[Hemorrhagic risk of different perioperative anticoagulation protocols in patients implanted with a cardiac pacemaker or defibrillator: retrospective analysis in patients implanted in a community hospital]

[Characteristic and evolution of pacemaker complications in a Subsaharan Africa Heart Centre]

AIM OF THE STUDY

The working environment and the low rate of pacemaker insertions increase the risk of complications in sub-Saharan Africa. The objective of our work was to assess the impact of specific preventive measures on these complications over the long term.

PATIENT AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study of all pacemaker implantations from June 2006 to June 2016 at the Abidjan Heart Institute. We evaluated the incidence of pacemaker complications, their risks factors and their impact on the overall prognosis of patients.

RESULTS

Three hundred and two procedures were performed in 286 patients (49% male, mean age: 67±12 years), with a predominance of primary implantation (82.8%) of single-chamber ventricular pacemakers (66.6%). Twenty-five major complications (8.27%) and 14 minor (4.6%) occurred with a predominance of lead displacements (3.64%). The major complications were favored by the subclavian approach (P=0.018; OR=2.34; 95% CI [1.16-4.75]) and intraoperative incidents (P=0.02; OR=2.17; 95% CI [1.16-4.75]. The preventive measures taken made it possible to achieve a significant (P=0.017) and linear (P=0.009) reduction of these complications, with no effect the patients prognosis (Log-Rank=0.217; P=0.64).

CONCLUSION

Quality cardiac stimulation is possible in Sub-Saharan Africa with preventive measures adapted to the environment.

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.

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.

[Antiplatelet agents increase hemorrhagic risk in patients undergoing a cardiac pacemaker or ICD implantation]

OBJECTIVES

This study was designed to assess the hypothesis that the implantation or the replacement of a cardiac stimulator or defibrillator in patients receiving antiplatelet agents is associated with an increase of the haemorrhagic risk in comparison with patients not receiving antiplatelet agents (control group).

METHODS AND RESULTS

We retrospectively included all the patients undergoing pacemaker or ICD implantation or replacement between January 2007 and May 2010. The primary criterion was the incidence of bleeding complications. In our center, 685 patients were implanted in this period. Two hundred and fourteen (31%) were implanted while taking antiplatelet agents, including 164 (24%) taking aspirin, 31 (4%) taking clopidogrel and 19 (3%) taking the combination aspirin plus clopidogrel, while 471 patients (69%) did not receive antiplatelet agents. The primary criteria was the hemorrhagic complications. Complications were noted in 14 patients out of 471 (3%) not taking antiplatelet agents, in 16 patients out of 214 (7.5%) taking an antiplatelet agent (P=0.004). The complications concerned 13 patients out of 164 taking aspirin (7.9%), one patient out of 31 (3.2%) taking clopidogrel and two patients out of 19 taking the combination aspirin plus clopidogrel (10.5%) (P=0.042 for aspirin vs placebo, NS for all other comparisons). In multivariable analysis, the factors associated with an increase of the heamorrhagic complications were the type of implant (ICD) (OR 3,7; P=0.001) and antiplatelet treatment (OR 2,7; P=0.009).

CONCLUSION

Pacemaker and ICD implantation or replacement in patients taking antiplatelet agents are associated with an increase of the hemorrhagic risk.

[Oral anticoagulation doesn't increase hemorrhagic risk in patients undergoing a cardiac pacemaker or defibrillator implantation]

OBJECTIVES

This study was designed to assess the hypothesis that the implantation or the replacement of a cardiac stimulator or defibrillator in patients receiving oral anticoagulants with an INR≥2 doesn't increase the hemorrhagic risk in comparison with patients for whom the treatment has been interrupted temporarily (INR<2) or with patients not receiving anticoagulants (control group).

PATIENTS AND RESULTS

We performed a retrospective chart review of bleeding complications in all patients undergoing pacemaker or ICD implantation or replacement between January 2007 and may 2009. In this cohort, 43 patients (10%) were implanted with an INR≥2 while 36 patients (8%) were implanted with an INR<2 and 352 patients (82%) didn't receive anticoagulants. No complication (0/36) has been observed in patients having an INR<2, while 3/43 (7%) complications have been observed in patients with an INR≥2 and 13/352 (3.7%) in patients in the control group (p=0.3093). Duration of the hospital stay was similar in the three groups: 6.2 days in patients with an INR<2, 6.8 days in the group with an INR≥2 and 6.2days in the control group (p=0.686).

CONCLUSION

Pacemaker and ICD implantation or replacement without withdrawing of oral anticoagulants and an INR≥2 was not associated with an increase of the hemorrhagic risk.

Perioperative management of anticoagulation during device implantation-the UK perspective

BACKGROUND

Increasing numbers of patients taking oral anticoagulation are presenting for device implantation. Cessation of anticoagulation in the perioperative period may expose patients to increased risk of thromboembolic events, while continuing anticoagulation may increase the risk of bleeding. There are few guidelines or randomized controlled trials to guide perioperative management.

METHODS

We carried out a questionnaire-based study of all cardiologists implanting devices in the United Kingdom to establish if there was consensus on management of anticoagulation in patients undergoing pacemaker implantation.

RESULTS

There is significant variation in management of these patients. Eighty-nine percent of doctors stop oral anticoagulation a mean 3.7 days prior to pacemaker implantation in patients with a mechanical mitral valve, with 94% using heparin to provide preoperative anticoagulation: 58% unfractionated heparin, 40% low molecular weight heparin. The maximum accepted international normalized ratio for implantation ranged from 1.4 to 3 (median 1.8). Postoperatively, 86% restart heparin after a mean 8.5 hours. Only 11% continue oral anticoagulation throughout the implantation period. There is a hierarchy of perceived embolic risk with doctors using progressively less anticoagulation in patients with prosthetic aortic valve, high-risk, and low-risk atrial fibrillation. In contrast, only 7% of implanters stop theinopyridines prior to device implantation in patients with a 2-month-old drug eluting stent.

CONCLUSION

Perioperative anticoagulation management of patients undergoing device procedures is currently performed with little consensus. This emphasizes the need for careful national and international audit of periprocedural anticoagulation management and its associated complications with a view to developing international consensus guidelines. (PACE 2010; 389-393).