Implantation of cardiac rhythm devices without interruption of oral anticoagulation compared with perioperative bridging with low-molecular weight heparin

Perioperative Management of Vitamin K Antagonists and Direct Oral Anticoagulants: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The management of patients who are receiving chronic oral anticoagulation therapy and require an elective surgery or an invasive procedure is a common clinical scenario.

RESAERCH QUESTION

What is the best available evidence to support the development of American College of Chest Physicians guidelines on the perioperative management of patients who are receiving long-term vitamin K agonist (VKA) or direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) and require elective surgery or procedures?

STUDY DESIGH AND METHODS

A literature search including multiple databases from database inception through July 16, 2020, was performed. Meta-analyses were conducted when appropriate.

RESULTS

In patients receiving VKA (warfarin) undergoing elective noncardiac surgery, shorter (< 5 days) VKA interruption is associated with an increased risk of major bleeding. In patients who required VKA interruption, heparin bridging (mostly with low-molecular-weight heparin [LMWH]) was associated with a statistically significant increased risk of major bleed (relative risk [RR], 9.1; 95% CI, 1.62-51.3), representing a very low certainty of evidence (COE). Compared with DOAC interruption 1 to 4 days before surgery, continuing DOACs was not associated with a statistically significant difference in the risk of bleeding, representing a very low COE. Continuing dabigatran was associated with a statistically significant increased risk of thromboembolism (RR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.3-3.8), representing a low COE. In patients who needed DOAC interruption, bridging with LMWH was associated a with statistically significant increased risk of minor bleeding compared with no bridging (RR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.13-2.7), representing a low COE.

INTERPRETATION

The certainty in the evidence supporting the perioperative management of anticoagulants remains limited. No high-quality evidence exists to support the practice of heparin bridging during the interruption of VKA or DOAC therapy for an elective surgery or procedure or for the practice of interrupting VKA therapy for minor procedures, including cardiac device implantation, or continuation of a DOAC vs short-term interruption of a DOAC (1-4 days) in the perioperative period.

Perioperative Management of Antithrombotic Therapy: An American College of Chest Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline

BACKGROUND

The American College of Chest Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline on the Perioperative Management of Antithrombotic Therapy addresses 43 Patients-Interventions-Comparators-Outcomes (PICO) questions related to the perioperative management of patients who are receiving long-term oral anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy and require an elective surgery/procedure. This guideline is separated into four broad categories, encompassing the management of patients who are receiving: (1) a vitamin K antagonist (VKA), mainly warfarin; (2) if receiving a VKA, the use of perioperative heparin bridging, typically with a low-molecular-weight heparin; (3) a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC); and (4) an antiplatelet drug.

METHODS

Strong or conditional practice recommendations are generated based on high, moderate, low, and very low certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology for clinical practice guidelines.

RESULTS

A multidisciplinary panel generated 44 guideline recommendations for the perioperative management of VKAs, heparin bridging, DOACs, and antiplatelet drugs, of which two are strong recommendations: (1) against the use of heparin bridging in patients with atrial fibrillation; and (2) continuation of VKA therapy in patients having a pacemaker or internal cardiac defibrillator implantation. There are separate recommendations on the perioperative management of patients who are undergoing minor procedures, comprising dental, dermatologic, ophthalmologic, pacemaker/internal cardiac defibrillator implantation, and GI (endoscopic) procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Substantial new evidence has emerged since the 2012 iteration of these guidelines, especially to inform best practices for the perioperative management of patients who are receiving a VKA and may require heparin bridging, for the perioperative management of patients who are receiving a DOAC, and for patients who are receiving one or more antiplatelet drugs. Despite this new knowledge, uncertainty remains as to best practices for the majority of perioperative management questions.

Is Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator surgery in patients with an implanted left ventricular assist device safe under uninterrupted oral anticoagulation?

BACKGROUND

Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator (ICD) surgery in patients with implanted left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) is associated with an increased risk of bleeding complications because of the need to ensure that these patients are adequately anticoagulated. Our study aimed to evaluate the safety of our new strategy of uninterrupted oral anticoagulation compared to heparin-bridging during the surgical interval.

METHODS

Between 01/2009 and 01/2020, 116 patients with LVAD underwent ICD surgery. Since 01/2015, 60 patients were operated under continued sufficient oral anticoagulation with a vitamin k antagonist (VKA group). Fifty-six patients underwent a heparin-bridging regimen (heparin group). Demographics, perioperative data, complications, and mortality were analyzed.

RESULTS

Bleeding complications attributable to the surgical intervention occurred more often (19.6% vs. 10.0%, p=0.142) and at a higher rate of re-exploratory surgery (14.3 % vs. 5.0%, p=0.088) in the heparin group without reaching statistical significance. Moreover, the heparin group patients' postoperative total length of stay was 10 days longer. (17.8 ± 23.8 days vs. 8.3 ± 9.5 days, p=0.007). There were no procedure-related deaths, no thromboembolic events, and no LVAD-related thrombosis.

CONCLUSION

Our strategy of uninterrupted oral anticoagulation is safe and results in a reduction by more than half the number of days in hospital without an increase in adverse events.

Current strategies to minimize postoperative hematoma formation in patients undergoing cardiac implantable electronic device implantation: A review

There are an increasing number of cardiac electronic device implants and generator changes with a longer patient life expectancy along with concomitant increase in antiplatelet and anticoagulant regimens, which can increase the incidence of pocket hematomas. We have conducted an in-depth analysis on the relevant literature, which is rife with varying definition of hematomas, on ways to reduce pocket hematomas. We have analyzed studies on periprocedural medication management, intraprocedural use of prohemostatic agents, and postprocedure role of compression devices.

Risk factors concerning complications following permanent pacemaker implantation for patients on antithrombotic therapy: a cohort study

The objective of this study was to identify the complications and associated factors presented by patients after pacemaker implantation, according to a regimen of antithrombotic therapy or without it. This is an analytical observational study on a prospective cohort of 310 consecutive patients with a permanent pacemaker implanted, included from January 1 to December 31, 2014 from 1 single center. The follow-up was conducted on 310 patients for 6 months. 239 patients (77%) received antithrombotic therapy at the time of the pacemaker implantation. 20.8% of complications are presented in patients without anticoagulant therapy, 80.8% of them being minor ones. In the case of patients with anticoagulant therapy, 30.3% of the complications are major ones. Factors associated with major complications were contusion (OR 2; 95% CI 1 to 3.8; p=0.049), and minor complications, arm immobilization >24 hours (p=<0.001) and contusion (p=0.002). This study found an increase in the overall risk and complications that can occur when implanting a permanent pacemaker in patients with antithrombotic therapy based on the time of immobilization and contusions after the implantation.

Thromboembolic and bleeding risk of periprocedural bridging anticoagulation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The risk and benefit of periprocedural heparin bridging is not completely clarified. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of bridging anticoagulation prior to invasive procedures or surgery. Heparin bridging was associated with lower risks of thromboembolism and bleeding compared to non‐bridging. PubMed, Ovid and Elsevier, and Cochrane Library (2000‐2016) were searched for English‐language studies. Studies comparing interrupted anticoagulation with or without bridging and continuous oral anticoagulation in patients at moderate‐to‐high thromboembolic risk before invasive procedures were included. Primary outcomes were thromboembolic events and bleeding events. Mantel‐Haenszel method and random‐effects models were used to analyze the pooled risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for thromboembolic and bleeding risks. Eighteen studies (six randomized controlled trials and 12 cohort studies) were included (N = 23 364). There was no difference in thromboembolic risk between bridged and non‐bridged patients (RR: 1.26, 95% CI: 0.61‐2.58; RCTs: RR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.23‐2.24; cohorts: RR: 1.45, 95% CI: 0.63‐3.37). However, bridging anticoagulation was associated with higher risk of overall bleeding (RR: 2.83, 95% CI: 2.00‐4.01; RCTs: RR: 2.24, 95% CI: 0.99‐5.09; cohorts: RR: 3.09, 95% CI: 2.07‐4.62) and major bleeding (RR: 3.00, 95% CI: 1.78‐5.06; RCTs: RR: 2.48, 95% CI: 1.29‐4.76; cohorts: RR: 3.22, 95% CI: 1.65‐6.32). Bridging anticoagulation was associated with increased bleeding risk compared to non‐bridging. Thromboembolism risk was similar between two strategies. Our results do not support routine use of bridging during anticoagulation interruption.

Wound haematoma following defibrillator implantation: incidence and predictors in the Shockless Implant Evaluation (SIMPLE) trial

Aims

Pocket haematoma is a common complication after defibrillator [implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD)] implantation, which is not only painful, but also increases the risk of device-related infection, and possibly embolic events. The present study seeks to evaluate the rate and predictors of clinically significant pocket haematoma.

Methods and results

This study included 2500 patients receiving an ICD in the SIMPLE trial. A clinically significant pocket haematoma was defined as a haematoma that required re-operation or interruption of oral anticoagulation (OAC) therapy. Clinically significant pocket haematoma occurred in 56 of 2500 patients (2.2%) of which 6 (10.7%) developed device-related infection. Patients who developed pocket haematoma were older (mean age 67.6 ± 8.8 years vs. 62.7 ± 11.6 years, P < 0.001), were more likely to have permanent atrial fibrillation (30.4 vs. 6.7%, P < 0.001) and a history of stroke (17.9 vs. 6.7%, P = 0.004), or were more likely to receive peri-operative OAC (50.0 vs. 28.4%, P < 0.001), unfractionated heparin (16.1 vs. 5.2%, P = 0.003), or low-molecular-weight heparin (37.5 vs. 17.5%, P < 0.001). Independent predictors of wound haematoma on multivariable analysis included the use of heparin bridging (OR 2.65, 95% CI 1.48-4.73, P = 0.001), sub-pectoral location of ICD (OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.12-3.57, P =0.020), previous stroke (OR 2.47, 95% CI 1.20-5.10, P = 0.015), an upgrade from permanent pacemaker (OR 2.52, 95% CI 1.07-5.94, P = 0.035), and older age (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.00-1.06, P = 0.049).

Conclusion

Pocket haematoma remains an important complication of ICD implantation and is associated with a high risk of infection. Independent predictors of pocket haematoma include heparin bridging, prior stroke, sub-pectoral placement of ICD, older age, and upgrade from a pacemaker.

Management of Perioperative Anticoagulation for Device Implantation

Periprocedural management of anticoagulation for cardiac device implantation has evolved over the past 20 years. The traditional paradigm of vitamin K antagonist interruption with heparin bridging has now been shown to be less safe than continuation of vitamin K antagonists at therapeutic levels. Dual antiplatelet therapy during device implantation poses substantial risk but is often necessary. The safest dosing strategy for newer direct oral anticoagulants is still not clear.

Device implantation for patients on antiplatelets and anticoagulants: Use of suction drain

Background and objectives

Cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIED) are frequently implanted in patients on anti-thrombotic agents. Pocket hematomas are more likely to occur in these patients. The use of a sterile surgical drain in the pulse generator pocket site could prevent hematomas, but fear of infection precludes its use. The objective of the present study is to study the safety and efficacy of surgical drain in patients on antithrombotics undergoing CIED implantations.

Methods

This is a single-centre, retrospective study involving patients undergoing CIED implantations on antithrombotics (antiplatelets and anticoagulants) from August 2013 to July 2016. Patients with high risk of thromboembolism were continued on oral antithrombotics or were bridged with heparin after stopping oral antithrombotics. A sterile close wound suction drain was placed in device pockets following CIED implantations. Post procedure, pressure dressing was applied and removed after 12 h once the drain volume was less than 10 ml in 24 h.

Results

Sixty seven patients required surgical drain implantation. Major indications for antithrombotic use were presence of intracoronary stent, atrial fibrillation and mechanical valve replacements. The mean post-procedural hospital stay was 3 ± 0.9 days and mean overall drain was 16.6 ± 8.2 ml. At a mean follow up of 17.6 ± 8.2 months, one patient (1.4%) had pocket hematoma. There were no infections.

Conclusion

The use of a surgical drain in CIED implantation significantly reduces the risk of hematoma formation without increasing the risk of infection. Antithrombotic drugs can be safely continued at the time of implantation of cardiac devices.

Periprocedural heparin bridging in patients receiving oral anticoagulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Periprocedural heparin bridging therapy aims to reduce the risk of thromboembolic events in patients requiring an interruption in their anticoagulation therapy for the purpose of an elective procedure. The efficacy and safety of heparin bridging therapy has not been well established.

OBJECTIVES

To compare through meta-analysis the effects of heparin bridging therapy on the risk of major bleeding and thromboembolic events of clinical significance among patients taking oral anticoagulants.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane library from January 2005 to July 2016. Studies were included if they reported clinical outcomes of patients receiving heparin bridging therapy during interruption of oral anticoagulant for operations. Data were pooled using random-effects modeling.

RESULTS

A total of 25 studies, including 6 randomized controlled trials and 19 observational studies, were finally included in this analysis. Among all the 35,944 patients, 10,313 patients were assigned as heparin bridging group, and the other 25,631 patients were non-heparin bridging group. Overall, compared with patients without bridging therapy, heparin bridging therapy increased the risk of major bleeding (OR = 3.23, 95%CI: 2.06-5.05), minor bleeding (OR = 1.52, 95%CI: 1.06-2.18) and overall bleeding (OR = 2.83, 95%CI: 1.86-4.30).While there was no significant difference in thromboembolic events (OR = 0.99,95%CI: 0.49-2.00), stroke or transient ischemic attack(OR = 1.45, 95%CI: 0.93-2.26,) or all-cause mortality (OR = 0.71, 95%CI: 0.31-1.65).

CONCLUSIONS

Heparin-bridging therapy increased the risk of major and minor bleeding without decreasing the risk of thromboembolic events and all cause death compared to non-heparin bridging.

Oral anticoagulation continuation compared with heparin bridging therapy among high risk patients undergoing implantation of cardiac rhythm devices

It was the objective of this study to systematically compare the effects of oral anticoagulation (OAC) with heparin bridging therapy among patients at high risk for thromboembolism undergoing implantation of cardiac rhythm devices. A systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Ovid and Elsevier, and the Cochrane Library databases was conducted. Six trials that met our inclusion criteria were identified and included in the present study. The endpoints of this meta-analysis included pocket haematoma, severe haematoma requiring drainage/revision, thromboembolic events, and length of hospital stay. Data were expressed as odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence interval (CIs). There was a statistically significant reduction of pocket haematoma (OR 0.29, 95% CI: 0.17 to 0.49, p<0.00001) and haematoma drainage/revision (OR 0.15, 95%CI: 0.04 to 0.54, p=0.004), respectively, in the OAC continuation group versus the heparin bridging group. We did not detect any statistically sig- nificant differences of thromboembolic events (OR 0.48, 95%CI: 0.07 to 3.54, p=0.48) in the two groups. There was a trend that patients in bridging group had longer hospital stays. In conclusion, OAC continu- ation had a better risk-beneficial ratio and shorter length of hospital stay, and was more convenient to implement compared with heparin bridging therapy among patients at high risk for thromboembolism undergoing implantation of cardiac rhythm devices.

Perioperative management of antithrombotic therapy in patients receiving cardiovascular implantable electronic devices: a network meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Network meta-analysis (NMA) has advantages including being able to simultaneously compare and rank multiple treatments over traditional meta-analysis. We evaluated by a NMA the optimal antithrombotic strategy during the perioperative period of implantation of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs).

METHODS

We performed a network meta-analysis of observational studies (cohort and case-control studies). The eligible studies tested the following antithrombotic therapy during the CIED placement: aspirin, clopidogrel, warfarin, novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs), and heparin bridging.

RESULTS

Thirty-one observational studies with 119 study arms were included (41,174 patients receiving long-term antithrombotic therapy; median age, 72.6 years; 70.1% males; median follow-up, 3.6 years). Aspirin (4.26 [2.88-7.22]), warfarin (3.37 [2.17-5.23]), and clopidogrel (3.30 [1.49-5.88]) reduced the risk of bleeding as compared with heparin bridging, and there was no significance difference between continued NOACs and heparin bridging (0.67 [0.21-2.18]). The comparison of commonly used protocols in the management of anticoagulant therapy revealed that continued warfarin (0.38 [0.20-0.74]), continued NOACs (0.19 [0.04-0.89]), and heparin bridging therapy (0.01 [0.05-0.21]) increased the risk of bleeding as compared that of control, and continued warfarin (3.74 [1.96-7.16]), interrupted warfarin (4.89 [2.20-10.88]), and interrupted NOACs (12.5 [1.25-100]) reduced the risk of bleeding compared with that of heparin bridging.

CONCLUSIONS

Among various antithrombotic drugs, aspirin had the lowest bleeding risk, followed by warfarin, clopidogrel and NOACs, and heparin, with the greatest bleeding risk. NOACs therapy appears safe and effective, and interrupted NOACs may be the optimal anticoagulation protocol for use during the perioperative period of CIED implantation.

Cardiac implantable electronic device hematomas: Risk factors and effect of prophylactic pressure bandaging

BACKGROUND

Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) hematomas are associated with many adverse outcomes. We examined the incidence and risk factors associated with hematoma formation post-CIED implantation, and explored the preventative effect of prophylactic pressure bandaging (PPB) in a large tertiary center.

METHODS

1,091 devices were implanted during October 2011-December 2014. Clinically significant hematomas (CSH) were those that necessitated prolonged admission, including those due to reoperation, and clinically suspicious hematomas were swellings noted by medical/nursing staff. We screened for variables affecting hematoma incidence prior to conducting multivariate logistic regression analyses, one for all hematomas and one for CSH.

RESULTS

61 hematomas were identified (5.6% of patients), with 12 of those clinically significant (1.1% of patients). Factors significantly increasing the odds of developing any hematoma were stage 2 (odds ratio [OR] = 2.93, 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.08-7.94], P = 0.034) and 3 chronic kidney disease (CKD) (OR = 3.39 [1.20-9.56], P = 0.021), unfractionated heparin/therapeutic enoxaparin (OR = 3.15 [1.22-8.14], P = 0.018), and dual antiplatelets-aspirin + clopidogrel (OR = 2.95 [1.14-7.65], P = 0.026) + other combinations. Body Mass index (BMI) 25.0-29.9 (OR 0.52 [0.28-0.98], P = 0.044) and >30 were associated with decreased hematoma risk (OR 0.43 [0.20-0.91], P = 0.028). Factors significant for CSH formation were unfractionated heparin/therapeutic enoxaparin (OR = 9.55 [1.83-49.84], P = 0.007) and aspirin + clopidogrel (OR = 7.19 [1.01-50.91], P = 0.048). PPB nonsignificantly increased the odds of total hematoma development (OR = 1.53 [0.87-2.69], P = 0.135), and reduced CSH (OR = 0.67 [0.18-2.47], P = 0.547).

CONCLUSIONS

Heparin and dual antiplatelet use remain strong predictors of overall hematoma formation. CKD is a comparatively moderate predictor. BMI > 25 may decrease the risk of hematoma formation. PPB had nonsignificant effects on hematoma development.

Selecting antithrombotic therapy for patients with atrial fibrillation

When considering anticoagulant therapy for patients with atrial fibrillation, one must balance the reduction in risk of thromboembolism that this therapy offers against the risk of bleeding that it poses. The American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and Heart Rhythm Society updated their atrial fibrillation guidelines in 2014. This review outlines a rationale for clinical decision-making based on the new guidelines and summarizes the currently approved drugs.

Incidence, predictors and outcomes of hematoma after ICD implantation: An analysis of a nationwide database of 85,276 patients

BACKGROUND

Pocket hematoma is one of the most common complications following cardiac device implantation. This study examined the impact of this complication on in-hospital outcomes following Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator (ICD) implantation.

METHODS

Data from Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) 2010 was queried to identify all primary implantations of ICDs and Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Defibrillators (CRT-D) during the year 2010 using ICD-9 codes. We then identified the patients who experienced a procedure related hematoma during the hospital stay. We compared the outcomes of the patients with and without a hematoma complication. All analyses were performed using SPSS 20 complex samples using appropriate weights to adjust for the complex sampling design of the national database.

RESULTS

Out of a total of 85,276 primary ICD implantations in the year 2010, 2233 (2.6% of the implantations) were complicated by a hematoma. Increased age (p < 0.001), and comorbidities such as congestive heart failure (odds ratio (OR) - 1.86, p < 0.001), coagulopathy (OR - 2.3, p < 0.001) and renal failure (OR - 1.52, p < 0.001) were associated with an increased risk of pocket hematoma formation. Patients who developed a hematoma had a longer hospitalization (9.1 days versus 5.5 days, p < 0.001) and higher in-hospital costs ($56,545 versus $47,015, p < 0.001) compared to patients who did not have a hematoma. Overall mortality associated with ICD implantation was low (0.6%), and hematoma formation did not adversely affect mortality (0.6% versus 0.4%, p = 0.63).

CONCLUSION

Hematoma occurs infrequently after ICD implantation, however, it adversely impacts the cost of procedure and length of stay.

Strategy of continued vs interrupted novel oral anticoagulant at time of device surgery in patients with moderate to high risk of arterial thromboembolic events: The BRUISE CONTROL-2 trial

BACKGROUND

Patients who require perioperative anticoagulation during cardiac implantable electronic device surgery are at increased risk for bleeding complications. The BRUISE CONTROL trial demonstrated that continuing warfarin was safer than heparin bridging, reducing the incidence of clinically significant pocket hematoma. Novel oral anticoagulants are being increasingly prescribed in place of warfarin. The best perioperative management of these new anticoagulants is unknown.

METHODS/DESIGN

A randomized controlled trial to investigate whether a strategy of continued vs interrupted novel oral anticoagulant (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or apixaban) at the time of device surgery, in patients with moderate to high risk of arterial thromboembolic events, reduces the incidence of clinically significant hematoma (defined as a hematoma requiring reoperation and/or resulting in prolongation of hospitalization, and/or requiring interruption of anticoagulation). The secondary outcomes include components of the primary outcome, composite of all other major perioperative bleeding events, thromboembolic events, all-cause mortality, cost-effectiveness, patient quality of life, perioperative pain, and satisfaction. Planned analyses include descriptive statistics of all baseline variables. For the primary outcome, interrupted vs continued novel oral anticoagulant arms will be compared using the χ(2) test. If any clinically significant differences are identified, a logistic regression analysis will be conducted. Quality of life will be assessed using EuroQol-5D, and perioperative pain using a visual analog scale.

DISCUSSION

BRUISE CONTROL-2 is a randomized trial evaluating the best strategy to manage novel oral anticoagulants at the time of device surgery. We hypothesize that device surgery can be performed safely without interruption of these medications.

Association of Uninterrupted Oral Anticoagulation During Cardiac Device Implantation with Pocket Hematoma

PURPOSE

Implantation of permanent pacemakers (PPMs) or implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICDs) may be complicated by the development of pocket hematomas. Current practice guidelines provide little guidance to clinicians about the preferred strategy for chronic oral anticoagulation (OAC). The purpose of this study was to examine the frequency and clinical significance of pocket hematoma among patients receiving uninterrupted OAC during cardiac device implantation.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of adult patients undergoing cardiac device implantation between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2012, at an academic teaching hospital. Medical records were reviewed for demographics, comorbidities, and medications. The primary outcome was development of pocket hematomas within 30 days of device implantation. Clinical significance was based on the need for additional intervention. Data were assessed using descriptive statistics, logistic regression, and chi-square tests.

RESULTS

The final cohort included 380 patients. The median age was 68.4 years, and 56.6% were male. Cardiovascular comorbidities were common. Among 80 patients receiving uninterrupted OAC, 71.3% were taking warfarin, 11.2% rivaroxaban, and 17.5% dabigatran. The incidence of pocket hematomas for the entire cohort was 9.7%, of which 1.3% were clinically significant. Pocket hematoma occurred in 21.4% of patients continued on OAC versus 7.7% of those not anticoagulated (P = .001). Pocket hematoma was more common among those receiving ICDs than PPMs (18.5% vs 5.7%, respectively; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Continuing chronic OAC increased pocket hematoma formation but most were clinically insignificant. Pocket hematoma occurred irrespective of the oral anticoagulant drug used, but additional study is needed to determine comparative risks among the drugs.

Early postoperative bridging anticoagulation after mechanical heart valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies evaluating anticoagulation during the early postoperative period following mechanical heart valve implantation.

METHODS

Five literature databases were searched to assess the rates of bleeding and thromboembolic events among patients receiving oral anticoagulation (OAC), both with and without bridging anticoagulation therapy with unfractionated heparin (UFH) or subcutaneous low molecular weight heparin (LMWH). The studies' results were pooled via a mixed effects meta-analysis. Heterogeneity (I(2) ) and publication bias were both evaluated.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies including 9534 patients were included. The bleeding rates were 1.8% (95% confidence interval CI 1.0-3.3) in the group receiving OAC, 2.2% (95% CI 0.9-5.3) in the OAC + UFH group, and 5.5% (95% CI 2.9-10.4) in the OAC + LMWH group (P = 0.042). The thromboembolic event rate was 2.1% (95% CI 1.5-2.9) in the group receiving OAC, as compared with 1.1% (95% CI 0.7-1.8) when the bridging therapy groups were combined as follows: OAC + UFH and OAC + LMWH (P = 0.035). Most of the analyses showed moderate heterogeneity and negative test results for publication bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Bridging therapy following cardiac valve surgery was associated with a lower thromboembolic event rate, although the difference was small, with considerable overlap of the CIs. Direct comparisons are missing. Bridging therapy with UFH appears to be safe; however, this observation has a risk of bias. Early bridging therapy with LMWH appears to be associated with consistently high bleeding rates across multiple analyses. On the basis of the quality of the included studies, more trials are necessary to establish the clinical relevance of bridging therapy and the safety of LMWH.

The safety and efficacy of antithrombotic therapy in patients undergoing cardiac rhythm device implantation: a meta-analysis

AIMS

The meta-analysis was to assess the safety and efficacy of periprocedural antithrombotic therapy and to evaluate the risk factors potentially associated with bleeding among patients undergoing cardiac implantable electronic devices implantations.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A systematic literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register was performed. Anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapies were assessed separately. Uninterrupted anticoagulation was associated with significant lower bleeding risk compared with heparin bridging strategy [odds ratio (OR) = 0.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18-0.53, and P < 0.0001], but there was no significant difference in thromboembolic risk between these two strategies (OR = 0.82, 95% CI 0.32-2.09, and P = 0.65). The haematoma rate was significantly increased in dual antiplatelet therapy group (OR = 6.84, 95% CI 4.16-11.25, and P < 0.00001), but not in single antiplatelet therapy (OR = 1.52, 95% CI 0.93-2.46, and P = 0.09). Clopidogrel increased the risk of haematoma vs. aspirin (OR = 2.91, 95% CI 1.27-6.69, and P = 0.01). Otherwise, a lower risk of haematoma was observed in pacemaker group vs. cardiac resynchronization therapy and/or implantable cardioverter defibrillator group (OR = 0.64, 95% CI 0.50-0.82, and P = 0.0004).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis suggested that uninterrupted oral anticoagulation seems to be the better strategy, associated with a lower risk of bleeding complications rather than heparin bridging, and dual antiplatelet therapy carried a significant risk of bleeding whereas single antiplatelet therapy was relatively safe among patients undergoing cardiac implantable electronic devices implantations. Meanwhile, cardiac resynchronization therapy and/or implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantations increase the bleeding.

Reduced-dose warfarin or interrupted warfarin with heparin bridging for pacemaker or defibrillator implantation: a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Perioperative management with reduced-dose warfarin is of potential interest by eliminating the need for bridging while still maintaining a degree of anticoagulation. The outcomes of this regimen have not been well determined.

METHODS

In a randomized controlled trial we compared two regimens for management of anticoagulation with warfarin in patients with implantation of a pacemaker or defibrillator. Half dose of warfarin for 3-6 days, depending on the baseline international normalized ratio (INR), before surgery aiming at an INR of ≤ 1.7 was compared with interrupted warfarin for 5 days with preoperative bridging with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) at therapeutic dose for 2.5 days. Main safety outcome was pocket hematoma. Secondary outcomes were major bleeding, thromboembolism - all within 1 month, days of hospitalization and number of patients requiring correction of INR with vitamin K.

RESULTS

The study was planned for 450 patients but it was discontinued prematurely due to a change in practice. Pocket hematoma occurred in 4 of 85 patients (5%) randomized to the bridged regimen and in 3 of 86 patients (3%) randomized to reduced-dose warfarin. One pocket hematoma in each group was severe. There were no major hemorrhages or thromboembolism within the 1-month window. Duration of hospitalization was similar in the two groups. Correction of INR the day before surgery with vitamin K had to be used for significantly more patients in the reduced-dose warfarin group (41%) than in the bridged regimen group (6%).

CONCLUSION

The reduced-dose warfarin regimen appeared to have similar safety after device implantation as interrupted warfarin with preoperative LMWH bridging. Due to premature discontinuation no firm conclusion can be drawn. The reduced-dose warfarin regimen often failed to achieve the intended preoperative INR. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT 02094157.

Predictors of pocket hematoma in patients on antithrombotic therapy undergoing cardiac rhythm device implantation: insights from the FinPAC trial

BACKGROUND

The FinPAC trial showed that the strategy of uninterrupted oral anticoagulation (OAC) was non-inferior to interrupted OAC for the primary outcome of bleeding and thromboembolic complications in patients undergoing cardiac rhythm management device (CRMD) implantation.

METHODS

We conducted a post hoc analysis of the FinPAC data to explore the incidence and predictors of significant (> 100 cm(2)) pocket hematoma after CRMD implantation among the study population (n = 447). A total of 213 patients were on OAC, 128 were on aspirin, and 106 on no antithrombotic therapy.

RESULTS

The incidence of significant pocket hematoma during hospital stay was significantly higher among patients using OAC (5.6%) and aspirin (5.5%) than in those with no antithrombotic medications (0.9%), but only one patient (0.8%) in the aspirin group needed revision of hematoma. Two patients (0.9%) in the OAC group and one (0.8%) in the aspirin group needed blood products. In multivariable regression analysis, no pre- procedural features predicted the significant hematoma in any of the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinically significant pocket hematoma is a rare complication after CRMD implantation in patients with ongoing therapeutic OAC. The incidence of significant pocket hematoma formation is similar in patients using OAC and those using aspirin.

The current status of bridging anticoagulation

For patients prescribed chronic vitamin K antagonist therapy requiring a surgical or invasive procedure, the question of whether or not to bridge and how to bridge is commonly encountered in clinical practice. Bridging anticoagulation has evolved over the years and the evidence base for current practice is deficient in many areas. Clinical trials currently being completed with conventional anticoagulants should help strengthen the evidence base for future practice. The availability of novel oral anticoagulants is a welcome addition, though their optimal management peri-procedure is yet to be determined. Prospective multi-centre controlled studies that can provide the evidence base for novel oral anticoagulant peri-procedural management are required.

Cardiac rhythm device surgery with uninterrupted oral anticoagulation

Current guidelines recommend interrupting anticoagulation and bridging therapy with heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin for cardiac rhythm device surgeries in patients with high thrombotic risk. However, there are some studies that suggest continuing warfarin may be safe. The study by Birnie et al. investigates this important clinical question in a randomized controlled trial setting. They randomly assigned 681 patients with high thrombotic risk (5% or more per year), in 18 centers, to receive either stopping warfarin combined with heparin bridging (standard of care) or continued uninterrupted warfarin therapy for cardiac rhythm device surgery. The trial was terminated after a second prespecified interim analysis by the data and safety monitoring board. Clinically significant device-pocket hematoma was noted in 12 out of 343 patients (3.5%) in the uninterrupted warfarin group, compared with 54 out of 338 (16.0%) in the heparin-bridging group (relative risk: 0.19; 95% CI: 0.10-0.36; p < 0.001). Uninterrupted warfarin was associated with better patient satisfaction, and there was no significant difference in thromboembolic or surgical complications between the two groups. These results demonstrate that device surgeries can be safely performed with continued warfarin, and bridging with heparin is associated with high risk of device-pocket hematoma.

Pacemaker or defibrillator surgery without interruption of anticoagulation

BACKGROUND

Many patients requiring pacemaker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) surgery are taking warfarin. For patients at high risk for thromboembolic events, guidelines recommend bridging therapy with heparin; however, case series suggest that it may be safe to perform surgery without interrupting warfarin treatment. There have been few results from clinical trials to support the safety and efficacy of this approach.

METHODS

We randomly assigned patients with an annual risk of thromboembolic events of 5% or more to continued warfarin treatment or to bridging therapy with heparin. The primary outcome was clinically significant device-pocket hematoma, which was defined as device-pocket hematoma that necessitated prolonged hospitalization, interruption of anticoagulation therapy, or further surgery (e.g., hematoma evacuation).

RESULTS

The data and safety monitoring board recommended termination of the trial after the second prespecified interim analysis. Clinically significant device-pocket hematoma occurred in 12 of 343 patients (3.5%) in the continued-warfarin group, as compared with 54 of 338 (16.0%) in the heparin-bridging group (relative risk, 0.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.10 to 0.36; P<0.001). Major surgical and thromboembolic complications were rare and did not differ significantly between the study groups. They included one episode of cardiac tamponade and one myocardial infarction in the heparin-bridging group and one stroke and one transient ischemic attack in the continued-warfarin group.

CONCLUSIONS

As compared with bridging therapy with heparin, a strategy of continued warfarin treatment at the time of pacemaker or ICD surgery markedly reduced the incidence of clinically significant device-pocket hematoma. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care of Ontario; BRUISE CONTROL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00800137.).

Safety of continuous anticoagulation with dabigatran during implantation of cardiac rhythm devices

The perioperative bleeding risk associated with therapeutic anticoagulation at cardiac implantable electronic device implantation has previously been demonstrated to vary by the specific anticoagulant used. Although uninterrupted anticoagulation with warfarin appears to be safe, heparin products have been shown to increase the risk of perioperative bleeding. However, the risk associated with cardiac implantable electronic device implantation with anticoagulation using dabigatran, a novel oral direct thrombin inhibitor, is not known. We performed a prospective observational study of patients receiving dabigatran for anticoagulation who underwent cardiac implantable electronic device implantation from June 2011 through May 2012. The study end points included thromboembolic and bleeding complications within 30 days of surgery. Major bleeding complications were defined as bleeding requiring surgical intervention, prolongation of hospitalization, and discontinuation of the anticoagulant or transfusion of blood products within 30 days of surgery. Minor bleeding complications included the development of a hematoma not requiring additional intervention. The thrombotic end points included stroke, transient ischemic attack, myocardial infarction, pulmonary embolism, and deep vein thrombosis. A total of 25 patients were identified for inclusion. During the index hospitalization, no thromboembolic or bleeding complications developed. No major bleeding complications occurred within 30 days of surgery. One minor bleeding event (4%) occurred within 30 days of surgery in 1 patient who was also receiving dual antiplatelet therapy. In conclusion, although no thromboembolic or major bleeding events were observed, additional studies are required to define the optimal antithrombotic management in the perioperative period.

Rate, causes, and impact on patient outcome of implantable device complications requiring surgical revision: large population survey from two centres in Italy

AIMS

The long-term impact of implantable device-related complications on the patient outcome has not been thoroughly evaluated. The aims of this retrospective, bi-centre study were to analyse the rate and nature of device-related complications requiring surgical revision in a large series of patients undergoing device implantation, elective generator replacement and pacing system upgrade and to systematically assess the impact of such complications on patient outcome and healthcare utilization.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Data from 2671 consecutive procedures (1511 device implantations, 1034 elective generator replacements, and 126 pacing system upgrades) performed between January 2006 and March 2011 were retrospectively analysed. The outcome measures recorded were complication-related mortality, number of re-operations, need for complex surgical procedures, number of re-hospitalizations, and additional hospital treatment days. Over a median follow-up of 27 months, the overall rate of complications was 2.8% per procedure-year [9.5% in cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) device implantation, 6.1% in pacing system upgrade, 3.5% in implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation, 1.7% in pacemaker implantation, and 1.7% in generator replacement). The procedure with the highest risk of complications was CRT device implantation (odds ratio: 6.6; P < 0.001); these complications primarily involved coronary sinus lead dislodgement and device infection. Patients with complications had a significantly higher number of device-related hospitalizations (2.3 ± 0.6 vs. 1.0 ± 0.1; P < 0.001) and hospital treatment days (15.7 ± 25.1 vs. 3.6 ± 1.1; P < 0.001) than those without complications. Device infection was the complication with the greatest negative impact on patient outcome.

CONCLUSION

Cardiac resynchronisation therapy implantation was the procedure with the highest risk of complications requiring surgical revision. Complications were associated with substantial clinical consequences and a significant increase in the number and length of hospitalizations.

Anticoagulation management in patients with mechanical heart valves having pacemaker or defibrillator insertion

BACKGROUND

In patients with a high risk for stroke and having invasive procedures with a high risk for bleeding it is unclear how anticoagulant therapy should be managed.

METHODS

We reviewed data from all patients with mechanical heart valves, who had elective insertion or replacement of pacemaker or implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) during the past 8years at our hospital. Data on anticoagulant treatment, pocket hematoma and thromboembolic complications were captured.

RESULTS

Of the 111 patients reviewed, 68 (61%) had a mechanical valve in the mitral position with or without other valves replaced and 43 (39%) had a mechanical valve only in the aortic position. Fifty-nine (53%) were undergoing replacement for their device. Six patients received a tapered warfarin regimen and 102 received preoperative bridging anticoagulation of whom 12 also received postoperative bridging. One stroke occurred 40days after pacemaker replacement in a patient with mitral mechanical valve and without postoperative bridging. Six patients (5.5%) developed pocket hematoma without a significant association to postoperative bridging, type of mechanical valve or to type of device. Predictors for pocket hematoma appeared to be replacement surgery (odds ratio 12.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69-228) and an international normalized ratio of 1.5 or higher on the day of surgery (odds ratio 8.4; 95% CI, 0.96-68.1).

CONCLUSION

We found a low risk for stroke in the absence of postoperative bridging. For patients with device replacement surgery reversal of the anticoagulant effect at the time of procedure might reduce the risk for pocket hematoma, but this requires prospective evaluation including the risk of thromboembolism.

Meta-analysis of safety and efficacy of uninterrupted warfarin compared to heparin-based bridging therapy during implantation of cardiac rhythm devices

Optimal management of perioperative anticoagulation in patients undergoing pacemaker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation is not yet established. We performed a meta-analysis of the published literature to assess the safety and efficacy of perioperative heparin-based bridging therapy versus uninterrupted warfarin therapy in patients undergoing pacemaker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation. We performed a systematic review of MEDLINE (1950 to 2012), EMBASE (1988 to 2012), Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (fourth quarter 2011), and reports presented at scientific meetings (1994 to 2011). Randomized controlled trials, case-control, or cohort studies comparing the safety and efficacy of uninterrupted warfarin therapy to heparin-based bridging therapy were eligible. Outcomes reported in eligible studies were rates of bleeding and thromboembolic events. Of 3,195 reports initially reviewed, we identified 8 studies enrolling 2,321 patients for the meta-analysis. Maintenance of therapeutic warfarin was associated with significantly lower bleeding postoperatively compared to heparin-based bridging therapy (odds ratio 0.30, 95% confidence interval 0.18 to 0.50, p <0.01). There was no significant difference in risk of thromboembolic events between these 2 strategies (odds ratio 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.14 to 3.02, p = 0.58). In conclusion, strategy of uninterrupted warfarin therapy throughout pacemaker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation is associated with decreased risk of bleeding without increasing risk of thromboembolic events. This strategy is a viable alternative to heparin-based bridging therapy.

Periprocedural heparin bridging in patients receiving vitamin K antagonists: systematic review and meta-analysis of bleeding and thromboembolic rates

BACKGROUND

Periprocedural bridging with unfractionated heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin aims to reduce the risk of thromboembolic events in patients receiving long-term vitamin K antagonists. Optimal periprocedural anticoagulation has not been established.

METHODS AND RESULTS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases (2001-2010) were searched for English-language studies including patients receiving heparin bridging during interruption of vitamin K antagonists for elective procedures. Data were independently collected by 2 investigators (κ=0.90). The final review included 34 studies with 1 randomized trial. Thromboembolic events occurred in 73 of 7118 bridged patients (pooled incidence, 0.9%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.0.0-3.4) and 32 of 5160 nonbridged patients (pooled incidence, 0.6%; 95% CI, 0.0-1.2). There was no difference in the risk of thromboembolic events in 8 studies comparing bridged and nonbridged groups (odds ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.42-1.54). Bridging was associated with an increased risk of overall bleeding in 13 studies (odds ratio, 5.40; 95% CI, 3.00-9.74) and major bleeding in 5 studies (odds ratio, 3.60; 95% CI, 1.52-8.50) comparing bridged and nonbridged patients. There was no difference in thromboembolic events (odds ratio, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.04-2.09) but an increased risk of overall bleeding (odds ratio, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.27-4.08) with full versus prophylactic/intermediate-dose low-molecular-weight heparin bridging. Low-thromboembolic-risk and/or non-vitamin K antagonist patient groups were used for comparison. Study quality was poor with heterogeneity for some analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Vitamin K antagonist-treated patients receiving periprocedural heparin bridging appear to be at increased risk of overall and major bleeding and at similar risk of thromboembolic events compared to nonbridged patients. Randomized trials are needed to define the role of periprocedural heparin bridging.

Managing anticoagulation in patients receiving implantable cardiac devices

A substantial proportion of patients who undergo cardiac rhythm device implantation receive anticoagulation to prevent thromboembolism. Many patients have coexisting cardiovascular diseases treated with antiplatelet therapy. Anticoagulation may increase the risk of hemorrhagic complication, while withdrawal of anticoagulation may increase thromboembolic risk. In this article, we review and describe the available evidence, in order to inform best practice .

Meta-analysis of bleeding complications associated with cardiac rhythm device implantation

BACKGROUND

Many patients receiving cardiac rhythm devices have conditions requiring antiplatelet (AP) and/or anticoagulant (AC) therapy. Current guidelines recommend a heparin-bridging strategy (HBS) for anticoagulated patients with moderate/high risk for thrombosis. Several studies reported lower bleeding risk with continued oral anticoagulation rather than HBS. The best strategy for perioperative management of patients on AP therapy is less clear. The present study was designed as a meta-analysis of device implantation-associated bleeding complications using different AC/AP therapies.

METHODS AND RESULTS

PubMed and Cochrane Database searches identified articles based on design, outcomes, and available data. Device recipients were grouped as follows: no therapy, aspirin only, AC held, AC continued, dual AP, and HBS. The primary outcome was defined as a bleeding complication including hematoma, transfusion, or prolonged hospital stay. Thirteen articles were identified for analysis including 5978 patients. The combined incidence of bleeding complications was 274 of 5978 (4.6%), ranging from 2.2% (no therapy) to 14.6% (HBS). The estimated odds of bleeding were increased by 8.3 (95% CI, 5.5-12.9) times in the HBS group, 5.0 (95% CI, 3.0-8.3) for dual AP therapy, 1.7 (95% CI, 1.0-3.1) for AC held, 1.6 (95% CI, 0.9-2.6) for AC continued, and 1.5 (95% CI, 0.9-2.3) for aspirin only relative to the no therapy group. HBS significantly increased bleeding events compared with holding or continuing AC. Continuing AC did not increase bleeding events compared with no therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Continuing AC appears safer than HBS for device implantation. Dual AP therapy but not continuing AC carries a significant risk of bleeding.

Perioperative management of antithrombotic therapy: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines

BACKGROUND

This guideline addresses the management of patients who are receiving anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy and require an elective surgery or procedure.

METHODS

The methods herein follow those discussed in the Methodology for the Development of Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis Guidelines. Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines article of this supplement.

RESULTS

In patients requiring vitamin K antagonist (VKA) interruption before surgery, we recommend stopping VKAs 5 days before surgery instead of a shorter time before surgery (Grade 1B). In patients with a mechanical heart valve, atrial fibrillation, or VTE at high risk for thromboembolism, we suggest bridging anticoagulation instead of no bridging during VKA interruption (Grade 2C); in patients at low risk, we suggest no bridging instead of bridging (Grade 2C). In patients who require a dental procedure, we suggest continuing VKAs with an oral prohemostatic agent or stopping VKAs 2 to 3 days before the procedure instead of alternative strategies (Grade 2C). In moderate- to high-risk patients who are receiving acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) and require noncardiac surgery, we suggest continuing ASA around the time of surgery instead of stopping ASA 7 to 10 days before surgery (Grade 2C). In patients with a coronary stent who require surgery, we recommend deferring surgery > 6 weeks after bare-metal stent placement and > 6 months after drug-eluting stent placement instead of undertaking surgery within these time periods (Grade 1C); in patients requiring surgery within 6 weeks of bare-metal stent placement or within 6 months of drug-eluting stent placement, we suggest continuing antiplatelet therapy perioperatively instead of stopping therapy 7 to 10 days before surgery (Grade 2C).

CONCLUSIONS

Perioperative antithrombotic management is based on risk assessment for thromboembolism and bleeding, and recommended approaches aim to simplify patient management and minimize adverse clinical outcomes.