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

A Primer on Pacemakers and Defibrillators for Nurses

Although the concepts of pacing have been around for more than half a century, technological advances in cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) have changed the landscape for patients in need of pacing support or sudden death prevention. Nurses encounter patients with CIEDs in all aspects of the health care setting. Because exciting CIED therapies are on the horizon, nurses must stay up-to-date to promote optimal outcomes for CIED patients. This essential guide provides nurses with a comprehensive overview of the principles of pacing and implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), as well as innovative technologies such as leadless cardiac pacemakers and subcutaneous ICDs.

A Review of the Recent Advances of Cardiac Pacemaker Technology in Handling Complications

The total number of annual pacemaker implantations continues to grow globally, and help patients with heart rhythm disorders with an improved quality of life and reduced mortality. The first implantable pacemakers appeared in 1965, characterized by their bulkiness, short battery life, and a single pacing mode. Innovation led to the modern pacemaker: a smaller system with improved battery life and capacity, and innovation in lead technology. Certain arrhythmia conditions may also qualify for leadless pacemaker implantation, thus eliminating the spectrum of complications that could occur with leads. Adverse events can be divided into acute (perforation, lead dislodgement, infection) and long-term (lead fractures, device infection, insulation failure). Traditional long-term complications with leads occur in 10% of patients, compared with device-related adverse effects observed in 6.7% of leadless pacemakers. Furthermore, cardiac pacemaker implantation results in quality of life improvements across all age groups. Large cardiac rehabilitation studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of exercise in reducing the physical complications involved with pacemaker implantation. Of the three randomized controlled trials examined, all of them reported some benefit of exercise in the intervention group compared with the control. The following review aims to discuss the multitude of pacemaker options potentially available for the clinician, complications, their course of management, and the path forward with innovations arising out of previous research within the field.

Predictors of pocket hematoma after cardiac implantable electronic device surgery: A nationwide cohort study

Purpose

Clinically significant pocket hematoma (CSH) is a common complication to cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) surgery. We aimed to evaluate predictors of CSH after CIED surgery.

Methods

We performed a nationwide population-based prospective cohort study with systematic patient chart review of all Danish patients undergoing CIED surgery during a 12-month period. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to estimate adjusted odds ratios (aOR) with 95% confidence intervals for association between predictors and CSH.

Results

We included 5918 consecutive patients, 63% males, mean age 72.6 years. A total of 148 (2.5%) patients experienced CSH, including 10 patients (0.2%) requiring re-operation with hematoma evacuation. The risk of CSH was significantly increased in patients treated with aspirin (aOR 1.8; 1.2-2.7), aspirin and clopidogrel (aOR 3.9; 2.3-6.5), or heparin (aOR 2.1; 1.1-4.1), and in patients with INR≥2.0 (aOR 2.0; 1.2-3.2). Patients operated by low-volume operators (aOR 2.7; 1.6-4.6) or undergoing more complex CIED surgery such as cardiac resynchronization therapy (aOR 2.0; 1.1-3.5) or dual-chamber defibrillator (aOR 2.1; 1.2-3.8) also had significantly increased CSH risk.

Conclusion

In a large nationwide cohort of consecutive patients undergoing CIED surgery, the risk of CSH was 2.5%, with 0.2% necessitating evacuation. CSH risk was increased both in patients receiving aspirin, dual antiplatelet therapy or continued vitamin K-antagonist therapy. Dual antiplatelet therapy had the highest risk (aOR) of CSH. Both low operator volume and more complex CIED surgery were independently associated with higher CSH risk. These data should be considered when planning CIED surgery.

Risk factors for hematoma in patients undergoing cardiac device procedures: A WRAP-IT trial analysis

Background

Implant site hematoma is a known complication of cardiac device procedures and can lead to major consequences.

Objectives

To evaluate risk factors for hematoma and further understand the relationship between anticoagulant (AC), antiplatelet (AP) use, and hematoma development.

Methods

We included 6800 patients from the WRAP-IT trial. To assess baseline and procedural characteristics associated with hematoma within the first 30 days postprocedure, a stepwise Cox regression model was implemented with minimal Akaike information criterion. Cox regressions were also used to evaluate AC/AP use and hematoma risk.

Results

The overall rate of hematoma was 2.2%. The model identified 11 baseline and procedural characteristics associated with hematoma risk. AC use (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.44, P < .001), lower body mass index (HR: 1.06, P < .001), and history of valve surgery (HR: 2.11, P < .001) were associated with the highest risk. AP use, male sex, history of coronary artery disease, existing pocket, history of nonischemic cardiomyopathy, number of previous cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) procedures, procedure time, and lead revision were associated with moderate risk. Antithrombotic use was high overall (86%) and AC+AP use was highly predictive of hematoma risk. Regardless of AC status, AP use was associated with an almost doubling of risk vs no AP (HR = 1.85, P = .0006) in the general cohort. Interruption of AC was associated with the lowest hematoma risk (HR = 2.35) while heparin bridging (HR = 4.98) and AP use vs no AP use (HR = 1.85) was associated with the highest hematoma risk.

Conclusion

The results of this analysis highlight risk factors associated with the development of hematoma in patients undergoing CIED procedures and can inform antithrombotic management.

Pocket hematoma after pacemaker or defibrillator surgery: Direct oral anticoagulants versus vitamin K antagonists

Background

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are the preferred choice of oral anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Randomized trials have demonstrated the efficacy and safety of DOAC in patients undergoing a cardiac implantable electronic device procedure (CIED); however, there is limited real-world data.

Objective

To evaluate the outcome of patients undergoing an elective CIED procedure in a tertiary referral center with an interrupted DOAC or continued vitamin K antagonist (VKA) regimen.

Methods

This was a retrospective single-center study of consecutive patients with AF undergoing an elective CIED procedure between January 2016 and June 2019. The primary endpoint was a clinically significant pocket hematoma < 30 days after surgery. The secondary endpoint was any systemic thromboembolic complication < 30 days after surgery.

Results

Of a total of 1,033 elective CIED procedures, 283 procedures were performed in patients with AF using oral anticoagulation. One-third of the procedures were performed under DOAC (N = 81, 29%) and the remainder under VKA (N = 202, 71%). The DOAC group was younger, had less chronic renal disease, more paroxysmal AF and a lower HAS-BLED score. The VKA group more often underwent a generator change only in comparison to the DOAC group. Clinically significant pocket hematoma occurred in 5 patients (2.5%) in the VKA group and did not occur in the DOAC group (P = 0.33). There were no thromboembolic events reported.

Conclusion

In patients with AF undergoing an elective CIED procedure, the risk of a pocket hematoma and a systemic thromboembolic event is comparably low when using either continued VKA or interrupted DOAC.

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator-related procedures and associated complications in continuous flow left ventricular assist device recipients: A multicenter experience

Background

Limited data exist regarding complication rates of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices (CRT-D) in patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVAD).

Objective

We describe the incidence and characteristics of ICD- and CRT-D-related procedures and complications in a multicenter LVAD cohort.

Methods

A total of 537 LVAD patients with a pre-existing ICD or CRT-D from 5 centers were included. Details on device type, device therapies, procedural complications, and long-term survival were analyzed.

Results

Of 537 patients, 280 had a CRT-D and 257 had ICD only. During a median follow-up of 538 days, 126 patients underwent generator replacement with significantly higher rate in the CRT group (79 [28.2%] vs 47 [18.3%], P = .0006). Device-related complications occurred in 36 (13%) CRT-D and 20 (8%) ICD patients (P = .06). Incidence of pocket hematoma (3.2% vs 2.7%), infection (4.3% vs 1.6%), and lead malfunction (3.1% vs 2.8%) was similar in both groups, with no effect of device complication on long-term survival (log-rank P = .7). There was a higher incidence of post-LVAD antitachycardia pacing for ventricular arrhythmias in the CRT-D group compared to the ICD group (35% vs 26%, P = .03).

Conclusion

Cardiac implantable electronic device-related procedures are common in LVAD patients. Compared to ICD only, continued CRT-D therapy post-LVAD results in a significantly higher number of generator changes and a trend towards higher device- or lead-related complications. Device-related complications were not associated with reduced survival.

Infectious consequences of hematoma from cardiac implantable electronic device procedures and the role of the antibiotic envelope: A WRAP-IT trial analysis

BACKGROUND

Hematoma is a complication of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) procedures and may lead to device infection. The TYRX antibacterial envelope reduced major CIED infection by 40% in the randomized WRAP-IT (World-wide Randomized Antibiotic Envelope Infection Prevention Trial) study, but its effectiveness in the presence of hematoma is not well understood.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the incidence and infectious consequences of hematoma and the association between envelope use, hematomas, and major CIED infection among WRAP-IT patients.

METHODS

All 6800 study patients were included in this analysis (control 3429; envelope 3371). Hematomas occurring within 30 days postprocedure (acute) were characterized and grouped by study treatment and evaluated for subsequent infection risk. Data were analyzed using Cox proportional hazard regression modeling.

RESULTS

Acute hematoma incidence was 2.2% at 30 days, with no significant difference between treatment groups (envelope vs control hazard ratio [HR] 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84-1.58; P = .39). Through all follow-up, the risk of major infection was significantly higher among control patients with hematoma vs those without (13.1% vs 1.6%; HR 11.3; 95% CI 5.5-23.2; P <.001). The risk of major infection was significantly lower in the envelope vs control patients with hematoma (2.5% vs 13.1%; HR 0.18; 95% CI 0.04-0.85; P = .03).

CONCLUSION

The risk of hematoma was 2.2% among WRAP-IT patients. Among control patients, hematoma carried a >11-fold risk of developing a major CIED infection. This risk was significantly mitigated with antibacterial envelope use, with an 82% reduction in major CIED infection among envelope patients who developed hematoma compared to control.

Postimplantation pocket hematoma increases risk of cardiac implantable electronic device infection: A meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

 Several studies have shown an inconsistent relationship between postimplantation pocket hematoma and cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection. In this study, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the effect of postimplantation hematoma and the risk of CIED infection.

METHODS

 We searched the databases of MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to March 2020. Included studies were cohort studies, case-control studies, cross-sectional studies, and randomized controlled trials that reported incidence of postimplantation pocket hematoma and CIED infection during the follow-up period. CIED infection was defined as either a device-related local or systemic infection. Data from each study were combined using the random effects, generic inverse variance method of Der Simonian and Laird to calculate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were included in final analysis, involving a total of 28 319 participants. In random-effect model, we found that postimplantation pocket hematoma significantly increases the risk of overall CIED infection (OR = 6.30, 95% CI: 3.87-10.24, I 2 = 49.3%). There was no publication bias observed in the funnel plot as well as no small-study effect observed in Egger's test.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis demonstrated that postimplantation pocket hematoma significantly increases the risk of CIED infection. Precaution should be taken during device implantation to reduce postimplantation hematoma and subsequent CIED infection.

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.