• Matthew A Pappas, Geoffrey D Barnes, and Sandeep Vijan.
• Center for Value-Based Care Research, Medicine Institute , Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA. pappasm@ccf.org.
• J Gen Intern Med. 2019 Apr 1; 34 (4): 583-590.

BackgroundBridging anticoagulation is commonly prescribed to patients with atrial fibrillation during initiation and interruption of warfarin. Guidelines recommend bridging patients at high risk of stroke, while a recent randomized trial demonstrated overall harm in a population at comparatively low risk of ischemic stroke. Theory suggests that patients at high risk of stroke and low risk of hemorrhage may benefit from bridging, but data informing patient selection are scant.ObjectiveTo estimate the utility and cost-effectiveness of bridging anticoagulation among patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, stratified by thromboembolic and hemorrhagic risk DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis with lifelong time horizon, from the perspective of a third-party payer MAIN MEASURES: Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) per bridged patient; US dollars per QALY gained KEY RESULTS: Unselected patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation may be harmed by bridging anticoagulation. Hospital admission for bridging is almost never cost-effective, and generally harmful. Among patients carefully selected by both thromboembolic and hemorrhagic risks, outpatient bridging can be beneficial and cost-effective. Results were sensitive to how effectively heparin products reduce stroke risk.ConclusionsOutpatient bridging anticoagulation can be beneficial and cost-effective for a subset of patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation during interruption or initiation of warfarin. Admission for bridging should be avoided.

19 keywords...

hide…