Bridge or continue Coumadin for device surgery: a randomized controlled trial rationale and design

Assessment of the attitude, awareness and practice of periprocedural warfarin management among health care professional in Qatar. A cross sectional survey

It is estimated that 10-15% of oral anticoagulant (OAC) patients, would need to hold their OAC for scheduled surgery. Especially for warfarin, this process is complex and requires multi-layer risk assessment and decisions across different specialties. Clinical guidelines deliver broad recommendations in the area of warfarin management before surgery which can lead to different trends and practices among practitioners. To evaluate the current attitude, awareness, and practice among health care providers (HCPs) on warfarin periprocedural management. A multiple-choice questionnaire was developed, containing questions on demographics and professional information and was completed by187 HCPs involved in warfarin periprocedural management. The awareness median (IQR) score was moderate [64.28% (21.43)]. The level of awareness was associated with the practitioner's specialty and degree of education (P = 0.009, 0.011 respectively). Practice leans to overestimate the need for warfarin discontinuation as well as the need for bridging. Participants expressed interest in using genetic tests to guide periprocedural warfarin management [median (IQR) score (out of 10) = 7 (5)]. In conclusion, the survey presented a wide variation in the clinical practice of warfarin periprocedural management. This study highlights that HCPs in Qatar have moderate awareness. We suggest tailoring an educational campaign or courses towards the identified gaps.

Epidemiology of cardiac implantable electronic device infections: incidence and risk factors

Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection is a potentially devastating complication of CIED procedures, causing significant morbidity and mortality for patients. Of all CIED complications, infection has the greatest impact on mortality, requirement for re-intervention and additional hospital treatment days. Based on large prospective studies, the infection rate at 12-months after a CIED procedure is approximately 1%. The risk of CIED infection may be related to several factors which should be considered with regards to risk minimization. These include technical factors, patient factors, and periprocedural factors. Technical factors include the number of leads and size of generator, the absolute number of interventions which have been performed for the patient, and the operative approach. Patient factors include various non-modifiable underlying comorbidities and potentially modifiable transient conditions. Procedural factors include both peri-operative and post-operative factors. The contemporary PADIT score, derived from a large cohort of CIED patients, is useful for the prediction of infection risk. In this review, we summarize the key information regarding epidemiology, incidence and risk factors for CIED infection.

A randomized ablation-based atrial fibrillation rhythm control versus rate control trial in patients with heart failure and high burden atrial fibrillation: The RAFT-AF trial rationale and design

Heart failure (HF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) are 2 cardiac conditions that are increasing in prevalence and incidence. The 2 conditions frequently coexist, and are associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Catheter ablation of AF has been successfully performed in patients with HF, with an improvement in HF and AF, when compared to amiodarone, but further data is required to compare this to rate control. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective is to determine whether AF treated by catheter ablation, with or without antiarrhythmic drugs reduces all-cause mortality and hospitalizations for HF as compared with rate control in patients with HF and a high burden AF. METHODS: This is a multi-center prospective randomized open blinded endpoint (PROBE) study. Patients with NYHA class II-III HF (HF with reduced ejection fraction (<35%) or HF with preserved ejection fraction), and high burden AF are included in the trial. Patients are randomized to either rate control or catheter ablation-based AF rhythm control in a 1:1 ratio. Patients in the rate control group receive optimal HF therapy and rate control measures to achieve a resting hazard ratio (HR) < 80 bpm and 6-minute walk HR < 110 bpm. Patients randomized to catheter ablation-based AF rhythm control group receive optimal HF therapy and one or more aggressive catheter ablation, which include PV antral ablation and LA substrate ablation with or without adjunctive antiarrhythmic drug. The primary outcome is a composite of all-cause mortality and hospitalization for heart failure defined as an admission to a health care facility. The sample size is 600. Enrolment has been completed.

Clinically Significant Pocket Hematoma Increases Long-Term Risk of Device Infection: BRUISE CONTROL INFECTION Study

BACKGROUND

The BRUISE CONTROL trial (Bridge or Continue Coumadin for Device Surgery Randomized Controlled Trial) demonstrated that a strategy of continued warfarin during cardiac implantable electronic device surgery was safe and reduced the incidence of clinically significant pocket hematoma (CSH). CSH was defined as a post-procedure hematoma requiring further surgery and/or resulting in prolongation of hospitalization of at least 24 h, and/or requiring interruption of anticoagulation. Previous studies have inconsistently associated hematoma with the subsequent development of device infection; reasons include the retrospective nature of many studies, lack of endpoint adjudication, and differing subjective definitions of hematoma.

OBJECTIVES

The BRUISE CONTROL INFECTION (Bridge or Continue Coumadin for Device Surgery Randomized Controlled Trial Extended Follow-Up for Infection) prospectively examined the association between CSH and subsequent device infection.

METHODS

The study included 659 patients with a primary outcome of device-related infection requiring hospitalization, defined as 1 or more of the following: pocket infection; endocarditis; and bloodstream infection. Outcomes were verified by a blinded adjudication committee. Multivariable analysis was performed to identify predictors of infection.

RESULTS

The overall 1-year device-related infection rate was 2.4% (16 of 659). Infection occurred in 11% of patients (7 of 66) with previous CSH and in 1.5% (9 of 593) without CSH. CSH was the only independent predictor and was associated with a >7-fold increased risk of infection (hazard ratio: 7.7; 95% confidence interval: 2.9 to 20.5; p < 0.0001). Empiric antibiotics upon development of hematoma did not reduce long-term infection risk.

CONCLUSIONS

CSH is associated with a significantly increased risk of infection requiring hospitalization within 1 year following cardiac implantable electronic device surgery. Strategies aimed at reducing hematomas may decrease the long-term risk of infection. (Bridge or Continue Coumadin for Device Surgery Randomized Controlled Trial [BRUISE CONTROL]; NCT00800137).

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.

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.

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.

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 .

Implantation of cardiac rhythm devices during concomitant anticoagulation or antiplatelet therapy

Cardiac rhythm devices are increasingly being utilized as the population ages and the incidence of chronic heart failure, bradyarrhythmias and the indications for pacing and prevention of sudden cardiac arrest expand. The number of patients receiving oral anticoagulants and dual antiplatelet therapy is similarly increasing. Implantation of cardiac rhythm devices during concomitant use of oral anticoagulants or antiplatelet regimens poses an increased risk of perioperative bleeding complications. Traditionally, heparin-based bridging protocols have been recommended for such patients to mitigate the bleeding risk while reducing the risk of thrombotic complications. Although the literature is limited, an appraisal of the literature reveals that bridging may not be the best strategy. We review the literature and propose strategies to promote successful perioperative outcomes, while reducing the risk of bleeding or thrombosis during the time of implantation for patients on chronic anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapies.

Canadian Cardiovascular Society atrial fibrillation guidelines 2010: prevention of stroke and systemic thromboembolism in atrial fibrillation and flutter

The stroke rate in atrial fibrillation is 4.5% per year, with death or permanent disability in over half. The risk of stroke varies from under 1% to over 20% per year, related to the risk factors of congestive heart failure, hypertension, age, diabetes, and prior stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA). Major bleeding with vitamin K antagonists varies from about 1% to over 12% per year and is related to a number of risk factors. The CHADS(2) index and the HAS-BLED score are useful schemata for the prediction of stroke and bleeding risks. Vitamin K antagonists reduce the risk of stroke by 64%, aspirin reduces it by 19%, and vitamin K antagonists reduce the risk of stroke by 39% when directly compared with aspirin. Dabigatran is superior to warfarin for stroke prevention and causes no increase in major bleeding. We recommend that all patients with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter, whether paroxysmal, persistent, or permanent, should be stratified for the risk of stroke and for the risk of bleeding and that most should receive antithrombotic therapy. We make detailed recommendations as to the preferred agents in various types of patients and for the management of antithrombotic therapies in the common clinical settings of cardioversion, concomitant coronary artery disease, surgical or diagnostic procedures with a risk of major bleeding, and the occurrence of stroke or major bleeding. Alternatives to antithrombotic therapies are briefly discussed.

No increased bleeding events with continuation of oral anticoagulation therapy for patients undergoing cardiac device procedure

BACKGROUND

Switching warfarin for heparin has been a practice for managing periprocedural anticoagulation in high-risk patients undergoing device-related procedures. We sought to investigate whether continuation of warfarin sodium therapy without heparin bridging is safe and, when it is continued, the optimal international normalized ratio (INR) without increased bleeding risk at time of device-related procedure.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We retrospectively studied 766 consecutive patients taking warfarin long term who underwent device-related procedures. Patients were grouped by treatment: discontinued warfarin (-warfarin, n = 243), no interruption of warfarin (+warfarin, n = 324), and discontinued warfarin with heparin bridging (+heparin, n = 199). The study primary endpoint was systemic bleeding or formation of moderate or severe pocket hematoma within 30 days of the procedure. Thirty-one (4%) patients had bleeding events, including pocket hematoma in 29 patients. The bleeding events occurred more often for +heparin (7.0%) than -warfarin (2.1%) or +warfarin (3.7%, P = 0.029). For +warfarin group, INR of 2.0-2.5 at time of procedure did not increase bleeding risk compared with INR less than 1.5 (3.7% vs 3.4%; P = 0.72), but INR greater than 2.5 increased the bleeding risk (10.0% vs 3.4%; P = 0.029). Concomitant aspirin use with warfarin significantly increased bleeding risk than warfarin alone (5.6% vs 1.4%, P = 0.02). Median length of hospitalization was significantly shorter for +warfarin than +heparin (1 vs 6 days; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Continuation of oral anticoagulation therapy with an INR level of <2.5 does not impose increased risk of bleeding for device-related procedures, although precaution is necessary to avoid supratherapeutic anticoagulation levels.

[Progress in cardiac pacing]

This review discusses the utility and current status of remote monitoring in patients with cardiac devices in Spain, the different anticoagulation strategies used during device implantation, the surgical replacement and maintenance of pacemakers and defibrillators, and the present and future importance of impedance sensors in cardiac pacing and heart failure management. Finally, there is a summary of the most relevant scientific articles published in the last year.

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).

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

BACKGROUND

Increasing numbers of patients requiring arrhythmia device implantation are taking warfarin. The common practice of warfarin interruption and perioperative bridging with heparin is associated with a high rate of postoperative hemorrhagic complications. We assessed the safety of device implantation without interruption of warfarin therapy.

METHODS

Three patient groups were studied: Group 1 consisted of 117 consecutive patients on long-term warfarin therapy with significant risk of thromboembolism (atrial fibrillation with CHADS(2) score > or =2, mechanical heart valve, recent venous thromboembolism) who underwent arrhythmia device implantation without interruption of warfarin. Group 2 was 117 patients who served as age- and sex-matched controls matched to procedure type not taking warfarin. Group 3 consisted of 38 similar thromboembolic risk historical control patients who underwent interruption of warfarin therapy and bridging with dalteparin before and 24 hours after surgery. Active fixation leads were used by subclavian or axillary vein puncture, with septal fixation in the ventricle in 56% of patients. Hemorrhagic and thromboembolic complications were assessed at discharge and at 7 and 30 days after surgery.

RESULTS

During an 18-month period, 1,562 consecutive adult patients underwent heart rhythm device implantation or replacement. One hundred seventeen of the 447 patients on warfarin were considered high risk and remained on warfarin for their procedure. The mean international normalized ratio in group 1 patients was 2.2 +/- 0.4 (age 79 +/- 11 years, 73 male). Significant hematoma was noted in 9 patients (7.7%), and one required surgical revision (0.9%). Five group 2 patients (control) had significant hematomas (4.3%), none of which required revision (P = .41). In group 3, 9 patients developed significant hematomas (23.7%, P = .012), 3 of whom required reoperation (7.9%, P = .046). There were no deaths, thromboembolic events, cardiac tamponade, or hemothorax in any patient. The only risk factor for hematoma in the warfarin patients was the number of leads implanted.

CONCLUSIONS

Arrhythmia devices can be implanted safely in patients with high thromboembolic risk without interruption of warfarin. This strategy may be associated with reduced risk of significant pocket hematoma compared with dalteparin bridging.