Ureteroscopy in Patients Receiving Systemic Anticoagulants: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Safety, Efficacy, and Perioperative Management.

IF 6.3 2区 医学 Q1 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Donnacha Hogan, Stefanie M Croghan, Bhaskar K Somani, Olivier Traxer, Andreas Skolarikos, Rob Geraghty, Lazaros Tzelves, Niall F Davis
{"title":"Ureteroscopy in Patients Receiving Systemic Anticoagulants: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Safety, Efficacy, and Perioperative Management.","authors":"Donnacha Hogan, Stefanie M Croghan, Bhaskar K Somani, Olivier Traxer, Andreas Skolarikos, Rob Geraghty, Lazaros Tzelves, Niall F Davis","doi":"10.1016/j.euf.2026.05.023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>To evaluate the safety and efficacy of ureteroscopy (URS) in adults receiving systemic anticoagulant (AC) therapy, including vitamin K antagonists and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), compared with non-AC controls.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Using a Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes (PICO) framework, we examined whether continuation, interruption, or peri-operative bridging of AC influences bleeding complications, thromboembolic events, and stone-free rates (SFR) in adults undergoing URS for stone disease.</p><p><strong>Evidence acquisition: </strong>A systematic review of PubMed, Embase, and Scopus identified studies reporting URS outcomes in anticoagulated patients. The review adhered to PRISMA standards and was registered with PROspective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD)420251154766). Studies limited to antiplatelet monotherapy were excluded. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed for outcomes where sufficient comparative data were available. SFR was summarised descriptively. Risk of bias was assessed using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I).</p><p><strong>Evidence synthesis: </strong>Eleven studies (1,516 AC patients; 20,708 controls) published between 1998 and 2024 met inclusion criteria. Anticoagulation was not associated with a statistically significant increase in overall postoperative complications (RR 1.83, 95% CI 0.95-3.52). Bleeding-related complications were variably reported across studies, with absolute event rates ranging from 0-20% in anticoagulated patients and 0-0.60% in controls. In the largest comparative cohort, bleeding occurred in 1.1% (8/702) of anticoagulated patients versus 0.40% (44/10,859) of controls. Thirty-day readmission rates did not differ significantly (RR 1.59, 95% CI 0.27-9.29). SFRs ranged between 70-97% across studies. Most studies were judged at serious risk of bias, primarily due to non-random allocation of AC strategies.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Bleeding complications were variably reported across studies, with several observational cohorts reporting higher absolute bleeding rates in anticoagulated patients than controls, although definitions were heterogeneous and absolute event rates were low. Thromboembolic events were rare. Continuation may be justified in carefully selected high-thrombotic-risk patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":12160,"journal":{"name":"European urology focus","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European urology focus","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2026.05.023","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Context: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of ureteroscopy (URS) in adults receiving systemic anticoagulant (AC) therapy, including vitamin K antagonists and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), compared with non-AC controls.

Objective: Using a Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes (PICO) framework, we examined whether continuation, interruption, or peri-operative bridging of AC influences bleeding complications, thromboembolic events, and stone-free rates (SFR) in adults undergoing URS for stone disease.

Evidence acquisition: A systematic review of PubMed, Embase, and Scopus identified studies reporting URS outcomes in anticoagulated patients. The review adhered to PRISMA standards and was registered with PROspective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD)420251154766). Studies limited to antiplatelet monotherapy were excluded. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed for outcomes where sufficient comparative data were available. SFR was summarised descriptively. Risk of bias was assessed using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I).

Evidence synthesis: Eleven studies (1,516 AC patients; 20,708 controls) published between 1998 and 2024 met inclusion criteria. Anticoagulation was not associated with a statistically significant increase in overall postoperative complications (RR 1.83, 95% CI 0.95-3.52). Bleeding-related complications were variably reported across studies, with absolute event rates ranging from 0-20% in anticoagulated patients and 0-0.60% in controls. In the largest comparative cohort, bleeding occurred in 1.1% (8/702) of anticoagulated patients versus 0.40% (44/10,859) of controls. Thirty-day readmission rates did not differ significantly (RR 1.59, 95% CI 0.27-9.29). SFRs ranged between 70-97% across studies. Most studies were judged at serious risk of bias, primarily due to non-random allocation of AC strategies.

Conclusions: Bleeding complications were variably reported across studies, with several observational cohorts reporting higher absolute bleeding rates in anticoagulated patients than controls, although definitions were heterogeneous and absolute event rates were low. Thromboembolic events were rare. Continuation may be justified in carefully selected high-thrombotic-risk patients.

输尿管镜治疗接受全身抗凝治疗的患者:安全性、有效性和围手术期管理的系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:评估输尿管镜检查(URS)在接受全身抗凝治疗(包括维生素K拮抗剂和直接口服抗凝剂(DOACs))的成年人中的安全性和有效性,与非AC对照进行比较。目的:使用人群、干预、比较者、结果(PICO)框架,我们研究了持续、中断或围术期交流术桥接是否会影响因结石疾病接受尿路手术的成人出血并发症、血栓栓塞事件和无结石率(SFR)。证据获取:对PubMed, Embase和Scopus进行系统回顾,确定了报告抗凝患者尿路结局的研究。该综述符合PRISMA标准,并已在前瞻性系统综述登记册(PROSPERO)(综述与传播中心(CRD)420251154766)注册。限制抗血小板单药治疗的研究被排除在外。在有足够比较数据的情况下对结果进行随机效应荟萃分析。对SFR进行了描述性总结。使用非随机干预研究的偏倚风险(ROBINS-I)评估偏倚风险。证据综合:1998年至2024年间发表的11项研究(1,516例AC患者;20,708例对照)符合纳入标准。抗凝治疗与总体术后并发症的增加无统计学意义(RR 1.83, 95% CI 0.95-3.52)。各研究报告的出血相关并发症各不相同,抗凝患者的绝对发生率为0-20%,对照组为0-0.60%。在最大的比较队列中,1.1%(8/702)的抗凝患者发生出血,而对照组为0.40%(44/ 10859)。30天再入院率无显著差异(RR 1.59, 95% CI 0.27-9.29)。所有研究的srr范围在70-97%之间。大多数研究被认为存在严重的偏倚风险,主要是由于AC策略的非随机分配。结论:在不同的研究中,出血并发症的报告各不相同,有几个观察性队列报告抗凝患者的绝对出血率高于对照组,尽管定义不同,绝对事件率较低。血栓栓塞事件罕见。在精心挑选的高血栓风险患者中,继续使用可能是合理的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
European urology focus
European urology focus Medicine-Urology
CiteScore
10.40
自引率
3.70%
发文量
274
审稿时长
23 days
期刊介绍: European Urology Focus is a new sister journal to European Urology and an official publication of the European Association of Urology (EAU). EU Focus will publish original articles, opinion piece editorials and topical reviews on a wide range of urological issues such as oncology, functional urology, reconstructive urology, laparoscopy, robotic surgery, endourology, female urology, andrology, paediatric urology and sexual medicine. The editorial team welcome basic and translational research articles in the field of urological diseases. Authors may be solicited by the Editor directly. All submitted manuscripts will be peer-reviewed by a panel of experts before being considered for publication.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书