A practice survey of shoulder glucocorticoid injections in patients on antiplatelet drugs or vitamin K antagonists

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.).

Musculoskeletal injection

Patients commonly present to primary care physicians with musculoskeletal symptoms. Clinicians certified in internal medicine must be knowledgeable about the diagnosis and management of musculoskeletal diseases, yet they often receive inadequate postgraduate training on this topic. The musculoskeletal problems most frequently encountered in our busy injection practice involve, in decreasing order, the knees, trochanteric bursae, and glenohumeral joints. This article reviews the clinical presentations of these problems. It also discusses musculoskeletal injections for these problems in terms of medications, indications, injection technique, and supporting evidence from the literature. Experience with joint injection and the pharmacological principles described in this article should allow primary care physicians to become comfortable and proficient with musculoskeletal injections.

Musculoskeletal injection

Patients commonly present to primary care physicians with musculoskeletal symptoms. Clinicians certified in internal medicine must be knowledgeable about the diagnosis and management of musculoskeletal diseases, yet they often receive inadequate postgraduate training on this topic. The musculoskeletal problems most frequently encountered in our busy injection practice involve, in decreasing order, the knees, trochanteric bursae, and glenohumeral joints. This article reviews the clinical presentations of these problems. It also discusses musculoskeletal injections for these problems in terms of medications, indications, injection technique, and supporting evidence from the literature. Experience with joint injection and the pharmacological principles described in this article should allow primary care physicians to become comfortable and proficient with musculoskeletal injections.