Abstract
Objectives
To determine whether patients undergoing in‐office laryngologic procedures on antithrombotic therapy are at increased risk for treatment‐related complications.
Methods
Patients were those who underwent at least one in‐office laryngologic procedure with any of three fellowship‐trained laryngologists. Procedures were identified by current procedural terminology (CPT) code and included biopsies, excisions, laser ablations, and injections (therapeutic and augmentative). Patients were divided into two groups based on the use of antithrombotic therapy at the time of their procedure. Retrospective chart review was performed to identify any complications, with an average follow‐up of 186 days.
Results
Five hundred‐sixty‐four unique individuals were identified with ages ranging from 18 to 93 years old and with a relatively even distribution between females (45%) and males (55%). They underwent 647 procedures in total, 310 of which were performed while on some form of antithrombotic therapy. Sixteen procedures were associated with complications either during or after the procedure. In comparing overall complication rates, there was no significant difference between non‐antithrombotic (2.4%) and antithrombotic (3.3%) cohorts (OR 1.09, 95% CI [0.46‐2.60], P = .8454).
Conclusions
In spite of known risks in other settings, antithrombotic agents do not appear to confer increased risk of treatment‐related complications during in‐office laryngologic procedures, obviating the need for cessation of therapy prior to these interventions.
Level of evidence
4.
Keywords: antithrombotics, complications, in‐office, laryngologic, procedures
1. INTRODUCTION
In‐office laryngologic procedures are becoming increasingly popular in the practice of otolaryngology as physicians look for the most efficient ways to deliver quality health care to patients with voice, airway, and/or swallowing dysfunction. 1 , 2 , 3 Indeed, these procedures are associated with shorter recovery time, quicker return to work, and decreased cost per case compared to the operating room. 4 , 5 They are well‐tolerated, and the avoidance of general anesthesia makes them a potential option for patients with significant comorbidities. 6 , 7 , 8 Furthermore, the ability in some cases to titrate the effects of intervention based on real‐time patient response may promote better outcomes and patient satisfaction. 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 However, there is some precision lost in the non‐operative setting, and there have been reports of hemodynamic instability with topical anesthetic in older patients. 7 , 13 , 14 These considerations must be taken into account before any in‐office laryngologic procedure.
Another increasing trend over recent decades has been the number of patients on antithrombotic therapy, which includes both antiplatelet and anticoagulant agents. 15 , 16 The recommendation for antithrombotic medication is based primarily on annual thromboembolic risk and validated scoring systems like the CHADS2 and CHADS2‐VASc criteria, which stratify patients into low‐ and high‐risk groups. 17 , 18 Antiplatelets are one of the primary treatments for patients with acute coronary syndrome, which affects about 635 000 Americans per year. 19 Similarly, anticoagulants are commonly used in atrial fibrillation, the prevalence of which is expected to rise to 5.6 to 12 million by 2050. 7 , 20 Use of mechanical heart valves and vessel stents is also increasing, necessitating dual therapy. 21 , 22
The increased usage of antithrombotics has led to more complicated clinical decision‐making in terms of the risk/benefit of office‐based laryngologic procedures, as bleeding in the airway may become a potentially emergent situation. This highlights the need for more formal recommendations in this context, and the following study will seek to establish in‐office laryngologic procedures as legitimately safe in patients on active antithrombotic therapy.
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
Approval was obtained from the Institutional Review Board. The institution's Research Data Repository was queried for all patients aged 18 or older who, from January 2012 through December 2017, underwent at least one in‐office procedure with any of three fellowship‐trained laryngologists. Procedures were identified by Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code and included biopsies, excisions, laser ablations, and injections (therapeutic and augmentative). In general, these all involved some form of topical anesthesia (ie, lidocaine drip, nebulized lidocaine, transtracheal lidocaine) with occasional pre‐procedural oral diazepam (usually 2‐5 mg) per provider and patient preference. No continuous monitoring of vitals was performed during the procedures unless the patient had an oxygen requirement, in which case pulse oximetry was utilized. On average, procedures lasted less than 10 minutes or up to 15 in more difficult cases.
With the study group identified, retrospective chart review was then performed. Data collection included demographic features (age, gender, race, smoking status) and clinical information (procedure type, follow‐up, complications, outcomes, antithrombotics if applicable). Complications were defined as any unexpected event—bleeding‐related or otherwise—identified by review of procedure notes, follow‐up appointments, and telephone encounters. Prior to data analysis, procedures were stratified based on the presence or absence of active antithrombotic therapy, which included antiplatelet (fish oil, ibuprofen, naproxen, etodolac, cilostazol, dipyridamole, aspirin, clopidogrel) and/or anticoagulant (enoxaparin, warfarin, apixaban, rivaroxaban) agents of interest. To test for differences between these two groups, Fisher's exact test was used for categorical variables while a Wilcoxon rank‐sum test was used for continuous variables. To explore differences in occurrence of complications, a generalized linear mixed model was used to account for the correlation among repeated measurements on some subjects. Each covariate of interest was first tested in a univariate model for consideration into a multivariate model.
3. RESULTS
A total of 564 unique patients were identified as having undergone 647 in‐office laryngologic procedures. Two hundred‐seventy‐four of these individuals were on antithrombotic therapy at the time, accounting for 310 procedures. Table 1 summarizes and compares the demographic features of the two study groups. For the 68 patients who underwent more than one procedure, this table includes demographic information at their first recorded procedure only. The types of procedures performed as well as their distribution are listed in Table 2. Average duration of follow‐up was 186 days or approximately 6 months. There were 16 procedures with complications, all of which were self‐limited and are detailed in Table 3. Overall complication rates (number of complications/procedures performed) were 2.4% and 3.3% for the non‐antithrombotic and antithrombotic groups, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between these rates on univariate analysis (OR 1.09, 95% CI [0.46‐2.60], P = .8454). Table 4 summarizes univariate analyses of other clinical variables, none of which were statistically significant, thereby obviating the need to fit a multivariate model.
TABLE 1.
Demographic characteristics by cohort
| Variable | Level | Antithrombotic | Total (n = 564) | P‐value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No (n = 290) | Yes (n = 274) | ||||
| Gender | Female | 144 (50%) | 111 (41%) | 255 (45%) | .0343 |
| Male | 146 (50%) | 163 (59%) | 309 (55%) | ||
| Race | Asian | 5 (2%) | 3 (1%) | 8 (1%) | .6584 |
| Black | 28 (10%) | 22 (8%) | 50 (9%) | ||
| Hispanic | 0 (0%) | 1 (0%) | 1 (0%) | ||
| Other/Unknown | 11 (4%) | 7 (3%) | 18 (3%) | ||
| White | 246 (85%) | 241 (88%) | 487 (86%) | ||
| Smoker | Missing | 0 (0%) | 1 (0%) | 1 (0%) | .0266 |
| Current | 42 (14%) | 30 (11%) | 72 (13%) | ||
| Former | 102 (35%) | 126 (46%) | 228 (40%) | ||
| Never | 146 (50%) | 117 (43%) | 263 (47%) | ||
| Age | Median [IQR] (min, max) | 56 [44, 65] (17, 92) | 65 [56, 74] (28, 93) | 60 [50, 71] (17, 93) | <.0001 |
TABLE 2.
Type and distribution of procedures performed
| Procedure | Antithrombotic | Total (n = 647) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| No (n = 337) | Yes (n = 310) | ||
| Biopsy | 55 (16%) | 47 (15%) | 102 (16%) |
| Excision | 77 (23%) | 45 (15%) | 122 (19%) |
| Laser ablation | 18 (5%) | 14 (5%) | 32 (5%) |
| Injection | 187 (55%) | 204 (66%) | 391 (60%) |
| Therapeutic | 159 (47%) | 159 (51%) | 318 (49%) |
| Augmentation | 28 (8%) | 45 (15%) | 73 (11%) |
TABLE 3.
Complications as documented per electronic medical record
| Complication | Procedure | Intra/Post | Antithrombotic |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bleeding | Injection | Intra | No |
| Bleeding | Injection | Intra | Yes |
| Dysphonia | Injection | Post | Yes |
| Dyspnea | Injection | Post | No |
| Dyspnea | Excision | Post | No |
| Dyspnea, stridor | Injection | Post | Yes |
| Extruded material | Injection | Intra | Yes |
| Hemoptysis | Injection | Post | No |
| Hemoptysis, throat pain | Excision | Post | Yes |
| Hypotension, vocal fold hemorrhage | Excision | Post | Yes |
| Inability to cough | Injection | Post | Yes |
| Increased secretions | Excision | Intra | Yes |
| Throat swelling | Excision | Post | No |
| Vagal response | Injection | Intra | No |
| Vagal response, extruded material | Injection | Intra | No |
| Vocal fold hemorrhage | Injection | Post | Yes |
TABLE 4.
Additional univariate and generalized linear mixed model results
| Variable | Odds ratio | 95% CI | P‐value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Female vs male | 1.32 | (0.55, 3.15) | .5270 |
| Smoker | .2880 | ||
| Current vs never | 2.54 | (0.78, 8.24) | .1196 |
| Former vs never | 1.28 | (0.47, 3.43) | .6265 |
| Age | 1.01 | (0.98, 1.04) | .4384 |
| Race nonwhite vs white | 1.04 | (0.29, 3.71) | .9460 |
| Procedure excision a vs injection | 0.33 | (0.11, 1.01) | .0511 |
Includes biopsy and laser ablation.
4. DISCUSSION
Individuals on antithrombotic therapy have traditionally been considered at increased risk of complications from surgery related to excessive bleeding, and oftentimes recommendations are made to hold antithrombotic therapy beforehand. Doing so, however, is not without its risks, and the potential for thromboembolic events may preclude surgery, particularly in more elective cases. 7 , 17 , 23 , 24 In the otolaryngology literature, operative microlaryngeal surgery was shown to have no increased risk of bleeding in patients on antithrombotics. 25 Subsequent studies by Fritz et al and Dang et al had similar findings in the office setting and at the bedside, respectively, but the smaller size of these studies prevented them from drawing formal conclusions. 7 , 26
The present study sought to validate the findings of those before it while establishing definitive recommendations for the performance of in‐office laryngologic procedures in patients on antithrombotic therapy. Demographically, there were predictable differences among the two cohorts, with male gender, smoking status, and older age all associated with antithrombotic usage. Most importantly, patients on antithrombotics were found to be just as likely to experience a complication as those not on antithrombotics. These findings indicate that active antithrombotic therapy is in fact safe during said procedures. No other variables were associated with complications.
Despite these encouraging results, there are some limitations worth mentioning. The identification of complications was reliant on documentation from procedure notes, follow‐up visits, and patient telephone encounters. As such, it is possible that inadequate documentation may have led to omissions. There is also a degree of subjectivity in distinguishing expected side effects from true complications, introducing the possibility for observer bias. Moreover, although a major strength of this study rests in its size, it is technically underpowered to detect such a small difference in complication rate between the two cohorts (0.8%), which would require about 5000 patients per group. With the current sample size, the smallest difference that can be detected is about 5%, which the authors would argue is clinically negligible in most cases. Lastly, subgroup analysis (ie, antiplatelet vs anticoagulant vs dual therapy) was not possible due to the relative paucity of complications.
5. CONCLUSION
In‐office laryngologic procedures afford a number of advantages compared to their operating room counterparts, including avoidance of general anesthesia, shorter recovery, quicker return to work, and lower cost. The current study supports that these procedures are safe to perform while patients are on active antithrombotic therapy with no need for cessation. Larger cohorts are expected to corroborate these findings and may allow for subgroup analysis going forward.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare no potential conflict of interest.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge Beth Miles‐Markley for her assistance with the Institutional Review Board approval and renewal process as well as other logistical components of the project. There are otherwise no conflicts of interest or sources of funding to disclose.
Straub JM, Calamari KA, Shin TJ, et al. The safety of in‐office laryngologic procedures during active antithrombotic therapy. Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology. 2020;5:890–894. 10.1002/lio2.451
REFERENCES
- 1. Sulica L, Rosen CA, Postma GN, et al. Current practice in injection augmentation of the vocal folds: indications, treatment principles, techniques, and complications. Laryngoscope. 2010;120:319‐325. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Rosen CA, Amin MR, Sulica L, et al. Advances in office‐based diagnosis and treatment in laryngology. Laryngoscope. 2009;119(Suppl 2):S185‐S212. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Zeitels SM, Franco RA Jr, Dailey SH, Burns JA, Hillman RE, Anderson RR. Office‐based treatment of glottal dysplasia and papillomatosis with the 585‐nm pulsed dye laser and local anesthesia. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2004;113:265‐276. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Yung KC, Courey MS. The effect of office‐based flexible endoscopic surgery on hemodynamic stability. Laryngoscope. 2010;120:2231‐2236. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Rees CJ, Postma GN, Koufman JA. Cost savings of unsedated office‐based laser surgery for laryngeal papillomas. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2007;116:45‐48. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Young VN, Smith LJ, Sulica L, Krishna P, Rosen CA. Patient tolerance of awake, in‐office laryngeal procedures: a multi‐institutional perspective. Laryngoscope. 2012;122:315‐321. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Dang JH, Liou NE, Ongkasuwan J. Anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy in awake transcervical injection laryngoplasty. Laryngoscope. 2017;127:1850‐1854. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Rees CJ, Halum SL, Wijewickrama RC, Koufman JA, Postma GN. Patient tolerance of in‐office pulsed dye laser treatments to the upper aerodigestive tract. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2006;134:1023‐1027. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Verma SP, Dailey SH. Office‐based injection laryngoplasty for the management of unilateral vocal fold paralysis. J Voice. 2014;28:382‐386. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Andrade Filho PA, Carrau RL, Buckmire RA. Safety and cost‐effectiveness of intra‐office flexible videolaryngoscopy with transoral vocal fold injection in dysphagic patients. Am J Otolaryngol. 2006;27:319‐322. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Barbu AM, Gniady JP, Vivero RJ, Friedman AD, Burns JA. Bedside injection medialization laryngoplasty in immediate postoperative patients. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2015;153:1007‐1012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Rosow DE. Trends in utilization of vocal fold injection procedures. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2015;153:812‐814. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Morrison MP, O'Rourke A, Dion GR, Eller RL, Weinberger P, Postma GN. Hemodynamic changes during otolaryngological office‐based flexible endoscopic procedures. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2012;121:714‐718. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Bastian RW, Delsupehe KG. Indirect larynx and pharynx surgery: a replacement for direct laryngoscopy. Laryngoscope. 1996;106:1280‐1286. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Adelborg K, Grove EL, Sundboll J, Laursen M, Schmidt M. Sixteen‐year nationwide trends in antithrombotic drug use in Denmark and its correlation with landmark studies. Heart (British Cardiac Society). 2016;102:1883‐1889. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Katz DF, Maddox TM, Turakhia M, et al. Contemporary trends in oral anticoagulant prescription in atrial fibrillation patients at low to moderate risk of stroke after guideline‐recommended change in use of the CHADS2 to the CHA2DS2‐VASc score for thromboembolic risk assessment: analysis from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry's Outpatient Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence Atrial Fibrillation Registry. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2017;10(5):e003476. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Hsueh WD, Hwang PH, Abuzeid WM. Perioperative management of antithrombotic therapy in common Otolaryngologic surgical procedures: state of the art review. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2015;153:493‐503. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Lip GY, Nieuwlaat R, Pisters R, Lane DA, Crijns HJ. Refining clinical risk stratification for predicting stroke and thromboembolism in atrial fibrillation using a novel risk factor‐based approach: the euro heart survey on atrial fibrillation. Chest. 2010;137:263‐272. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Mozaffarian D, Benjamin EJ, Go AS, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics—2015 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2015;131:e29‐e322. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Amerena JV, Walters TE, Mirzaee S, Kalman JM. Update on the management of atrial fibrillation. Med J Aust. 2013;199:592‐597. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Baron TH, Kamath PS, McBane RD. Management of antithrombotic therapy in patients undergoing invasive procedures. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:2113‐2124. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Roger VL, Go AS, Lloyd‐Jones DM, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics—2012 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2012;125:e2‐e220. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Burger W, Chemnitius JM, Kneissl GD, Rucker G. Low‐dose aspirin for secondary cardiovascular prevention—cardiovascular risks after its perioperative withdrawal versus bleeding risks with its continuation—review and meta‐analysis. J Intern Med. 2005;257:399‐414. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Douketis JD, Berger PB, Dunn AS, et al. The perioperative management of antithrombotic therapy: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence‐Based Clinical Practice Guidelines, 8th ed. Chest. 2008;133:299S‐339S. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Francis DO, Dang JH, Fritz MA, Garrett CG. Antiplatelet and anticoagulation therapy in microlaryngeal surgery. Laryngoscope. 2014;124:928‐934. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Fritz MA, Peng R, Born H, et al. The safety of antithrombotic therapy during in‐office laryngeal procedures‐a preliminary study. J Voice. 2015;29:768‐771. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]