G
Guest
This abstract was just published today. The problem is not unique to the US evidently.
National survey of anticoagulation policy in endoscopy.
Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007 Jan;19(1):51-6
* Goel A, * Barnes CJ, * Osman H, * Verma A.
Department of Gastroenterology, Calderdale Royal Hospital, Halifax, UK.
BACKGROUND: Anticoagulated patients who need to undergo endoscopy present unique challenges to the gastroenterologist. The continuation of anticoagulant therapy increases the risk of haemorrhagic complications of gastrointestinal endoscopy. Reversing the anticoagulation increases the risk of thromboembolism. In our experience in various endoscopy units, there are variable policies on the management of anticoagulated patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. METHODS: To study the current practice, survey questionnaires were sent to 2320 doctors, working in 231 hospitals across the United Kingdom. RESULTS: Responses were obtained from 219 hospitals (94.8%), but only from 434 doctors (18.7%). The results show 40.8% endoscopists continued the patients on warfarin when performing a planned upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, whereas 26% stopped it; 33.2% gave varying reports, that is, they used their own judgement according to the disease for which the anticoagulant was being given. For planned lower gastrointestinal endoscopy, 48.7% doctors preferred to stop warfarin; 53.3% of the endoscopists stated that they have a policy in place at their hospital for both upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy in anticoagulated patients; 5.5% had a policy for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy only and 6.2% for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy only. Thirty-five per cent doctors reported that they did not have any standard policy. We compared the responses from within a hospital to see whether the doctors were uniformly aware of an existing policy in their hospital. For upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, the responses were the same (either yes or no) by 51% of the doctors, whereas they were different by 49%. For lower gastrointestinal endoscopies, the same response was given by 49% of the doctors, whereas 51% gave different answers. The poor response rate from the doctors, however, makes firm interpretation of the data difficult. CONCLUSIONS: A wide variation in practice is seen across the country. A robust national guideline to streamline the endoscopy practice in anticoagulated patients is needed.
National survey of anticoagulation policy in endoscopy.
Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007 Jan;19(1):51-6
* Goel A, * Barnes CJ, * Osman H, * Verma A.
Department of Gastroenterology, Calderdale Royal Hospital, Halifax, UK.
BACKGROUND: Anticoagulated patients who need to undergo endoscopy present unique challenges to the gastroenterologist. The continuation of anticoagulant therapy increases the risk of haemorrhagic complications of gastrointestinal endoscopy. Reversing the anticoagulation increases the risk of thromboembolism. In our experience in various endoscopy units, there are variable policies on the management of anticoagulated patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. METHODS: To study the current practice, survey questionnaires were sent to 2320 doctors, working in 231 hospitals across the United Kingdom. RESULTS: Responses were obtained from 219 hospitals (94.8%), but only from 434 doctors (18.7%). The results show 40.8% endoscopists continued the patients on warfarin when performing a planned upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, whereas 26% stopped it; 33.2% gave varying reports, that is, they used their own judgement according to the disease for which the anticoagulant was being given. For planned lower gastrointestinal endoscopy, 48.7% doctors preferred to stop warfarin; 53.3% of the endoscopists stated that they have a policy in place at their hospital for both upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy in anticoagulated patients; 5.5% had a policy for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy only and 6.2% for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy only. Thirty-five per cent doctors reported that they did not have any standard policy. We compared the responses from within a hospital to see whether the doctors were uniformly aware of an existing policy in their hospital. For upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, the responses were the same (either yes or no) by 51% of the doctors, whereas they were different by 49%. For lower gastrointestinal endoscopies, the same response was given by 49% of the doctors, whereas 51% gave different answers. The poor response rate from the doctors, however, makes firm interpretation of the data difficult. CONCLUSIONS: A wide variation in practice is seen across the country. A robust national guideline to streamline the endoscopy practice in anticoagulated patients is needed.
