International Digestive Endoscopy Network consensus on the management of antithrombotic agents in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy

Seung Joo Kang; Chung Hyun Tae; Chang Seok Bang; Cheol Min Shin; Young-Hoon Jeong; Miyoung Choi; Joo Ha Hwang; Yutaka Saito; Philip Wai Yan Chiu; Rungsun Rerknimitr; Christopher Khor; Vu Van Khien; Kee Don Choi; Ki-Nam Shim; Geun Am Song; Oh Young Lee

doi:10.5946/ce.2024.002

Clin Endosc > Volume 57(2); 2024 > Article

Kang, Tae, Bang, Shin, Jeong, Choi, Hwang, Saito, Chiu, Rerknimitr, Khor, Khien, Choi, Shim, Song, Lee, and The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines: International Digestive Endoscopy Network consensus on the management of antithrombotic agents in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy

Review

Clin Endosc 2024; 57(2): 141-157.

Published online: March 14, 2024

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2024.002

International Digestive Endoscopy Network consensus on the management of antithrombotic agents in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy

Seung Joo Kang^1,^*

, Chung Hyun Tae^2,^*

, Chang Seok Bang³

, Cheol Min Shin⁴

, Young-Hoon Jeong⁵

, Miyoung Choi⁶

, Joo Ha Hwang⁷

, Yutaka Saito⁸

, Philip Wai Yan Chiu⁹

, Rungsun Rerknimitr¹⁰

, Christopher Khor¹¹

, Vu Van Khien¹²

, Kee Don Choi¹³

, Ki-Nam Shim²

, Geun Am Song¹⁴

, Oh Young Lee¹⁵

, The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines

¹Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital Healthcare System Gangnam Center, Seoul, Korea

²Department of Internal Medicine, Ewha Womans University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

³Department of Internal Medicine, Hallym University College of Medicine, Chuncheon, Korea

⁴Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea

⁵CAU Thrombosis and Biomarker Center, Chung-Ang University Gwangmyeong Hospital, Gwangmyeong; Department of Internal Medicine, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

⁶National Evidence-Based Healthcare Collaborating Agency, Seoul, Korea

⁷Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

⁸Endoscopy Division, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan

⁹Division of Upper GI and Metabolic Surgery, Department of Surgery, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong

¹⁰Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand

¹¹Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Singapore General Hospital and Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, Singapore

¹²Departments of GI Endoscopy, 108 Central Hospital, Hanoi, Vietnam

¹³Department of Gastroenterology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

¹⁴Department of Internal Medicine, Pusan National University Hospital, Pusan National University College of Medicine and Biomedical Research Institute, Busan, Korea

¹⁵Department of Internal Medicine, Hanyang University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Correspondence: Ki-Nam Shim Department of Internal Medicine, Ewha Womans University Seoul Hospital, Ewha Womans University College of Medicine, 260 Gonghang-daero, Gangseo-gu, Seoul 07804, Korea E-mail: shimkn@ewha.ac.kr

Correspondence: Kee Don Choi Department of Gastroenterology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul 05505, Korea E-mail: keedon@amc.seoul.kr

^*Seung Joo Kang and Chung Hyun Tae contributed equally to this work as first authors.

Received December 28, 2023 Revised February 4, 2024 Accepted February 9, 2024

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Antithrombotic agents, including antiplatelet agents and anticoagulants, are widely used in Korea because of the increasing incidence of cardiocerebrovascular disease and the aging population. The management of patients using antithrombotic agents during endoscopic procedures is an important clinical challenge. The clinical practice guidelines for this issue, developed by the Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, were published in 2020. However, new evidence on the use of dual antiplatelet therapy and direct anticoagulant management has emerged, and revised guidelines have been issued in the United States and Europe. Accordingly, the previous guidelines were revised. Cardiologists were part of the group that developed the guideline, and the recommendations went through a consensus-reaching process among international experts. This guideline presents 14 recommendations made based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology and was reviewed by multidisciplinary experts. These guidelines provide useful information that can assist endoscopists in the management of patients receiving antithrombotic agents who require diagnostic and elective therapeutic endoscopy. It will be revised as necessary to cover changes in technology, evidence, or other aspects of clinical practice.

Keywords: Anticoagulants; Endoscopy; Guideline; Platelet aggregation inhibitors

INTRODUCTION

Antithrombotic agents, such as vitamin K antagonists (warfarin), direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs; apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban), P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitors (clopidogrel, prasugrel, and ticagrelor), and acetylsalicylic acid, are widely used in clinical practice for the primary and secondary prevention of cardiocerebrovascular disease.¹ The number of patients with cardiocerebrovascular disease and the use of antiplatelet drugs for secondary prevention have increased because of the aging population. DOACs are used to prevent stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation and are increasingly prescribed from year to year.²

Recent developments in endoscopic equipment and technology have improved the performance of various endoscopic procedures for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes.³^,⁴ Accordingly, the frequency of adverse events, such as bleeding, may also increase. Particularly, the risk of bleeding is higher when therapeutic procedures are performed on patients being administered antithrombotic drugs.⁵ Whether endoscopic procedures can be performed safely and effectively on patients receiving antithrombotic drugs remains a concern for endoscopists. In such cases, the patient’s thrombotic risk, morbidity, characteristics of the antithrombotic agent used, and bleeding risk during the endoscopic procedure should be considered when determining the appropriate management of antithrombotic agents during the procedure.

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have been developed by gastroenterology and endoscopy societies in the USA, Europe, Japan, and the Asia-Pacific region.⁶^-¹⁰ The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE) published practice guidelines for gastrointestinal endoscopy in 2020.¹¹ Since then, the latest evidence on the use of antithrombotic drugs and large-scale cohort studies on the use of DOAC have been published. Therefore, it was necessary to revise the previous Korean guidelines. At the time of revision, an “International Digestive Endoscopy Network (IDEN) consensus” was developed based on the consensus of local and international experts of the IDEN. Gastroenterologists, cardiologists, and neurologists developed the revised guidelines, and 36 multidisciplinary experts, including six international expert panels, reviewed and voted on the recommendations. These guidelines have been endorsed by the Korean Neurological Association and the Korean Society of Cardiology. The guidelines categorize thrombotic risk in patients using antiplatelet drugs and anticoagulants and the bleeding risk associated with various endoscopic procedures. Recommendations are provided for the management of antithrombotic agents based on these risks. This revision is updated based on the current evidence and provides a detailed management schedule for DOACs. However, because these guidelines do not cover all individual patients and situations, it is essential to consider patient characteristics and use a multidisciplinary approach in clinical practice.

METHODS

Purpose and scope of the clinical practice guideline

This CPG aimed to provide information on the management of antithrombotic agents during the periendoscopic period based on a comprehensive review of current evidence and CPGs on bleeding and thromboembolic adverse events associated with endoscopic procedures in patients receiving antithrombotic agents. This CPG is for adult patients being administered antithrombotic agents for the primary or secondary prevention of cardiocerebrovascular disease and those who undergo diagnostic or elective therapeutic endoscopic procedures, excluding emergency endoscopic procedures such as endoscopic hemostasis. The target readership of this CPG is gastroenterologists who perform endoscopic procedures in primary, secondary, and tertiary health care institutions. This CPG is intended to assist gastroenterologists in making timely decisions regarding appropriate treatment with antithrombotic agents before and after endoscopic procedures. Furthermore, it aims to serve as a guide for resident physicians and healthcare workers and provide practical information for patients and the general public.

Organization of the clinical practice guideline committee and the development process

The CPG committee convened in April 2022 and included the president (Oh Young Lee), vice president (Jong-Jae Park), and executive committee members of the KSGE. Members of the CPG committee established a strategy for the development of the CPG, appointed a director of the project, and reviewed and approved the project budget. They reviewed the suggested recommendations and ensured the editorial independence and participation of all parties involved in the development process. To develop the CPG, Kee Don Choi, a board-certified gastroenterologist and member of the KSGE, was appointed director of the CPG development committee. Eight other gastroenterologists participated as members of the CPG development committee. An expert in CPG development methodology (Miyoung Choi) from the National Evidence-Based Healthcare Collaborating Agency collaborated with the committee to develop the guidelines. Cardiologists and neurologists were also involved in the guideline’s development.

The development committee revised the guidelines published in 2020 according to the methods suggested in the Cochrane handbook and the handbook published by the National Evidence-Based Healthcare Collaborating Agency.¹¹^,¹² Briefly, partial revisions were made after reviewing the previous version of the Korean guidelines, guidelines from other countries published after 2020, and the latest literature on the use of antithrombotic agents during endoscopy. Additional literature was searched for 14 key questions, as in the previous guidelines published in August 2022. Based on the results of the selected studies, recommendations were made according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology.¹³ The development committee held a total of 13 meetings on May 9, 2022. The development committee also held a workshop with four cardiologists to reach an agreement on cardiovascular risk stratification on November 11, 2022. In April 2023, the CPG committee and international experts at the IDEN reviewed the draft of the recommendations and participated in the first round of voting.

Selection of the key questions

The development committee reviewed the key questions in the previous guidelines and guidelines from other countries.⁷^-⁹^,¹¹ After internal discussion, we retained 14 key questions, as in the previous version. Key questions were posed using the population, intervention, comparison, and outcome (PICO) process, and those to be included in the CPG were derived. P (population) represents patients who have undergone diagnostic or elective therapeutic endoscopic procedures while taking antithrombotic agents; I (intervention) represents the interruption or replacement of antithrombotic agents during the periendoscopic period; C (comparison) includes the comparison group, which continues to use antithrombotic agents before and after endoscopic procedures; and O (outcome) represents the risk of adverse events, such as bleeding and thromboembolism, associated with endoscopic procedures.

Literature search and selection of existing guidelines for adaptation

In August 2022, a literature search of the Ovid Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed databases was performed based on the key questions. The search words included a combination of terms related to endoscopic procedures (“en¬doscopy” OR “esophagogastroduodenoscopy” OR “colonoscopy” OR “endosonography” OR “endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography” OR “enteroscopy” OR “biopsy” OR “stent” OR “argon plasma coagulation” OR “papillary balloon dilation” OR “sphincterotomy” OR “fine needle aspiration” OR “percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy” OR “percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy” OR “tumor ablation” OR “ampullectomy” OR “cystogastrotomy” OR “pneumatic dilation” OR “polypectomy” OR “endoscopic mucosal resection” OR “endoscopic sub¬mucosal dissection”) and terms related to antithrombotic agents (“antiplatelet” OR “platelet aggregation inhibitor” OR “aspirin” OR “acetylsalicylic acid” OR “thienopyridine” OR “clopidogrel” OR “prasugrel” OR “ticagrelor” OR “ticlopidine” OR “cilostazol” OR “triflusal” OR “anticoagulants” OR “warfarin” OR “coumadin” OR “heparin” OR “low molecular weight hep-arin” OR “enoxaparin” OR “dalteparin” OR “nadroparin” OR “non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant” OR “novel oral anticoagulant” OR “direct oral anticoagulant” OR “dabigatran” OR “apixaban” OR “rivaroxaban” OR “edoxaban” OR “bridge therapy”).

Two members were assigned to each key question, and studies were independently selected according to the established criteria. The literature selection process was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagram.¹⁴ First, studies that did not meet the inclusion criteria were excluded by reviewing titles and abstracts. If studies were not eliminated during this process, the decision to eliminate or select them was finalized after reviewing the entire study. In cases of disagreement between the two members, the study selection was determined by consensus. If consensus was not reached, the committee leader made the final decision. The exclusion criteria for the latest literature were as follows: (1) studies not involving humans; (2) studies not involving patients relevant to the key questions; (3) studies not conducting interventions and comparative interventions related to the key questions; (4) studies presented only as abstracts, case reports, or reviews; and (5) studies that did not provide the original text. If there was an overlap of study populations between studies, those with smaller sizes were excluded.

Risk of bias assessment, summary of evidence, and grade of recommendation

The validity of selected studies was assessed using consistent, systematic methods. Randomized comparative studies were evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias,¹⁵ whereas non-randomized studies were evaluated using the Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Non-randomized Studies 2.0.¹⁶ Systematic reviews were evaluated using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews.¹⁷ The summary of the evidence was determined using the GRADE method.¹³ Randomized comparative studies were considered to provide a high level of evidence, whereas observational studies were considered to provide a low level of evidence. However, the quality levels of the studies were upgraded or downgraded based on factors affecting their quality. The level of evidence was graded as high, moderate, low, or very low.

The grade of recommendation was classified as strong or conditional, depending on the balance between the benefit and harm of the recommendation, the quality of evidence, values, and preferences. A strong recommendation is applicable to most patients because it has more positive than negative effects, is supported by high-quality evidence, and is highly valuable and strongly preferred over other interventions.¹ A conditional recommendation is also beneficial for many patients, although it has relatively fewer positive effects and/or weak-quality evidence. For conditional recommendations, an alternative intervention may be chosen depending on the values and preferences of the physicians and patients.

Review and approval of the guidelines

A draft was created and reviewed by the CPG development committee to ensure the completeness of the guidelines. For a consensus on recommendations by experts, local and international experts, members of the development and CPG committees, neurologists, and cardiologists voted online by e-mail. A revised draft based on the first round of voting was presented at the “IDEN 2023 conference,” in which international gastroenterologists from across the country gathered on June 9, 2023. The final draft of the guidelines was revised based on discussions during this meeting.

Provision of clinical practice guidelines and plans for future updates

For the wide provision and distribution of this CPG, the guidelines will be co-published in Clinical Endoscopy (the official journal of the KSGE) and the Korean Journal of Gastroenterology (the official journal of the Korean Society of Gastroenterology). It will be posted on the KSGE website and registered with the Korean Medical Guidelines Information Center. As the rapid distribution of the CPG to endoscopists through da¬tabases is expected to be difficult, the KSGE will distribute free guidelines through various channels, including email, and will actively promote it at academic conferences, seminars, and workshops. The CPG will be revised to account for changes in technology, new data, or other aspects of clinical practice in the future.

Limitations

The most critical limitation of the CPG is the lack of local evidence in Korea. Evidence from foreign countries cannot be directly applied to the development of guidelines for the Korean population because the risks of adverse events associated with endoscopic procedures and thromboembolism caused by withholding antithrombotic agents differ between countries. This CPG is not intended to provide absolute treatment standards in real clinical practice but to help physicians make evidence-based clinical decisions regarding the management of antithrombotic agents before and after endoscopic procedures. Therefore, the treatment for each patient should be determined by a physician, considering the various clinical factors of the individual patient. This CPG cannot be used as a basis for health insurance, to restrict physicians’ practices, or for the legal judgment of physical practice.

Editorial independence and conflict of interest

This CPG was selected as a KSGE project and received financial support from the KSGE. However, the KSGE did not affect the CPG development process, and none of the members involved in the CPG development had potential conflicts of interest.

BLEEDING RISK OF ENDOSCOPIC PROCEDURES

In this version of the guidelines, we categorize endoscopic procedures into low- and high-risk procedures (Table 1). The classification of bleeding risk was based on a previous version of this guideline and guidelines from different academic societies and associations.⁶^-¹¹ Low-risk endoscopic procedures were defined as those in which the risk of postprocedural bleeding (PPB) was expected to be ≤1%. Among high-risk endoscopic procedures, endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for large colon polyps (≥2 cm), endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), and endoscopic papillectomy, which have a higher bleeding risk than other high-risk endoscopic procedures, were further categorized as ultra-high-risk endoscopic procedures as per the previous versions of this guideline, the Asian Pacific Association of Gastroenterology (APAGE)/Asian Pacific Society for Digestive Endoscopy (APSDE) guideline, and the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG)/European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline.⁸^,⁹^,¹¹ According to a review and meta-analysis, the bleeding rate associated with papillectomy is 20% to 25%. Therefore, we categorized endoscopic papillectomy as an ultra-high-risk procedure.¹⁸^-²⁰ Regarding colon polypectomies, the PPB rate after cold snare polypectomy (CSP) for colon polyps less than 1 cm in size is less than 1% regardless of the morphology of the colon polyp, and the delayed PPB rate, even when warfarin is used, is reported to be less than 1%.²⁰^-²⁵ It would be useful to separately classify CSP for these lesions as a low-risk procedure because polyps less than 1 cm comprise 70% to 90% of detected polyps during colonoscopy.²⁶

THROMBOTIC RISK OF PATIENTS BEING ADMINISTERED ANTITHROMBOTIC AGENTS

Patients who underwent stent insertion for coronary artery disease required dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), including aspirin plus a P2Y₁₂ inhibitor, during the recommended period. Decisions regarding the discontinuation of antiplatelet agents and the timing of high-risk endoscopic procedures should be made after a comprehensive consideration of atherothrombotic events, bleeding, and clinical problems that could occur secondary to delayed procedures. A cardiologist must be consulted for the interruption of P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitor therapy before performing elective non-cardiac surgery. The guidelines developed by the American Heart Association in 2016 recommend delaying surgery for 6 months after the insertion of a drug-eluting stent and for 30 days after the insertion of a bare-metal stent.²⁷ However, in recent large-scale case-control studies, the prevalence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) was 7.2% to 11.6% when surgery was performed within 4 to 6 weeks of coronary stent implantation.²⁸^-³⁰ Notably, a case-control study involving 9,391 patients showed that the type of stent used was not associated with the risk of MACE.³⁰ Rather, the risk of MACE was related to the patient’s medical history (history of acute coronary syndrome [ACS] and stent thrombosis) and underlying risk factors, such as congestive heart failure, chronic kidney disease, and diabetes mellitus. Based on these results, the guidelines for DAPT in coronary artery disease developed by the European Society of Cardiology in 2017 recommend delaying surgery by 4 weeks after stent implantation, regardless of the type of stent used.³¹ Furthermore, when surgery is scheduled between 4 weeks and 6 months after stent insertion, it should be deferred, if possible, and the decision to perform surgery should be made after considering the risks and benefits specific to the patient.³¹ However, this period can be extended to 12 months for patients with a history of ACS or other clinical risk factors. Recommendations regarding the timing of high-risk endoscopic procedures in patients who have undergone coronary stent insertion are shown in Table 2.

Decisions to continue or discontinue anticoagulants in patients undergoing endoscopic procedures should consider both the bleeding risk associated with endoscopic procedures and the risk of thromboembolism associated with withholding anticoagulants. The risk of thromboembolism, which may increase because of the discontinuation of anticoagulants, is closely related to the underlying disease that requires the use of anticoagulants.³²^,³³ The American College of Chest Physician guidelines categorize patients into three groups based on the risk of thromboembolism: (1) low-risk (<4% per year risk of arterial thromboembolism [ATE] or <4% per month risk of venous thromboembolism [VTE]), (2) moderate-risk (4% to 10% per year risk of ATE or 4% to 10% per month risk of VTE), and (3) high-risk (>10% per year risk of ATE or >10% per month risk of VTE).³⁴ Based on recent studies and previously developed guidelines regarding the management of antithrombotic agents before and after endoscopic procedures, we summarized high-risk patients for whom there was a high risk of thromboembolism when anticoagulants were withheld and who required heparin bridging therapy (Table 3).

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF ANTITHROMBOTIC AGENTS

Statement 1-1. We do not recommend the discontinuation of aspirin before endoscopic procedures for patients being administered aspirin (strength of recommendation: strong; level of evidence: moderate).

The bleeding risk associated with diagnostic endoscopy, including mucosal biopsy, is ≤0.5%, even when antiplatelet agents such as aspirin or clopidogrel are used.³⁵^-³⁹ A prospective study reported the bleeding rate after upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, including mucosal biopsy, performed without withholding antiplatelet agents before the procedure. Bleeding rates in the aspirin-only and clopidogrel-only groups were 0.4% and 0.0%, respectively.³⁹ Therefore, we recommend that aspirin should not be discontinued during low- or high-risk procedures, as recommended by previous guidelines.

Statement 1-2. For ultra-high-risk endoscopic procedures, withholding aspirin before the procedure could be considered, depending on the risk of bleeding in patients with low thrombotic risk (strength of recommendation: conditional; level of evidence: low).

Considering procedures with the highest bleeding risk, including EMR for large lesions, ESD, and endoscopic papillectomy, studies have shown varying results regarding whether aspirin use increases bleeding.

ESD is associated with a higher risk of bleeding than EMR.⁴⁰^-⁴² Delayed bleeding rates after gastric ESD have been reported to be 1.3% to 11.9%. Research findings on the bleeding risk after gastric ESD with aspirin are inconsistent, with some studies reporting an increased bleeding risk if aspirin was not stopped before the procedure.⁴³^,⁴⁴ In contrast, other studies have reported no increased risk of bleeding with continued aspirin use.⁴⁵^-⁵⁰ Meta-analysis of these studies showed that continuous use of aspirin increased post-ESD bleeding compared with interruption (risk ratio [RR], 1.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13–2.36), as shown in Figure 1.⁴³^-⁵⁰ The bleeding rate in the continuation group who underwent gastric ESD was 10.8% (95% CI, 8.5%–13.1%). A recent retrospective multicenter study in patients who underwent ESD for early gastric cancer also showed that among aspirin users (n=665), the continuation group had significantly more cases of post-ESD bleeding (odds ratio [OR], 2.79; 95% CI, 1.77–4.37).⁴⁴

A recent prospective study evaluated the safety of continued antiplatelet therapy in patients who received antiplatelet agents and underwent EMR for colorectal polyps. There was no difference in the major PPB rate between the withholding and continuing groups among aspirin users (2.0% vs. 4.2%, p=0.30); however, the PPB rate was significantly higher in the continuing group than in the withholding group among clopidogrel users (18.2% vs. 0%, p=0.02).⁵¹ Polyp size is a known risk factor for delayed bleeding after a colorectal polypectomy. There is a high risk of bleeding after EMR for colorectal polyps ≥2 cm in size, and aspirin use is associated with an increased risk of bleeding. A retrospective study showed that discontinuation of aspirin was an independent protective factor for PPB (hazard ratio [HR], 0.13; 95% CI, 0.03–0.75; p=0.022), especially when the polyp was ≥12 mm.⁵²

A large retrospective cohort study including consecutive patients undergoing colonoscopic polypectomy reported that thromboembolic events occurred in two out of 487 patients (0.41%) who continued aspirin during the procedures and two out of 568 patients (0.35%) who stopped aspirin before the procedure.⁵³ Considering the rate of thromboembolic events in aspirin users, aspirin may be discontinued during ultra-high-risk procedures. However, the decision on whether to withhold aspirin before ultrahigh-risk procedures should be based on the risk of thromboembolism and bleeding, ideally after consultation with a cardiologist or neurologist.

Statement 2. We recommend continuing P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitors for low-risk endoscopic procedures in patients using a single antiplatelet agent for secondary prevention (strength of recommendation: strong; level of evidence: low).

P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitors (clopidogrel, prasugrel, and ticagrelor) are frequently used for DAPT, along with aspirin, in patients with ACS and after coronary stent placement. After 6 to 12 months of DAPT, a single antiplatelet agent, usually aspirin, is administered for a prolonged period of time. However, in several recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs), P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitor monotherapy after approximately 1 to 3 months of DAPT, compared with prolonged DAPT (≥12 months), resulted in similar rates of all-cause mortality, major cardiac events, and fewer bleeding events.⁵⁴^,⁵⁵ Clopidogrel monotherapy is also recommended in patients with symptomatic peripheral vascular disease and may be used following an ischemic cerebrovascular accident.⁵⁶^,⁵⁷ Patients can be considered to have a high-to-moderate cardiovascular risk, even if they are receiving P2Y₁₂ inhibitor monotherapy, within 6 months after percutaneous coronary intervention and within 12 months after ACS. Therefore, it is necessary to consult a cardiologist regarding the discontinuation of P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitors in these cases. However, in patients with a low cardiovascular risk, discontinuation of P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitors 5 to 7 days before the procedure can be considered if a high-risk endoscopic procedure is required.

As mentioned in Statement 1-1, the bleeding risk associated with diagnostic endoscopy is low even when an antiplatelet agent is used.³⁸^,⁵⁸ In a prospective Japanese study involving patients being administered antiplatelet agents, delayed bleeding did not occur after upper gastrointestinal endoscopy or colonoscopy, including mucosal biopsy.⁵⁹ These results support the recommendation that antiplatelet agents should not be discontinued before performing low-risk endoscopic procedures.

Statement 3. We suggest withholding P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitors for 5–7 days (5 days for clopidogrel and ticagrelor and 7 days for prasugrel) before high-risk endoscopic procedures in patients using a single P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitor for secondary prevention (strength of recommendation: conditional; level of evidence: very low).

Two RCTs investigated the safety of continued clopidogrel use in patients undergoing colon polypectomy. Chan et al.⁶⁰ randomly assigned 216 patients receiving clopidogrel, with or without concomitant aspirin, into two groups that either continued the medication or received a placebo. The majority of the polyps were ≤10 mm (83.8%), and the largest polyp was 20 mm in size. The rate of immediate bleeding was slightly higher in the clopidogrel group (8.5%) than in the placebo group (5.5%); however, the difference was not statistically significant. The incidence of delayed bleeding was similar in both groups (3.8% in the clopidogrel group vs. 3.6% in the placebo group; p=0.945), and there was no significant difference in serious atherothrombotic events. Ket et al.⁶¹ compared the continuous use of clopidogrel and the temporary replacement of clopidogrel with aspirin. This study randomized 107 patients with 276 polyps ≤10 mm in size into two groups. Intraprocedural bleeding requiring clipping frequently occurred in the clopidogrel group. Conversely, PPB was more common in the temporary replacement group. Thromboembolic complications occurred in one patient in each group, but the difference was not statistically significant. Another small observational study showed that, in clopidogrel users, there was no difference in delayed bleeding between the continuation (0/13) and discontinuation (1/11; p=0.45) groups.⁶² Although colon polypectomy is usually classified as a high-risk procedure, the immediate and delayed PPB rates for hot snare or CSP for polyps ≤10 mm in size were 2% to 5% and 0.1% to 0.9%, respectively.²¹^,⁶³^,⁶⁴ In two RCTs and one observational study, there was no difference in delayed bleeding when P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitors were continued. Considering that the delayed bleeding rate after polypectomy for polyps ≤1 cm is low, P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitors do not need to be discontinued during polypectomy. Delayed bleeding in patients receiving antiplatelet agents is less common after CSP than after conventional polypectomy.²³ Therefore, CSP is preferred to minimize PPB in patients using antiplatelet agents. Meticulous hemostasis, including clip placement, should be considered because of a slight increase in the risk of immediate bleeding.

For other high-risk procedures, there have been three observational studies on gastric ESD, colon ESD, and endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST). Kono et al.⁶⁵ reported the outcome of gastric ESDs for 1,020 lesions, of which a single antiplatelet agent was used in 135 patients. Among the patients using a single antiplatelet agent, 113 discontinued the antiplatelet agent before the procedure, and 22 continued the treatment. The delayed bleeding rate in the discontinuation group was 4.4% (5/113), which was not significantly different from that in the continuation group (4.5%, 1/22). Arimoto et al.⁶⁶ reported the outcome of 919 colon ESDs, out of which a single antiplatelet agent was administered in 136 cases. Of these, 110 lesions were treated after discontinuation, and 26 were treated while continuing the agent. There was no significant difference in the bleeding rate between the two groups (4.5% in the discontinuation group vs. 0% in the continuation group, p=0.27). Prophylactic clipping was frequently performed in 35.0% (9/26) of the patients in the continuation group and 13.6% (15/110) in the discontinuation group (p=0.01). However, aspirin was the most commonly used antiplatelet agent in this study, and P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitors were used in only 19.7% of the patients (23/117). A nationwide database study reported the EST bleeding rate in patients treated with antiplatelet agents.⁶⁷ Severe bleeding after EST occurred in 0.6% (3/462) of patients in the continuation group and 1.3% (43/3,376) of patients in the discontinuation group, with no significant differences between the groups. The proportions of aspirin and P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitor users in the continuation group were 76.6% (354/462) and 17.3% (80/462), respectively. Three studies reported no significant difference in the incidence of severe postoperative bleeding between the continuation and discontinuation groups. However, these studies were retrospective and had limitations in that differences in the risk factors between patients who discontinued and those who continued antiplatelet agents were not adjusted for. The use of preventive measures, such as the use of endoclips, differed between the groups. Furthermore, the antiplatelet agents used, including aspirin, cilostazol, and P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitors, and the bleeding risk associated with each agent were not described. Therefore, it is difficult to accurately determine the risk associated with the continuous use of P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitors based on these results and P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitors should be discontinued 5 to 7 days before high-risk endoscopic procedures considering the incidence of severe postoperative bleeding, except for colon polypectomy for polyps of less than 1 cm in size. This recommendation applies to patients with a low cardiovascular risk. If a high-risk endoscopic procedure cannot be delayed in a patient with moderate to high cardiovascular risk, it can be performed with a single antiplatelet agent while ensuring meticulous hemostasis and instituting preventive measures, such as endoclip application.

Statement 4. We suggest resuming P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitors after adequate hemostasis, considering the onset time, the potency of the medication, and the risk of bleeding and cardiovascular events (strength of recommendation: conditional; level of evidence: very low).

Currently, there are no data supporting the ideal timing of resuming P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitor administration after high-risk endoscopic procedures. Therefore, consulting a cardiologist or neurologist regarding the duration of discontinuation and the timing of resumption will be helpful. Considering that clopidogrel usually requires 3 to 5 days after the resumption of its administration to exert its full effect, it should be resumed as soon as possible if adequate hemostasis is achieved during the procedure and there is no evidence of bleeding after the procedure.⁶⁸ However, because the onset time of prasugrel or ticagrelor is fast and their antiplatelet potency is greater than that of clopidogrel, the timing of restarting these antiplatelet agents should be determined after considering these characteristics.⁶⁷ Given that the resumption of P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitor therapy after high-risk endoscopic procedures may increase the risk of delayed bleeding, patient education and close monitoring are warranted.

Statement 5. For patients on dual antiplatelet therapy (aspirin and clopidogrel), we suggest continuing both antiplatelet agents before low-risk endoscopic procedures (strength of recommendation: conditional; level of evidence: very low).

Patients with coronary stents receiving DAPT are at a risk of developing stent thrombosis, which has an approximately 40% risk of acute myocardial infarction or death if both antiplatelet agents are discontinued.⁸ In a large US registry, the median time to stent thrombosis was as short as 7 days when both antiplatelet agents were withheld, whereas the median time was prolonged to 122 days when one antiplatelet agent was continued.⁶⁸^,⁶⁹ In a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent colon polypectomy in Hong Kong, thrombotic events occurred in 10% of patients (even within seven days) when both agents were discontinued.⁵³ Therefore, discontinuing both antithrombotic agents in patients with coronary artery stents can increase cardiovascular complications and should be avoided, if possible.

Both antiplatelet agents can be administered during low-risk procedures. In a Japanese prospective study that analyzed 48 upper gastrointestinal endoscopies and 12 colonoscopies in 60 patients, including a total of 101 biopsies, there was no significant bleeding for 2 weeks after endoscopy (0/101; 95% CI, 0%–3.6%).³⁸ Furthermore, visual inspection revealed that the time until the bleeding stops after biopsy did not differ between patients taking a single antiplatelet agent and those on DAPT (2.4±1.4 and 2.1±2.1 minutes, respectively).³⁹ There were two RCTs of CSP for colon polyps ≤1 cm. Won et al.⁷⁰ reported a similar rate of clinically significant delayed bleeding among 87 patients who were randomized to continue DAPT and aspirin after CSP for colon polyps less than 1 cm in size (1/42 [2.4%] with DAPT and 0/45 with aspirin use). No thromboembolic events were observed in either of the groups.

Statement 6. For patients on dual antiplatelet therapy, we recommend withholding the P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitor for 5–7 days (5 days for clopidogrel and ticagrelor and 7 days for prasugrel) before high-risk endoscopic procedures while continuing aspirin during the procedure (strength of recommendation: strong; level of evidence: very low).

Statement 7. We suggest resuming the P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitor after adequate hemostasis is secured, considering the onset time, the potency of the medication, and the risk of bleeding and cardiovascular events (strength of recommendation: conditional; level of evidence: very low).

We identified one RCT and six observational studies of high-risk procedures in patients using DAPT. One RCT on colon polypectomy (≤2 cm) showed no significant differences between patients who continued DAPT or aspirin use.⁶⁰ In this study, among 170 patients undergoing DAPT, 86 maintained DAPT and 84 used only aspirin during colon polypectomy. The incidence of immediate bleeding was slightly higher in those that continued DAPT (8/84 [9.4%] vs. 3/86 [3.5%], p=0.110); however, the delayed bleeding rate did not differ between the groups (4/84 [4.8%] in those that continued DAPT and 4/86 [4.7%] in aspirin users, p=0.958). However, this study included a relatively small number of patients, and the bleeding rate in the aspirin group was higher than that in previous reports that included aspirin users. Therefore, further research on this topic is necessary. Observational studies on gastric ESD, another high-risk procedure, have reported a high bleeding rate among patients who continued DAPT during the procedure. A meta-analysis of six studies on gastric ESD showed higher delayed bleeding rates in patients who continued DAPT than in single antiplatelet users (RR, 2.45; 95% CI, 1.75–3.42), as shown in (Figure 2).⁵^,⁴⁸^,⁵⁰^,⁶⁵^,⁷¹^,⁷² The pooled delayed bleeding rate after gastric ESD in the patients who continued DAPT was 22.7% (95% CI, 17.7%–28.5%). Considering the high delayed bleeding rate in patients who continued DAPT, the short-term discontinuation of P2Y₁₂ inhibitors is recommended for patients undergoing high-risk procedures.

Statement 8. We do not recommend withholding warfarin before low-risk endoscopic procedures (strength of recommendation: conditional; level of evidence: low).

To update the evidence for the previous KSGE guidelines, we performed a literature search and identified eight retrospective and prospective cohort studies.⁵³^,⁵⁹^,⁷³^-⁷⁸ Various low-risk endoscopic procedures, such as double-balloon enteroscopy,⁷³^,⁷⁸ diagnostic endoscopy,⁵³^,⁷⁵ endoscopic papillary large balloon dilatation,⁷⁶ or endoscopic biopsy,⁵⁹^,⁷⁷ were evaluated to determine whether warfarin could be continued or discontinued before the procedures. All included studies indicated that the overall rate of early or delayed hemorrhage did not differ between the warfarin interruption and non-interruption groups. However, the temporary interruption of antithrombotic therapy during the procedure was associated with a significantly higher risk of thromboembolic events.⁵³ Considering the significant sequelae of thromboembolisms, warfarin therapy should be continued whenever possible. However, because the bleeding risk increases when the international normalized ratio exceeds the therapeutic range, it should be ensured that the international normalized ratio remains within the therapeutic range during the periendoscopic period of low-risk endoscopic procedures.⁸

Statement 9. We suggest withholding warfarin 3–5 days before high-risk endoscopic procedures. Heparin bridging therapy is recommended only in patients with high thromboembolic risk (strength of recommendation: conditional; level of evidence: low).

Statement 10. We suggest resuming warfarin as soon as possible once adequate hemostasis has been secured (strength of recommendation: conditional; level of evidence: low).

One multicenter, parallel, non-inferiority RCT⁷⁹ and 26 retrospective or prospective cohort studies⁵⁹^,⁶²^,⁶⁵^,⁷⁴^,⁸⁰^-¹⁰⁰ were identified from the literature search. Various high-risk endoscopic procedures, such as colorectal EMR,⁵⁹^,⁶²^,⁷⁴^,⁷⁹^-⁸⁶^,⁸⁸^,⁸⁹^,⁹¹^,⁹³^-⁹⁶^,¹⁰⁰ ESD,⁷⁴^,⁷⁹^,⁹⁰^,⁹⁶ gastric ESD,⁶⁵^,⁷⁴^,⁷⁹^,⁹⁶^,⁹⁸ EST,⁷⁴^,⁷⁹^,⁹² esophageal ESD,⁷⁴^,⁷⁹ duodenal EMR,⁷⁹ PEG,⁷⁴^,⁹⁹ endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration,⁷⁴^,⁸⁷ and endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage⁹⁷ were evaluated. Most studies focused on the risks and benefits of heparin bridging therapy before the procedure.⁶⁵^,⁷⁴^,⁷⁹^-⁸¹^,⁸⁴^,⁸⁵^,⁸⁸^,⁹³^,⁹⁴^,⁹⁶^,¹⁰⁰ Heparin bridging therapy is performed to reduce the risk of thromboembolism associated with the temporary cessation of warfarin therapy. However, procedure-related hemorrhage is significant when warfarin is continued or when heparin bridging therapy is performed during high-risk endoscopic procedures. Several studies commonly recommend not using heparin bridging therapy because of its associated PPB risk.⁶⁵^,⁷⁴^,⁷⁹^-⁸¹^,⁸⁴^,⁸⁵^,⁸⁸^,⁹³^,⁹⁴^,⁹⁶^,¹⁰⁰ Some studies have advocated for continuing warfarin therapy before and after therapeutic procedures.⁵⁹^,⁶²^,⁸²^,⁸³^,⁸⁶^,⁸⁷^,⁸⁹^,⁹⁰^,⁹²^,⁹⁵^,⁹⁷^-⁹⁹ However, most of these studies were conducted in Japan, and their retrospective nature hampered changes in previous statements.⁵⁹^,⁸²^,⁸³^,⁸⁶^,⁸⁹^,⁹⁰^,⁹²^,⁹⁵^,⁹⁷^,⁹⁸ Considering that temporary interruption of anticoagulation therapy during procedures was associated with a significantly higher risk of thromboembolic events⁵³ and continuing antithrombotic therapy was associated with a significantly higher risk of procedure-related bleeding,⁹¹ we still need to stratify the patients’ thromboembolic risk, and heparin bridging therapy is recommended for only patients with a high thromboembolic risk.

Statement 11. We suggest omitting the morning dose of DOACs on the day of a low-risk endoscopic procedure (strength of recommendation: conditional; level of evidence: very low).

Statement 12. We suggest resuming DOACs once adequate hemostasis has been secured after a low-risk endoscopic procedure (strength of recommendation: conditional; level of evidence: very low).

DOACs include thrombin (dabigatran) and factor Xa (rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban) inhibitors. Unlike warfarin, these drugs have a rapid onset of action, and full anticoagulant activity is established within 3 hours of the first dose.⁸

For low-risk procedures, we identified six studies with adequate control groups. There was no difference in bleeding complications between the continuous DOAC use group and patients who did not use anticoagulants (0/19 in the continuous DOAC use group and 0/263 in the no medications group)¹⁰¹ or patients who temporarily stopped DOAC use (0/18 in the continuous DOAC use group and 0/4 in the cessation of medication group) among patients undergoing endoscopic biopsy.¹⁰² However, these studies included only a small number of patients who used DOACs. One prospective observational study enrolled patients who received DOACs and underwent CSP for colon polyps ≤ 10 mm in size.¹⁰³ In one group, DOACs were not discontinued, whereas in the other group, DOACs were withheld only on the day of the procedure. Delayed bleeding after CSP occurred in 4/27 patients (8.5%) in the DOAC-continued group versus 0/66 (0%) in the group that omitted DOAC on the day of the procedure (p<0.01). A prospective cohort study assessed the effectiveness and safety of the recommendations of the BSG/ESGE guidelines.¹⁰⁴ The BSG/ESGE guidelines recommend omitting the morning dose of DOACs on the day of the procedure and resuming the drug the same evening.⁸ For low-risk procedures, intraprocedural bleeding occurred in 1/105 (0.9%) patients in the group that skipped the morning dose and 2/50 (4.0%) patients in the group that continued the medication until the day of the procedure. Although the difference was not statistically significant due to the small sample size, the group that skipped the morning dose showed a lower bleeding rate. Regarding the time of resumption, there was no difference in the delayed bleeding rate between the group starting on the same day (1/188 [0.5%]) and the group starting later (1/139 [0.7%]). Only one of 327 patients undergoing low-risk procedures (0.3%; 95% CI, 0.01–0.9) experienced thromboembolic events two days after a procedure. Therefore, omitting the morning dose of DOACs is suggested before low-risk procedures, and restarting as soon as possible after the procedure is recommended. Decisions regarding resumption should be made on the basis of the risks of the procedure and the securing of adequate hemostasis. DOACs have a rapid onset of action, with a peak effect occurring 1 to 3 hours after intake.³⁴ In the Perioperative Anticoagulation Use for Surgery Evaluation (PAUSE) study, DOACs were resumed one day after a procedure with a low risk of bleeding, provided that hemostasis was secured.¹⁰⁵

Statement 13. We recommend withholding DOACs for more than 48 hours before a high-risk endoscopic procedure (strength of recommendation: strong; level of evidence: low).

Statement 14. We suggest resuming DOACs within 2–3 days after high-risk endoscopic procedures once adequate hemostasis has been secured (strength of recommendation: conditional; level of evidence: very low).

Four retrospective cohort studies on high-risk procedures have been conducted.⁸⁴^,¹⁰⁴^,¹⁰⁶^,¹⁰⁷ In a retrospective study of 73 patients using DOACs who underwent colon polypectomy, PPB occurred in 16.0% (8/50) of patients who continued DOACs during the procedures.⁸⁴ However, no PPB was observed in patients who discontinued DOACs for >24 hours (0/4) before the procedure. Another retrospective study reviewed 728 patients who received anticoagulants and underwent ESD for gastric neoplasms at 25 institutions in Japan.¹⁰⁶ Delayed bleeding occurred in 11.2% (23/206) of the patients who discontinued DOACs one or two days before ESD, which was significantly lower than that in patients who continued DOACs (35.7%, 5/14). Masuda et al. reported the post-EST bleeding rates in patients using DOACs.¹⁰⁷ The post-EST bleeding rate was significantly lower in patients who discontinued DOACs for more than one day (1 of 25 [4%]) than in those who were administered DOACs within one day (5 of 17 [29%]) of the procedure. Therefore, discontinuation of DOACs 1 to 2 days before the procedure decreases postprocedural bleeding rates in high-risk procedures. In the PAUSE study, a protocol of taking the last DOAC dose 3 days before the high-risk procedure and restarting 1 to 2 days after the procedure was adopted.¹⁰⁵ In the cohort using this protocol, the risk of major bleeding within 1 month was 0.88% to 2.96%, and the risk of thromboembolic events such as stroke was 0.16% to 0.60%. Therefore, we recommend withholding DOACs for more than 48 hours before high-risk procedures and restarting them within 2 to 3 days after the procedure, according to the bleeding risks. Because the half-life of DOAC is approximately 12 hours, we predict that DOAC levels will be almost undetectable after 48 hours. However, DOAC metabolism is also affected by renal function. In particular, approximately 80% of dabigatran is eliminated by the kidneys, and its elimination is affected by a decline in renal function. Therefore, special attention should be paid to DOAC management in patients with impaired renal function. As shown in Figure 3, the last dabigatran dose should be administered five days before high-risk procedures in patients with renal insufficiency (creatinine clearance<50 mL/min). Approximately 50% of edoxaban is excreted from the kidneys; therefore, it is necessary to extend the duration of discontinuation if the renal function deteriorates. The protocols for periendoscopic DOAC management are summarized in Figure 3.

There is no evidence supporting the use of heparin bridging therapy in patients receiving DOACs. Neither APAGE/APSDE nor BSG/ESGE recommend heparin bridging therapy during the discontinuation of DOACs because of their rapid onset of action.⁸^,⁹ The Korean Heart Rhythm Society also does not recommend heparin bridging therapy during the temporary cessation of DOACs because their anticoagulation effect is predictable.¹⁰⁸

CONCLUSION AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

The aging population is experiencing an increase in the incidence of cardiocerebrovascular diseases. The risk of bleeding varies with the endoscopic procedure, and the use of antithrombotic agents can further increase the risk of serious clinical events. To determine whether and when to withhold the use of antithrombotic agents before endoscopic procedures, the risk of thromboembolism caused by withholding antithrombotic agents and the bleeding risk associated with endoscopic procedures should be considered simultaneously. These guidelines should improve the safety and effectiveness of endoscopic procedures by minimizing adverse events, such as bleeding and thromboembolism, in patients using antithrombotic agents. However, owing to the lack of well-designed RCTs, most recommendations are conditional and based on expert opinion and consensus. Therefore, well-designed, large-scale studies on this issue are required. Furthermore, some studies have shown that thrombosis and bleeding tendencies differ between Western and Asian populations.¹⁰⁹ However, there is insufficient evidence to suggest that antithrombotic drugs should be managed differently during endoscopic procedures. Therefore, it is necessary to determine whether antithrombotic drugs should be administered to Asian patients while paying more attention to bleeding.

NOTES

Conflicts of Interest

Rungsun Rerknimitr is an associate editor of Clinical Endoscopy, Geun Am Song is a member of editorial board of Clinical Endoscopy, and Oh Young Lee is an associate editor of Clinical Endoscopy. The other authors have no potential conflicts of interest.

Funding

None.

Acknowledgments

We thank the executive members of the Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, the Korean Society of Cardiology, the Korean Neurological Association, the Korean Society of Gastroenterology, the Korean College of Helicobacter and Upper Gastrointestinal Research, the Korean Association for the Study of Intestinal Disease, and the Korean Pancreatobiliary Association for reviewing the manuscript and providing expert opinions.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: GAS, OYL; Formal analysis: SJK, CHT, CSB, CMS; Investigation: CSB, CMS; Methodology: MC; Supervision: YHJ, KDC, KNS, JHH, YS, PWYC, RR, CK, VVK; Writing–original draft: SJK, CHT, Writing–review & editing: GAS, OYL, CSB, CMS, MC, YHJ, JHH, YS, PWYC, RR, CK, VVK, KDC, KNS.

Fig. 1.

Postendoscopic submucosal dissection bleeding in aspirin users comparing the interruption and continuation groups. M-H, Mantel–Haenszel; CI, confidence inter¬val.

Fig. 2.

Postendoscopic submucosal dissection bleeding comparing the dual antiplatelet therapy and single antiplatelet therapy groups. DAPT, dual antiplatelet therapy; APA, antiplatelet agent; M-H, Mantel–Haenszel; CI, confidence interval.

Fig. 3.

Suggested protocol for perioperative direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) management. (●) means that DOACs can be administered on the same day if procedures that damage the mucosa (biopsy, cold snare polypectomy, etc.) were not performed. ((●)) means that DOACs can be administered two days after high-risk procedures if there are no risk factors for postprocedural bleeding and no symptoms or signs of postoperative bleeding. CrCl, creatinine clearance; AM, ante meridiem; PM, post meridiem.

Table 1.

Bleeding risk of endoscopic procedures

Low-risk (≤1%)	High-risk (>1%)
Low-risk (≤1%)	High-risk	Ultra-high-risk
Diagnostic endoscopy including mucosal biopsy	Polypectomy	Endoscopic submucosal dissection
Cold snare polypectomy of colon polyp ≤1 cm	EUS with needle aspiration or biopsy	Endoscopic mucosal resection of large colon polyp (≥2 cm)
EUS without needle aspiration or biopsy	ERCP with sphincterotomy	Endoscopic papillectomy
ERCP with stent placement	Dilation of strictures
Papillary balloon dilatation without sphincterotomy	Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy or jejunostomy
Diagnostic push or device-assisted enteroscopy	Injection or band ligation of varices
Capsule endoscopy
Esophageal, gastric, enteral, and colonic stenting (without significant dilatation)

EUS, endoscopic ultrasonography; ERCP, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.

Table 2.

Thromboembolic risk after discontinuation of antiplatelet agents

Thrombotic risk	SIHD (mo)	ACS or CV risk factors (mo)^a)	Management
High	<1	<3	Defer procedure
Intermediate	1–6	3–12	Defer procedure until the risk is low if possible
Low	>6	>12	Perform procedure
			Continue aspirin
			Withhold P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitor 5–7 days before the high-risk procedure

SIHD, stable ischemic heart disease; ACS, acute coronary syndrome; CV, cardiovascular.

^a)Risk factors: previous myocardial infarctions, previous stent thrombosis, congestive heart failure (left ventricular ejection fraction <35%), chronic kidney disease, diabetes mellitus.

Table 3.

High thromboembolic risk category for patients receiving anticoagulant therapy

	Indication for anticoagulation
	Mechanical valve	Atrial fibrillation	Venous thromboembolism
High	Recent (<3 mo) stroke or TIA	Recent (<3 mo) stroke or TIA	Recent (<3 mo) VTE
	Mitral valve prosthesis	Rheumatic valvular heart disease	Severe thrombophilia (e.g., deficiency of protein C, protein S, or antithrombin, antiphospholipid syndrome)
	Any caged-ball or tilting aortic valve prosthesis	CHA₂DS₂-VASc score^a) ≥6

High risk: >10%/yr risk of ATE or >10%/mo risk of VTE.

TIA, transient ischemic attack; VTE, venous thromboembolism; ATE, arterial thromboembolism.

^a)CHA₂DS₂-VASc score: congestive heart failure (1), hypertension (1), age ≥75 years (2), diabetes (1), stroke/TIA/thromboembolism (2), vascular disease (1), age 65 to 74 years (1), sex (female) (1).

REFERENCES

1. Antithrombotic Trialists’ Collaboration. Collaborative meta-analysis of randomised trials of antiplatelet therapy for prevention of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke in high risk patients. BMJ 2002;324:71–86.

2. Joy M, Williams J, Emanuel S, et al. Trends in direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) prescribing in English primary care (2014-2019). Heart 2023;109:195–201.

3. Han J, Lee DW, Kim HG. Recent advances in endoscopic papillectomy for ampulla of vater tumors: endoscopic ultrasonography, intraductal ultrasonography, and pancreatic stent placement. Clin Endosc 2015;48:24–30.

4. Nabi Z, Reddy DN. Endoscopic palliation for biliary and pancreatic malignancies: recent advances. Clin Endosc 2019;52:226–234.

5. Gotoda T, Hori K, Iwamuro M, et al. Evaluation of the bleeding risk with various antithrombotic therapies after gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection. Endosc Int Open 2017;5:E653–E662.

6. ASGE Standards of Practice Committee, Acosta RD, Abraham NS, et al. The management of antithrombotic agents for patients undergoing GI endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2016;83:3–16.

7. Abraham NS, Barkun AN, Sauer BG, et al. American College of Gastroenterology-Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Clinical Practice Guideline: management of anticoagulants and antiplatelets during acute gastrointestinal bleeding and the periendoscopic period. Am J Gastroenterol 2022;117:542–558.

8. Veitch AM, Radaelli F, Alikhan R, et al. Endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy: British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline update. Endoscopy 2021;53:947–969.

9. Chan FKL, Goh KL, Reddy N, et al. Management of patients on antithrombotic agents undergoing emergency and elective endoscopy: joint Asian Pacific Association of Gastroenterology (APAGE) and Asian Pacific Society for Digestive Endoscopy (APSDE) practice guidelines. Gut 2018;67:405–417.

10. Fujimoto K, Fujishiro M, Kato M, et al. Guidelines for gastroenterological endoscopy in patients undergoing antithrombotic treatment. Dig Endosc 2014;26:1–14.

11. Lim H, Gong EJ, Min BH, et al. Clinical practice guideline for the management of antithrombotic agents in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. Clin Endosc 2020;53:663–677.

12. Cumpston MS, McKenzie JE, Welch VA, et al. Strengthening systematic reviews in public health: guidance in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, 2nd edition. J Public Health (Oxf) 2022;44:e588–e592.

13. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. Incorporating considerations of resources use into grading recommendations. BMJ 2008;336:1170–1173.

14. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 2009;339:b2700.

15. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011;343:d5928.

16. Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 2016;355:i4919.

17. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2007;7:10.

18. Heise C, Abou Ali E, Hasenclever D, et al. Systematic review with meta-analysis: endoscopic and surgical resection for ampullary lesions. J Clin Med 2020;9:3622.

19. Espinel J, Pinedo E, Ojeda V, et al. Endoscopic ampullectomy: a technical review. Rev Esp Enferm Dig 2016;108:271–278.

20. Wu CC, Lim SJ, Khor CJ, et al. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-related complications: risk stratification, prevention, and management. Clin Endosc 2023;56:433–445.

21. Takamaru H, Saito Y, Hammoud GM, et al. Comparison of postpolypectomy bleeding events between cold snare polypectomy and hot snare polypectomy for small colorectal lesions: a large-scale propensity score-matched analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2022;95:982–989.

22. Kawamura T, Takeuchi Y, Asai S, et al. A comparison of the resection rate for cold and hot snare polypectomy for 4-9 mm colorectal polyps: a multicentre randomised controlled trial (CRESCENT study). Gut 2018;67:1950–1957.

23. Horiuchi A, Nakayama Y, Kajiyama M, et al. Removal of small colorectal polyps in anticoagulated patients: a prospective randomized comparison of cold snare and conventional polypectomy. Gastrointest Endosc 2014;79:417–423.

24. Giri S, Jearth V, Darak H, et al. Outcomes of thin versus thick-wire snares for cold snare polypectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Endosc 2022;55:742–750.

25. Tokuhara M, Shimatani M, Tominaga K, et al. Evaluation of a new method, "non-injection resection using bipolar soft coagulation mode (NIRBS)", for colonic adenomatous lesions. Clin Endosc 2023;56:623–632.

26. Vleugels JL, Hazewinkel Y, Fockens P, et al. Natural history of diminutive and small colorectal polyps: a systematic literature review. Gastrointest Endosc 2017;85:1169–1176.

27. Levine GN, Bates ER, Bittl JA, et al. 2016 ACC/AHA Guideline focused update on duration of dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with coronary artery disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines: an update of the 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for percutaneous coronary intervention, 2011 ACCF/AHA Guideline for coronary artery bypass graft surgery, 2012 ACC/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Guideline for the diagnosis and management of patients with stable ischemic heart disease, 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction, 2014 AHA/ACC Guideline for the management of patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes, and 2014 ACC/AHA Guideline on perioperative cardiovascular evaluation and management of patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. Circulation 2016;134:e123–e155.

28. Egholm G, Kristensen SD, Thim T, et al. Risk associated with surgery within 12 months after coronary drug-eluting stent implantation. J Am Coll Cardiol 2016;68:2622–2632.

29. Hawn MT, Graham LA, Richman JS, et al. Risk of major adverse cardiac events following noncardiac surgery in patients with coronary stents. JAMA 2013;310:1462–1472.

30. Holcomb CN, Graham LA, Richman JS, et al. The incremental risk of coronary stents on postoperative adverse events: a matched cohort study. Ann Surg 2016;263:924–930.

31. Valgimigli M, Bueno H, Byrne RA, et al. 2017 ESC focused update on dual antiplatelet therapy in coronary artery disease developed in collaboration with EACTS: The Task Force for dual antiplatelet therapy in coronary artery disease of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Eur Heart J 2018;39:213–260.

32. Garcia DA, Regan S, Henault LE, et al. Risk of thromboembolism with short-term interruption of warfarin therapy. Arch Intern Med 2008;168:63–69.

33. Blacker DJ, Wijdicks EF, McClelland RL. Stroke risk in anticoagulated patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing endoscopy. Neurology 2003;61:964–968.

34. Douketis JD, Spyropoulos AC, Murad MH, et al. Perioperative management of antithrombotic therapy: an American College of Chest Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline. Chest 2022;162:e207–e243.

35. Wexner SD, Garbus JE, Singh JJ, et al. A prospective analysis of 13,580 colonoscopies: reevaluation of credentialing guidelines. Surg Endosc 2001;15:251–261.

36. Sieg A, Hachmoeller-Eisenbach U, Eisenbach T. Prospective evaluation of complications in outpatient GI endoscopy: a survey among German gastroenterologists. Gastrointest Endosc 2001;53:620–627.

37. Ono S, Fujishiro M, Hirano K, et al. Retrospective analysis on the management of anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents for scheduled endoscopy. J Gastroenterol 2009;44:1185–1189.

38. Ono S, Fujishiro M, Kodashima S, et al. Evaluation of safety of endoscopic biopsy without cessation of antithrombotic agents in Japan. J Gastroenterol 2012;47:770–774.

39. Whitson MJ, Dikman AE, von Althann C, et al. Is gastroduodenal biopsy safe in patients receiving aspirin and clopidogrel?: a prospective, randomized study involving 630 biopsies. J Clin Gastroenterol 2011;45:228–233.

40. Gweon TG, Yang DH. Management of complications related to colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection. Clin Endosc 2023;56:423–432.

41. Uozumi T, Abe S, Makiguchi ME, et al. Complications of endoscopic resection in the upper gastrointestinal tract. Clin Endosc 2023;56:409–422.

42. Suwa T, Takizawa K, Kawata N, et al. Current treatment strategy for superficial nonampullary duodenal epithelial tumors. Clin Endosc 2022;55:15–21.

43. Cho SJ, Choi IJ, Kim CG, et al. Aspirin use and bleeding risk after endoscopic submucosal dissection in patients with gastric neoplasms. Endoscopy 2012;44:114–121.

44. Miura Y, Tsuji Y, Yoshio T, et al. Association between perioperative management of antiplatelet agents and risk of post-endoscopic submucosal dissection bleeding in early gastric cancer: analysis of a nationwide multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc 2023;97:889–897.

45. Lim JH, Kim SG, Kim JW, et al. Do antiplatelets increase the risk of bleeding after endoscopic submucosal dissection of gastric neoplasms? Gastrointest Endosc 2012;75:719–727.

46. Sanomura Y, Oka S, Tanaka S, et al. Continued use of low-dose aspirin does not increase the risk of bleeding during or after endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer 2014;17:489–496.

47. Matsumura T, Arai M, Maruoka D, et al. Risk factors for early and delayed post-operative bleeding after endoscopic submucosal dissection of gastric neoplasms, including patients with continued use of antithrombotic agents. BMC Gastroenterol 2014;14:172.

48. Tounou S, Morita Y, Hosono T. Continuous aspirin use does not increase post-endoscopic dissection bleeding risk for gastric neoplasms in patients on antiplatelet therapy. Endosc Int Open 2015;3:E31–E38.

49. Igarashi K, Takizawa K, Kakushima N, et al. Should antithrombotic therapy be stopped in patients undergoing gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection? Surg Endosc 2017;31:1746–1753.

50. Harada H, Suehiro S, Murakami D, et al. Feasibility of gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection with continuous low-dose aspirin for patients receiving dual antiplatelet therapy. World J Gastroenterol 2019;25:457–468.

51. Park SH, Park SK, Yang HJ, et al. Risk of post-polypectomy bleeding after endoscopic mucosal resection in patients receiving antiplatelet medication: comparison between the continue and hold groups. Surg Endosc 2022;36:6410–6418.

52. Yao CC, Chiu YC, Wu KL, et al. The effect of discontinuation of aspirin on colonoscopic postpolypectomy bleeding. Adv Dig Med 2020;7:14–21.

53. Li YK, Guo CG, Cheung KS, et al. Risk of postcolonoscopy thromboembolic events: a real-world cohort study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2023;21:3051–3059.

54. Vranckx P, Valgimigli M, Jüni P, et al. Ticagrelor plus aspirin for 1 month, followed by ticagrelor monotherapy for 23 months vs aspirin plus clopidogrel or ticagrelor for 12 months, followed by aspirin monotherapy for 12 months after implantation of a drug-eluting stent: a multicentre, open-label, randomised superiority trial. Lancet 2018;392:940–949.

55. Watanabe H, Domei T, Morimoto T, et al. Effect of 1-month dual antiplatelet therapy followed by clopidogrel vs 12-month dual antiplatelet therapy on cardiovascular and bleeding events in patients receiving PCI: the STOPDAPT-2 randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2019;321:2414–2427.

56. Kleindorfer DO, Towfighi A, Chaturvedi S, et al. 2021 Guideline for the prevention of stroke in patients with stroke and transient ischemic attack: a guideline from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke 2021;52:e364–e467.

57. Gerhard-Herman MD, Gornik HL, Barrett C, et al. 2016 AHA/ACC Guideline on the management of patients with lower extremity peripheral artery disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation 2017;135:e726–e779.

58. Vu CK, Korman MG, Bejer I, Davis S. Gastrointestinal bleeding after cold biopsy. Am J Gastroenterol 1998;93:1141–1143.

59. Yabe K, Horiuchi A, Kudo T, et al. Risk of gastrointestinal endoscopic procedure-related bleeding in patients with or without continued antithrombotic therapy. Dig Dis Sci 2021;66:1548–1555.

60. Chan FK, Kyaw MH, Hsiang JC, et al. Risk of postpolypectomy bleeding with uninterrupted clopidogrel therapy in an industry-independent, double-blind, randomized trial. Gastroenterology 2019;156:918–925.

61. Ket S, Hewett DG, Kheir AO, et al. Cold snare polypectomy of colorectal polyps ≤10 mm on clopidogrel: Australian and New Zealand randomized controlled trial. Endosc Int Open 2022;10:E745–E752.

62. Bozkurt H, Sert ÖZ, Ölmez T, et al. The risk of post-polypectomy bleeding among patients receiving antithrombotic agents: a prospective observational study. Sao Paulo Med J 2021;139:218–225.

63. de Benito Sanz M, Hernández L, Garcia Martinez MI, et al. Efficacy and safety of cold versus hot snare polypectomy for small (5-9 mm) colorectal polyps: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Endoscopy 2022;54:35–44.

64. Pedersen IB, Rawa-Golebiewska A, Calderwood AH, et al. Complete polyp resection with cold snare versus hot snare polypectomy for polyps of 4-9 mm: a randomized controlled trial. Endoscopy 2022;54:961–969.

65. Kono Y, Obayashi Y, Baba Y, et al. Postoperative bleeding risk after gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection during antithrombotic drug therapy. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018;33:453–460.

66. Arimoto J, Higurashi T, Chiba H, et al. Continued use of a single antiplatelet agent does not increase the risk of delayed bleeding after colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection. Dig Dis Sci 2018;63:218–227.

67. Hamada T, Yasunaga H, Nakai Y, et al. Bleeding after endoscopic sphincterotomy or papillary balloon dilation among users of antithrombotic agents. Endoscopy 2015;47:997–1004.

68. Eisenberg MJ, Richard PR, Libersan D, et al. Safety of short-term discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy in patients with drug-eluting stents. Circulation 2009;119:1634–1642.

69. Angiolillo DJ, Firstenberg MS, Price MJ, et al. Bridging antiplatelet therapy with cangrelor in patients undergoing cardiac surgery: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2012;307:265–274.

70. Won D, Kim JS, Ji JS, et al. Cold snare polypectomy in patients taking dual antiplatelet therapy: a randomized trial of discontinuation of thienopyridines. Clin Transl Gastroenterol 2019;10:e00091.

71. Oh S, Kim SG, Kim J, et al. Continuous use of thienopyridine may be as safe as low-dose aspirin in endoscopic resection of gastric tumors. Gut Liver 2018;12:393–401.

72. Furuhata T, Kaise M, Hoteya S, et al. Postoperative bleeding after gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection in patients receiving antithrombotic therapy. Gastric Cancer 2017;20:207–214.

73. Bhattacharya A, Nelson A, Hoscheit M, et al. Rate of bleeding on antiplatelet and anticoagulant agents in patients undergoing single balloon enteroscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2018;87(6 Supplement):AB401–AB402.

74. Nagata N, Yasunaga H, Matsui H, et al. Therapeutic endoscopy-related GI bleeding and thromboembolic events in patients using warfarin or direct oral anticoagulants: results from a large nationwide database analysis. Gut 2018;67:1805–1812.

75. Foote A, Haymart B, Kong X, et al. Interruption of warfarin for low-risk procedures. J Thromb Thrombolysis 2019;47:607.

76. Hakuta R, Kogure H, Nakai Y, et al. Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation without sphincterotomy for users of antithrombotic agents: a multicenter retrospective study. Dig Endosc 2019;31:316–322.

77. Bozkurt H, Ölmez T, Bulut Cİ, et al. The safety of upper gastrointestinal endoscopic biopsy in patients receiving antithrombic drugs: a single-centre prospective observational study. Prz Gastroenterol 2020;15:234–240.

78. Zaver HB, Ghoz H, Stancampiano F, et al. Risk of bleeding following double balloon enteroscopy in patients on continued antiplatelet and/or anticoagulation therapy. Endosc Int Open 2021;9:E1397–E1403.

79. Takeuchi Y, Mabe K, Shimodate Y, et al. Continuous anticoagulation and cold snare polypectomy versus heparin bridging and hot snare polypectomy in patients on anticoagulants with subcentimeter polyps: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 2019;171:229–237.

80. Lin D, Soetikno RM, McQuaid K, et al. Risk factors for postpolypectomy bleeding in patients receiving anticoagulation or antiplatelet medications. Gastrointest Endosc 2018;87:1106–1113.

81. Kishida Y, Hotta K, Imai K, et al. Risk analysis of colorectal post-polypectomy bleeding due to antithrombotic agent. Digestion 2019;99:148–156.

82. Makino T, Horiuchi A, Kajiyama M, et al. Delayed bleeding following cold snare polypectomy for small colorectal polyps in patients taking antithrombotic agents. J Clin Gastroenterol 2018;52:502–507.

83. Matsumoto M, Yoshii S, Shigesawa T, et al. Safety of cold polypectomy for colorectal polyps in patients on antithrombotic medication. Digestion 2018;97:76–81.

84. Yanagisawa N, Nagata N, Watanabe K, et al. Post-polypectomy bleeding and thromboembolism risks associated with warfarin vs direct oral anticoagulants. World J Gastroenterol 2018;24:1540–1549.

85. Shimodate Y, Mizuno M, Matsueda K, et al. Is it safe to continue warfarin or to shorten interruption of DOACS in hot-snare polypectomy? Gastrointest Endosc 2019;89(6 Supplement):AB437–AB438.

86. Ono S, Ishikawa M, Matsuda K, et al. Clinical impact of the perioperative management of oral anticoagulants in bleeding after colonic endoscopic mucosal resection. BMC Gastroenterol 2019;19:206.

87. Polmanee P, Hara K, Mizuno N, et al. Outcomes of EUS-FNA in patients receiving antithrombotic therapy. Endosc Int Open 2019;7:E15–E25.

88. Yu JX, Oliver M, Lin J, et al. Patients prescribed direct-acting oral anticoagulants have low risk of postpolypectomy complications. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019;17:2000–2007.

89. Tsoi A, Garg M, Butt J. Post-colonic polypectomy bleeding in patients on anticoagulation therapy. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020;35:232–232.

90. Harada H, Nakahara R, Murakami D, et al. The effect of anticoagulants on delayed bleeding after colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection. Surg Endosc 2020;34:3330–3337.

91. Kishino T, Oyama T, Hotta K, et al. Risk of colonoscopic post-polypectomy bleeding in patients after the discontinuation of antithrombotic therapy. Turk J Gastroenterol 2020;31:752–759.

92. Muro S, Kato H, Ishida E, et al. Comparison of anticoagulants and risk factors for bleeding following endoscopic sphincterotomy among anticoagulant users: results from a large multicenter retrospective study. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020;35:37–42.

93. Rebello D, Bakhit M, McCarty TR, et al. Heparin bridge is associated with more post-polypectomy bleeding and emergency department visits among anticoagulated patients. Ann Gastroenterol 2020;33:73–79.

94. Inagaki K, Yamashita K, Oka S, et al. Risk of bleeding after colorectal endoscopic resection in patients with continued warfarin use compared to heparin replacement: a propensity score matching analysis. Gastroenterol Res Pract 2021;2021:9415387.

95. Kobayashi T, Takeuchi M, Hojo Y, et al. Risk of delayed bleeding after hot snare polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection in the colorectum with continuation of anticoagulants. J Gastrointest Oncol 2021;12:1518–1530.

96. Kubo K, Kato M, Mabe K, et al. Risk factors for delayed bleeding after therapeutic gastrointestinal endoscopy in patients receiving oral anticoagulants: a multicenter retrospective study. Digestion 2021;102:161–169.

97. Okuno N, Hara K, Mizuno N, et al. Outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage in patients undergoing antithrombotic therapy. Clin Endosc 2021;54:596–602.

98. Terasaki K, Dohi O, Naito Y, et al. Effects of guidelines for gastroenterological endoscopy in patients undergoing antithrombotic treatment on postoperative bleeding after endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer: a propensity score-matching analysis. Digestion 2021;102:256–264.

99. Thosani N, Rashtak S, Kannadath BS, et al. Bleeding risk and mortality associated with uninterrupted antithrombotic therapy during percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube placement. Am J Gastroenterol 2021;116:1868–1875.

100. Yan Z, Gao F, Xie J, et al. Incidence and risk factors of colorectal delayed post-polypectomy bleeding in patients taking antithrombotics. J Dig Dis 2021;22:481–487.

101. Yuki T, Ishihara S, Yashima K, et al. Bleeding risk related to upper gastrointestinal endoscopic biopsy in patients receiving antithrombotic therapy: a multicenter prospective observational study. Curr Ther Res Clin Exp 2017;84:32–36.

102. Ara N, Iijima K, Maejima R, et al. Prospective analysis of risk for bleeding after endoscopic biopsy without cessation of antithrombotics in Japan. Dig Endosc 2015;27:458–464.

103. Morita A, Horiuchi I, Tanaka N, et al. Managing bleeding risk after cold snare polypectomy in patients receiving direct-acting oral anticoagulants. Gastrointest Endosc 2022;95:969–974.

104. Radaelli F, Fuccio L, Paggi S, et al. Periendoscopic management of direct oral anticoagulants: a prospective cohort study. Gut 2019;68:969–976.

105. Douketis JD, Spyropoulos AC, Duncan J, et al. Perioperative management of patients with atrial fibrillation receiving a direct oral anticoagulant. JAMA Intern Med 2019;179:1469–1478.

106. Tomida H, Yoshio T, Igarashi K, et al. Influence of anticoagulants on the risk of delayed bleeding after gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection: a multicenter retrospective study. Gastric Cancer 2021;24:179–189.

107. Masuda S, Koizumi K, Nishino T, et al. Direct oral anticoagulants increase bleeding risk after endoscopic sphincterotomy: a retrospective study. BMC Gastroenterol 2021;21:401.

108. Jung BC, Kim NH, Nam GB, et al. The Korean Heart Rhythm Society’s 2014 statement on antithrombotic therapy for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: Korean Heart Rhythm Society. Korean Circ J 2015;45:9–19.

109. Kim HK, Tantry US, Smith SC Jr, et al. The East Asian paradox: an updated position statement on the challenges to the current antithrombotic strategy in patients with cardiovascular disease. Thromb Haemost 2021;121:422–432.

TOOLS