patients. Eur Urol 62(2):333–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240(2):205–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pompe RS, Beyer B, Haese A, Preisser F, Michl U, Steuber T et al (2018) Postoperative complications of contemporary open and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy using standardised reporting systems. BJU Int 122(5):801–807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Violette PD, Cartwright R, Briel M, Tikkinen KA, Guyatt GH (2016) Guideline of guidelines: thromboprophylaxis for urological surgery. BJU Int 118(3):351–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ann Beckmann
    • 1
  • Julia Spalteholz
    • 1
  • Florian Langer
    • 2
  • Hans Heinzer
    • 1
  • Lars Budäus
    • 1
  • Derya Tilki
    • 1
    • 3
  • Uwe Michl
    • 1
  • Armin Soave
    • 1
    • 3
  • Thomas Steuber
    • 1
  • Valia Veleva
    • 1
  • Georg Salomon
    • 1
  • Alexander Haese
    • 1
  • Hartwig Huland
    • 1
  • Markus Graefen
    • 1
  • Hendrik Isbarn
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Martini-ClinicUniversity Medical Center Hamburg-EppendorfHamburgGermany
  2. 2.Department of Hematology and OncologyUniversity Medical Center Hamburg-EppendorfHamburgGermany
  3. 3.Department of UrologyUniversity Medical Center Hamburg-EppendorfHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations