A randomized trial comparing heparin initiation 6 h or 24 h after pacemaker or defibrillator implantation

The Neurostimulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC)®: Recommendations for the Mitigation of Complications of Neurostimulation

INTRODUCTION

The International Neuromodulation Society convened a multispecialty group of physicians based on expertise and international representation to establish evidence-based guidance on the mitigation of neuromodulation complications. This Neurostimulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC)® project intends to update evidence-based guidance and offer expert opinion that will improve efficacy and safety.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Authors were chosen on the basis of their clinical expertise, familiarity with the peer-reviewed literature, research productivity, and contributions to the neuromodulation literature. Section leaders supervised literature searches of MEDLINE, BioMed Central, Current Contents Connect, Embase, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and PubMed from 2017 (when NACC last published guidelines) to October 2023. Identified studies were graded using the United States Preventive Services Task Force criteria for evidence and certainty of net benefit. Recommendations are based on the strength of evidence or consensus when evidence was scant.

RESULTS

The NACC examined the published literature and established evidence- and consensus-based recommendations to guide best practices. Additional guidance will occur as new evidence is developed in future iterations of this process.

CONCLUSIONS

The NACC recommends best practices regarding the mitigation of complications associated with neurostimulation to improve safety and efficacy. The evidence- and consensus-based recommendations should be used as a guide to assist decision-making when clinically appropriate.

Do Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators Prevent Sudden Cardiac Death in End-Stage Renal Disease Patients on Dialysis?

Chronic kidney disease patients appear to be predisposed to heart rhythm disorders, including atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter, ventricular arrhythmias, and supraventricular tachycardias, which increase the risk of sudden cardiac death. The pathophysiological factors underlying arrhythmia and sudden cardiac death in patients with end-stage renal disease are unique and include timing and frequency of dialysis and dialysate composition, vulnerable myocardium, and acute proarrhythmic factors triggering asystole. The high incidence of sudden cardiac deaths suggests that this population could benefit from implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy. The introduction of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators significantly decreased the rate of all-cause mortality; however, the benefits of this therapy among patients with chronic kidney disease remain controversial since the studies provide conflicting results. Electrolyte imbalances in haemodialysis patients may result in ineffective shock therapy or the appearance of non-shockable underlying arrhythmic sudden cardiac death. Moreover, the implantation of such devices is associated with a risk of infections and central venous stenosis. Therefore, in the population of patients with heart failure and severe renal impairment, periprocedural risk and life expectancy must be considered when deciding on potential device implantation. Harmonised management of rhythm disorders and renal disease can potentially minimise risks and improve patients' outcomes and prognosis.

2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 12, 2022, to November 3, 2022, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through November 2022, during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee and added to the evidence tables, where appropriate.

STRUCTURE

Atrial fibrillation is the most sustained common arrhythmia, and its incidence and prevalence are increasing in the United States and globally. Recommendations from the "2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" and the "2019 AHA/ACC/HRS Focused Update of the 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing atrial fibrillation and thromboembolic risk assessment, anticoagulation, left atrial appendage occlusion, atrial fibrillation catheter or surgical ablation, and risk factor modification and atrial fibrillation prevention have been developed.

2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 12, 2022, to November 3, 2022, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through November 2022, during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee and added to the evidence tables, where appropriate.

STRUCTURE

Atrial fibrillation is the most sustained common arrhythmia, and its incidence and prevalence are increasing in the United States and globally. Recommendations from the "2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" and the "2019 AHA/ACC/HRS Focused Update of the 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing atrial fibrillation and thromboembolic risk assessment, anticoagulation, left atrial appendage occlusion, atrial fibrillation catheter or surgical ablation, and risk factor modification and atrial fibrillation prevention have been developed.

Complications of Totally Implantable Central Venous Catheters (Ports) Inserted via the Internal Jugular Vein Under Ultrasound and Fluoroscopy Guidance in Adult Oncology Patients: A Single-Center Experience

Introduction

In this retrospective study, the safety and complication rates of port implantations via the internal jugular vein under ultrasound and fluoroscopy guidance in adult oncology patients were analyzed.

Material and methods

Eight hundred seven ports implanted in 799 adult oncology patients at a tertiary Oncology-Anticancer Hospital during a 36-month period from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. Data acquisition was obtained until December 31, 2020. All procedures were performed by two specialized interventional radiologists under ultrasound and fluoroscopy guidance. The vein access was via the internal jugular vein. Catheter days (the total number of days of maintenance of the port by all of the patients until removal, death, or December 31, 2020), technical success rates, and complication rates were evaluated based on the interventional radiological reports and patient medical records. Multivariate analysis regarding patients such as age, sex, body mass index (BMI), marital status, educational level, cancer type, side of insertion, diameter of internal jugular vein, diabetes, anticoagulants/antiplatelets, purpose of implantation, and catheter material as to the risk of complications was conducted.

Results

A total of 369,329 catheter maintenance days were observed (457.7±345.0). The technical success rate was 99.9%, and a total of 85 (10.5%) complications occurred, of which 24 (28.2%) occurred early (<30 days) and the remaining 61 (71.8%) were late (>30 days) complications. Specifically, 28 (3.5%) were catheter-related thrombosis (CRT), 27 (3.4%) related to infection, 17 (2.1%) were mechanical complications (16 fibrin sheath formation and one catheter occlusion), six (0.7%) related to catheter migration, four (0.5%) related to incision healing problems, and the remaining three (0.4%) related to ischemic skin necrosis. Forty-seven (5.8%) ports were removed due to complications. On multivariate analysis, cancer type was found as a risk factor for the development of a complication. Additionally, there was an indication that hematologic malignancy is related to infection.

Conclusion

Placement of ports via the internal jugular vein under ultrasound and fluoroscopy guidance is a safe procedure, with low rates of early and late complications.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of left ventricular endocardial pacing in advanced heart failure: Clinically efficacious but at what cost?

INTRODUCTION

Cardiac resynchronization using a left ventricular (LV) epicardial lead placed in the coronary sinus is now routinely used in the management of heart failure patients. LV endocardial pacing is an alternative when this is not feasible, with outcomes data sparse.

OBJECTIVE

To review the available evidence on the efficacy and safety of endocardial LV pacing via meta-analysis.

METHODS

EMBASE, MEDLINE, and COCHRANE databases with the search term "endocardial biventricular pacing" or "endocardial cardiac resynchronization" or "left ventricular endocardial" or "endocardial left ventricular." Comparisons of pre-and post-QRS width, LV ejection fraction (LVEF), and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional classification was performed, and mean differences (and respective 95% confidence interval [CI]) applied as a measurement of treatment effect.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies, including 362 patients, were selected. During a mean follow-up of 40 ± 24.5 months, death occurred in 72 patients (11 per 100 patient-years). Significant improvements in LVEF (mean difference 7.9%, 95% CI 5-10%, P < 0.0001; I²  = 73%), QRS width (mean difference: -41% 95% -75 to -7%; P < 0.0001; I²  = 94%), and NYHA class (mean difference: -1.06, 95% CI -1.2 to -0.9, P < 0.0001; I²  = 60%), (all P < 0.0001) occurred. Stroke rate was 3.3-4.2 per 100 patient-years, which is higher than equivalent heart failure trial populations and recent meta-analysis that included small case series.

CONCLUSION

LV endocardial lead implantation is a potentially efficacious alternative to CS lead placement, but preliminary data suggest a potentially higher risk of stroke during follow-up when compared to the expected incidence of stroke in similar cohorts of patients.

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.

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.

Prospective randomized study evaluating the effects of PerClot® (Polysaccharide Hemostatic System) application in patients with high bleeding risk undergoing cardiac rhythm device implantation

BACKGROUND

Thus far, the topic hemostatic agent PerClot® is used for surgical procedures. Data about the use of PerClot® for cardiac-rhythm-devices (CRD) implantation are missing. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of PerClot® in patients with high bleeding risk.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In this prospective randomized study we planned to include 150 patients admitted for CRD-Implantation receiving anticoagulation and/or dual-antiplatelet-therapy. Participants were randomized to receive PerClot® versus standard-of-care. The primary endpoint was the incidence of pocket hematoma. Safety endpoint was pocket infection. After a planned safety-interim-analysis the study was terminated early because of safety concerns. 51 patients were included. The two groups were comparable with regard to age (73±11years vs. 74±10years; p=0.71), CHA₂DS₂VASc (3.6±1.5 vs. 4.0±1.5; p=0.27) and HASBLED-Score (2.4±1.1 vs. 2.5±1.0; p=0.98), CRD or procedure type, anticoagulant or anti-platelet therapy. The use of PerClot® resulted in a higher incidence of postoperative fever (7 (28%) vs. 0 (0%); p=0.004), higher C-Reactive Protein (66.1±50.5mg/l vs. 25.9±22.5mg/l; p=0.002); and higher postoperative white blood cell count (13.5±4.3/nl vs. 8.8±2.6/nl; p<0.001). Hematoma formation did not differ significantly (p=0.14). Reoperation was not necessary in any patient.

CONCLUSION

This first randomized controlled study for the topical use of the hemostatic agent PerClot® in CRD implantation was terminated early by the safety monitoring board because of an augmented rate of fever and inflammatory markers in the PerClot® group. The addition of PerClot® does not suggest a benefit with regard to the frequency of pocket hematoma.

Pacemaker Implantation in Elderly Patients: Safety of Various Regimens of Anticoagulant Therapy

OBJECTIVE

To study incidence of hemorrhagic complications after pacemaker implantation in elderly patients receiving antithrombotic therapy with warfarin or uninterrupted dabigatran.

METHODS

126 patients aged 83 [82; 85] years who receive continuous antithrombotic therapy after pacemaker implantation, were enrolled in the study. Adverse event data were collected during hospitalization and further 12 weeks.

RESULTS

95 subjects (75.4%) from general number of enrolled patients received elective anticoagulant warfarin therapy and 31 subjects (24.6%) were treated with dabigatran. All patients of dabigatran group received 220 mg/day skipping the last dose before a surgery and resumed the drug intake in 36-48 hours after it. Patients of warfarin group underwent surgery if INR was NMT 3; they didn't stop taking the drug for the duration of operation.No statistically significant differences of hematoma incidence were detected in dabigatran (incidence is 0.065, 95%CI (-0.02-0.15)) and warfarin (incidence is 0.05, 95%CI (0.006-0.01)) groups, p(Fisher)= 0.55. Three cases of nonfatal gastrointestinal bleeding (warfarin group) and 1 similar event in dabigatran group were detected during a follow-up (12 [6; 20] weeks): RR= 0.98 (warfarin group), p(Fisher)=0.68. No statistically significant difference of age, sex composition, history of IHD and diabetes was detected between groups by comparison of individual characteristics of patients whose surgeries were complicated/non-complicated by hematoma formation. Upon that, hematoma formation rate was significantly higher in patients with adjunctive pacemaker muscular fixation: 71.4% vs 31.9% (patients without hematomas), p(Fisher)= 0.045.

CONCLUSION

Incidence of hematoma formation after pacemaker implantation in patients > 75 years receiving warfarin or dabigatran, is the same as in general population of patients treated with anticoagulants. Adjunctive pacemaker muscular fixation is a significant risk factor of hematoma formation.

[Safety of device implantation under antipatelet therapy with ticagrelor: About 20 cases]

INTRODUCTION

Management of antiplatelet therapy at the time of device implantation remains controversial. This study aimed to assess the risk of bleeding complications in patients receiving ticagrelor at the time of cardiac device surgery.

METHODS

We performed a multicentre (n=4), retrospective study from January 2015 to January 2016. The survey included all patients (pts) treated with ticagrelor before undergoing pacemaker, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation or generator replacement. We report hemorrhagic post-procedural complications at 1 month. A significant bleeding complication was defined as pocket hematoma requiring a surgical evacuation or prolonged hospitalization, hemothorax, pericardial effusion, or tamponade.

RESULTS

A total of 20 patients underwent a permanent pacemaker or ICD implantation while taking a combination of antipatelet therapy with ticagrelor and aspirin. The mean age of the patients was 65±9 years, 95% were male, 25% of patients were diabetics, 55% had hypertension and 50% presented a history of heart failure. All the patients had a history of acute coronary syndrome [6 (4-26) months before the procedure]. The majority of implanted devices were ICDs (17, 85%) with 5 single chamber, 4 dual chambers and 9 triple chambers ICDs. Subclavian venous approach was utilized in 9 patients. The mean duration of procedure was 60minutes. One per-procedure bleeding was described due to high venous pressure, without post-procedure hematoma. A post-procedure pocket hematoma has been experienced by one patient. The subclavian approach was used for the 2 patients. No blood transfusion was needed for these 2 cases.

CONCLUSION

Ticagrelor treatment at the time of heart rhythm device procedures does not seem to be associated with an increased risk of significant bleeding complications. In our study, 2 patients experienced nonsignificant bleeding complications.

Perioperative Management of Patients on Oral Anticoagulants: A Decision Analysis

Background . To better inform clinicians on the optimal management of patients on oral anticoagulation who need to undergo surgery or invasive procedures, the authors performed a decision analysis examining whether a perioperative aggressive or minimalist strategy results in greater quality-adjusted survival. Methods . A decision analysis model was created comparing withholding warfarin (minimalist strategy) to withholding warfarin and administering treatment-dose subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) or intravenous heparin perioperatively (aggressive strategy). The base-case analysis examined a hypothetical 60-year-old hypertensive individual with mechanical aortic valve replacement undergoing major abdominal surgery. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed using a Monte Carlo simulation with quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE) as the outcome. Secondary analyses examined patients with a mechanical mitral valve and atrial fibrillation. Sensitivity analyses were performed for each variable. Results . Under the base-case scenario, the minimalist strategy was preferred for 78% of trials in the Monte Carlo simulation, with a mean benefit of 0.003 years (95% confidence interval, -0.005 years to 0.011 years). Sensitivity analyses based on point estimates indicate that the aggressive strategy is preferred when the annual stroke rate is >5.6% or the increase in postoperative major bleeding induced by heparin is <2.0%; however, the benefit is small over the range of plausible values. Conclusions . For most patients with a mechanical aortic valve or atrial fibrillation undergoing major surgery, a minimalist strategy of simply withholding oral anticoagulation provides similar QALE as an aggressive strategy of administering perioperative subcutaneous LMWH or intravenous heparin. The aggressive therapy provides greater QALE for patients at higher risk of stroke (e.g., mechanical mitral valves), although the benefit is small.

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.

Pocket Hematoma: A Call for Definition

Pocket hematoma is a common complication of cardiac implantable electronic device procedures and a potential risk factor for device infections, especially in patients on oral anticoagulation or antiplatelet treatment. There is a wide variability in the incidence of pocket hematoma and bleeding complications in the literature and the major cause for this seems to be the variability of the used definitions for hematomas. The lack of generally accepted definition for pocket hematoma renders the comparisons across the studies difficult. In this article, we briefly review the current literature on this issue and propose a uniform definition for pocket hematoma and criteria for grading the severity of hematoma in clinical practice and research.

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.

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.

Feasibility of early discharge after implantable cardioverter-defibrillator procedures

INTRODUCTION

Registry data demonstrate considerably low complication rates after implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) procedures for primary prevention of sudden death. Yet standard of care includes postimplant overnight in-hospital observation that may levy substantial unnecessary financial burden on health care systems. In appropriate patients, discharge soon after implant could translate into significant cost savings, if such practice does not result in complications. We applied a simple clinical algorithm to assess feasibility of discharge on the same day of ICD implantation in patients at low risk for procedural complications.

METHODS

We prospectively randomized primary prevention ICD candidates at low risk for complications (not pacing-dependent or requiring bridging heparin anticoagulation) to next-day discharge with overnight in-hospital observation, or same-day discharge with remote monitoring for 24 hours after ICD implant. Implants were performed via cephalic vein access, and randomization occurred after 4-hours clinical observation and device interrogation. All patients were followed for a minimum of 6 weeks to assess acute procedural complications.

RESULTS

71 patients comprised the study cohort (mean age 62, 79% male) after 3 were excluded. The most common indication for ICD implant was ischemic cardiomyopathy with ejection fraction ≤35%. Device data obtained through 24-hour remote monitoring was comparable to 4-hour postimplant parameters in same-day discharge patients. No acute complications occurred in same-day discharge patients; 1 next-day discharge patient developed pneumothorax.

CONCLUSION

ICD implantation with same-day discharge is reasonable in patients at low risk for complications. Remote monitoring can be useful in indicating lead-parameter stability during the immediate postoperative period.

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.

Striking a balance between the risks and benefits of anticoagulation bridge therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation: clinical updates and remaining controversies

Long-term anticoagulation with a vitamin K antagonist (VKA) or the new agent dabigatran is recommended to decrease stroke risk in patients with atrial fibrillation. When patients with atrial fibrillation undergo initiation or interruption of VKA therapy, or experience an isolated subtherapeutic international normalized ratio (INR), bridge therapy with a parenteral anticoagulant may be considered. To describe the literature for anticoagulation bridge therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation, we conducted a MEDLINE search (1966-February 2011) of the English-language literature to identify related studies. Ongoing clinical trials were identified through a search of the ClinicalTrials.gov registry. Major national and international guidelines were gathered and evaluated. Additional literature was obtained through review of relevant references of the identified articles. Bridging is not supported by guidelines or clinical trials for patients starting VKA therapy for atrial fibrillation. A subtherapeutic INR value during long-term VKA therapy may be associated with increased thromboembolic events, but the benefit of bridging has not been demonstrated. When VKA therapy is interrupted for procedures, retrospective and cohort data suggest that the decision to bridge should be based on a patient's thromboembolic and bleeding risks associated with the procedure. Typically, it is recommended to use bridge therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation at high risk for thromboembolism, but the benefit of bridging is less clear in patients at low risk. Not all procedures necessitate anticoagulation interruption. Recent trials suggest that VKAs can be continued when patients are undergoing cardiac device procedures and some types of radiofrequency ablation. Several clinical trials are ongoing that will provide more definitive guidance for perioperative anticoagulation management of patients with atrial fibrillation. Patients taking dabigatran are unlikely to require bridge therapy because of a predictable anticoagulant effect and rapid onset of action. However, evidence for optimal perioperative management of dabigatran is needed.