I had a deep cleaning yesterday. Cardio said no need to bridge unless they expect a lot of blood. I knew I had 1 tooth that would be an issue so I dropped INR down to about 1.4. Everything went well, I made the mistake of resuming bridging that night and woke up with clots of blood in my mouth. Stopped bridging for today, trying black tea and gauze. Perio said is if it keeps bleeding to come in they have some topical stuff they can put on to stop the bleeding. No luck, GI bleed 2 years ago after colonoscopy and now this. Still think mechanical was the right option for me, but it sure brings its share of effort.
Thanks for sharing your experience Keithl. I sure hope that you get the bleeding under control soon.
I'm curious why you bridged if you only brought your INR down to 1.4? Was this the guidance from your cardiologist? I recently had a thyroid procedure for which I was given the option of getting my INR at or below 1.5 without bridging. As I have the ability to tightly control my INR from my experience self testing, I opted to go this route. I brought mine down to 1.4 for the day of the procedure and had it back up to 1.9 the next day and then 2.3 the day after that. No bridging was used. My cardiologist indicated that a brief dip in INR like this has very little risk- clearly not zero. On the other hand, I believe that there is significant risk with bridging, as shown in my links below.
Anyway, in discussing the issue with my thyroid surgeon, he pointed out that there have been studies showing good results with lowering INR and not bridging and that there seems to be a lot of opinions changing in this area give the good results from lowering INR modestly, without bridging.
Thrombotic events and bleeding still happen with bridging. See the opinion piece and study which Iinked below. I expect that this is, at least in part, due to the followng: Warfarin is held, often for 4+ days prior to procedure, bringing INR down to about 1.0. The bridge, typically levenox, or other AC with a short half life, takes over as anti-coagulant, but it must be stopped a day or so prior to the procedure. With the short half life of lovenox, this creates a window during which there may be close to zero anti-coagulation for the procedure and some time afterwards. It would seem that this window of effectively zero anti-coagulation would increase the risk of thrombosis at this time.
The risk of bleeding seems to be during the time that one is doubling up on the warfarin and the lovenox, or other short half life AC. Once one resumes warfarin, they stay on the lovenox until INR is in range typically, but during this time there is risk of bleeding because we are effectively doubling up on anti-coagulation using two different pathways. Also, as there is no INR type measure to evaluate how much of an effect the lovenox is having on anti-coagulation, there is a bit of guesswork. Ideally the lovenox is stopped once INR is in range, but how good are the clinics at this timing? Say INR is 2.5 at the next test, time to stop the lovenox. But, how much time was the patient at INR 2.0-2,5, while doubled up with the lovenox? And, I'd wager that there is a higher risk of bleeding with INR of 1.5-2.0, while still under the full effects of the lovenox.
I found this expert opinion piece published in the Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery of interest relative to the discussion about anti-coagulation management before and after surgery.
".. bridging strategies vary widely among physicians, many of whom tend to overestimate thromboembolic risk. The rush to anticoagulate postoperatively commonly results in increased bleeding."
I found this especially interesting. The bold is mine:
"
The estimated perioperative risk of symptomatic thromboembolic events in patients with MHVs who undergo bridging is about 0.7% to 1.2%,
6,
8
with higher rates noted for cage-ball valves and tilting disc valves that have since been retired.
1
Without bridging, thromboembolic risks are estimated to be about 0.08% to 0.36% "
" We recommend stratifying patients according to thromboembolic risk and bleeding risk, as outlined in
Table 1. " Well worth taking a look at in my view.
" Our proposed bridging anticoagulation strategy accounts for current guidelines and allows a more individualized approach to anticoagulation in patients with MHV who undergo noncardiac surgical operations. "
And, of course: " Newer studies are clearly needed .."
https://www.jtcvs.org/article/S0022-5223(18)31859-2/fulltext
This study is also of interest:
"
Conclusions: In patients with atrial fibrillation or mechanical heart valves who had warfarin interrupted for a procedure, no significant benefit was found for postoperative dalteparin bridging to prevent major thromboembolism. "
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34108229/
Anyway, folks facing a procedure, whether dental or other, might want to discuss the above opinion piece and the above linked 2021 study with their medical team and discuss whether bridging or just modestly lowering INR would be the best route. It will be interesting to see what future studies in this area show us.