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

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.

Trends in the 30-year span of noninfectious cardiovascular implantable electronic device complications in Olmsted County

Background

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs), such as permanent pacemakers, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices, alleviate morbidity and mortality in various diseases. There is a paucity of real-world data on CIED complications and trends.

Objectives

We sought to describe trends in noninfectious CIED complications over the past 3 decades in Olmsted County.

Methods

The Rochester Epidemiology Project is a medical records linkage system comprising records of over 500,000 residents of Olmsted County from 1966 to present. CIED implantations between 1988 and 2018 were determined. Trends in noninfectious complications within 30 days of implantation were analyzed.

Results

A total of 157 (6.2%) of 2536 patients who received CIED experienced device complications. A total of 2.7% of the implants had major complications requiring intervention. Lead dislodgement was the most common (2.8%), followed by hematoma (1.7%). Complications went up from 1988 to 2005, and then showed a downtrend until 2018, driven by a decline in hematomas in the last decade (P < .01). Those with complications were more likely to have prosthetic valves. Obesity appeared to have a protective effect in a multivariate regression model. The mean Charlson comorbidity index has trended up over the 30 years.

Conclusion

Our study describes a real-world trend of CIED complications over 3 decades. Lead dislodgements and hematomas were the most common complications. Complications have declined over the last decade due to safer practices and a better understanding of anticoagulant management.

Trends in the 30-year span of Noninfectious Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Device Complications in Olmsted County

Background

Cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) such as permanent pacemakers, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices alleviate morbidity and mortality in various diseases. There is a paucity of real-world data on CIED complications and trends.

Objectives

Describe trends in noninfectious CIED complications over the past three decades in Olmsted County.

Methods

The Rochester Epidemiology Project is a medical records linkage system comprising records of over 500,000 residents of Olmsted County from 1966-current. CIED implants between 1988-2018 were determined. Trends in noninfectious complications within 30 days of implant were analyzed.

Results

175 out of 2536 (6.9%) patients who received CIED experienced device complications. 3.8% of the implants had major complications requiring intervention. Lead dislodgement was the most common (2.9%), followed by hematoma (2.1%). Complications went up from 1988 to 2005, then showed a downtrend until 2018, driven by a decline in hematomas in the last decade (p<0.01). Those with complications were more likely to have prosthetic valves. Obesity appeared to have a protective effect in a multivariate regression model. The mean Charlson comorbidity score has trended up over the 30 years.

Conclusions

Our study describes a real-world trend of CIED complications over three decades. Lead dislodgements and hematomas were the most common complications. Complications have declined over the last decade due to safer practices and a better understanding of anticoagulant management.

Outcomes of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Biliary Drainage in Patients Undergoing Antithrombotic Therapy

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society (JGES) has published guidelines for gastroenterological endoscopy in patients undergoing antithrombotic treatment. These guidelines classify endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) as a high-risk procedure. Nevertheless, the bleeding risk of EUS-BD in patients undergoing antithrombotic therapy is uncertain. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the bleeding risk in patients undergoing antithrombotic therapy.

METHODS

This single-center retrospective study included 220 consecutive patients who underwent EUS-BD between January 2013 and December 2018. We managed the withdrawal and continuation of antithrombotic agents according to the JGES guidelines. We compared the bleeding event rates among patients who received and those who did not receive antithrombotic agents.

RESULTS

A total of 18 patients (8.1%) received antithrombotic agents and 202 patients (91.8%) did not. Three patients experienced bleeding events, with an overall bleeding event rate of 1.3% (3/220): one patient was in the antithrombotic group (5.5%) and two patients were in the non-antithrombotic group (0.9%) (p=0.10). All cases were moderate. The sole thromboembolic event (0.4%) was a cerebral infarction in a patient in the non-antithrombotic group.

CONCLUSION

The rate of EUS-BD-related bleeding events was low. Even in patients receiving antithrombotic therapy, the bleeding event rates were not significantly different from those in patients not receiving antithrombotic therapy.

Management of antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy in endoscopy: A review of literature

Endoscopic procedures hold a basal risk of bleeding that depends on the type of procedure and patients’ comorbidities. Moreover, they are often performed in patients taking antiplatelet and anticoagulants agents, increasing the potential risk of intraprocedural and delayed bleeding. Even if the interruption of antithrombotic therapies is undoubtful effective in reducing the risk of bleeding, the thromboembolic risk that follows their suspension should not be underestimated. Therefore, it is fundamental for each endoscopist to be aware of the bleeding risk for every procedure, in order to measure the risk-benefit ratio for each patient. Moreover, knowledge of the proper management of antithrombotic agents before endoscopy, as well as the adequate timing for their resumption is essential.

This review aims to analyze current evidence from literature assessing, for each procedure, the basal risk of bleeding and the risk of bleeding in patients taking antithrombotic therapy, as well as to review the recommendation of American society for gastrointestinal endoscopy, European society of gastrointestinal endoscopy, British society of gastroenterology, Asian pacific association of gastroenterology and Asian pacific society for digestive endoscopy guidelines for the management of antithrombotic agents in urgent and elective endoscopic procedures.

Thromboembolic and bleeding risk of periprocedural bridging anticoagulation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The risk and benefit of periprocedural heparin bridging is not completely clarified. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of bridging anticoagulation prior to invasive procedures or surgery. Heparin bridging was associated with lower risks of thromboembolism and bleeding compared to non‐bridging. PubMed, Ovid and Elsevier, and Cochrane Library (2000‐2016) were searched for English‐language studies. Studies comparing interrupted anticoagulation with or without bridging and continuous oral anticoagulation in patients at moderate‐to‐high thromboembolic risk before invasive procedures were included. Primary outcomes were thromboembolic events and bleeding events. Mantel‐Haenszel method and random‐effects models were used to analyze the pooled risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for thromboembolic and bleeding risks. Eighteen studies (six randomized controlled trials and 12 cohort studies) were included (N = 23 364). There was no difference in thromboembolic risk between bridged and non‐bridged patients (RR: 1.26, 95% CI: 0.61‐2.58; RCTs: RR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.23‐2.24; cohorts: RR: 1.45, 95% CI: 0.63‐3.37). However, bridging anticoagulation was associated with higher risk of overall bleeding (RR: 2.83, 95% CI: 2.00‐4.01; RCTs: RR: 2.24, 95% CI: 0.99‐5.09; cohorts: RR: 3.09, 95% CI: 2.07‐4.62) and major bleeding (RR: 3.00, 95% CI: 1.78‐5.06; RCTs: RR: 2.48, 95% CI: 1.29‐4.76; cohorts: RR: 3.22, 95% CI: 1.65‐6.32). Bridging anticoagulation was associated with increased bleeding risk compared to non‐bridging. Thromboembolism risk was similar between two strategies. Our results do not support routine use of bridging during anticoagulation interruption.

Comparison of anticoagulants and risk factors for bleeding following endoscopic sphincterotomy among anticoagulant users: Results from a large multicenter retrospective study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Bleeding is an inevitable and often severe complication after endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST). We aimed to investigate the factors associated with post-EST bleeding in patients treated with anticoagulants.

METHODS

The data of patients who underwent EST at 15 hospitals between July 2015 and June 2017 were extracted. We investigated the incidence of post-EST bleeding and risk factors for bleeding in patients treated with anticoagulants.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-nine patients undergoing EST who met the inclusion criteria were included in this study. The total-EST bleeding (bleeding occurring during or after EST) rate did not differ between the heparin replacement (8.0%, 6/75) and continuation (16.6%, 2/12; P = 0.37) groups of warfarin users. The total-EST-bleeding rate in the heparin replacement group (12.9%, 4/31) was significantly higher than that in the continuation group (0%, 0/31; P = 0.016) in direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) users. The rate of total-EST bleeding with continuation of DOAC (0%, 0/31) was significantly lower with continuation of warfarin (16.6%, 2/12; P = 0.021). During-EST bleeding (bleeding occurring during EST) (P = 0.0083) and precut (P = 0.033) were significant risk factors for post-EST bleeding in all 149 patients. Heparin replacement was only a significant risk factor for total-EST bleeding (P = 0.033) in DOAC users.

CONCLUSION

Heparin replacement was a significant risk factor for post-EST bleeding in DOAC users; however, there was no significant difference between the bleeding rate of heparin replacement and that of continuation groups in patients taking warfarin. During EST and precut were significant risk factors for post-EST bleeding in all patients treated with anticoagulants.

Effect of Direct Oral Anticoagulants, Warfarin, and Antiplatelet Agents on Risk of Device Pocket Hematoma: Combined Analysis of BRUISE CONTROL 1 and 2

BACKGROUND

Oral anticoagulant use is common among patients undergoing pacemaker or defibrillator surgery. BRUISE CONTROL (Bridge or Continue Coumadin for Device Surgery Randomized Controlled Trial; NCT00800137) demonstrated that perioperative warfarin continuation reduced clinically significant hematomas (CSH) by 80% compared with heparin bridging (3.5% versus 16%). BRUISE-CONTROL-2 (NCT01675076) observed a similarly low risk of CSH when comparing continued versus interrupted direct oral anticoagulant (2.1% in both groups). Using patient level data from both trials, the current study aims to: (1) evaluate the effect of concomitant antiplatelet therapy on CSH, and (2) understand the relative risk of CSH in patients treated with direct oral anticoagulant versus continued warfarin.

METHODS

We analyzed 1343 patients included in BRUISE-CONTROL-1 and BRUISE-CONTROL-2. The primary outcome for both trials was CSH. There were 408 patients identified as having continued either a single or dual antiplatelet agent at the time of device surgery.

RESULTS

Antiplatelet use (versus nonuse) was associated with CSH in 9.8% versus 4.3% of patients (P<0.001), and remained a strong independent predictor after multivariable adjustment (odds ratio, 1.965; 95% CI, 1.202-3.213; P=0.0071). In multivariable analysis, adjusting for antiplatelet use, there was no significant difference in CSH observed between direct oral anticoagulant use compared with continued warfarin (odds ratio, 0.858; 95% CI, 0.375-1.963; P=0.717).

CONCLUSIONS

Concomitant antiplatelet therapy doubled the risk of CSH during device surgery. No difference in CSH was found between direct oral anticoagulant versus continued warfarin. In anticoagulated patients undergoing elective or semi-urgent device surgery, the patient specific benefit/risk of holding an antiplatelet should be carefully considered.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifiers: NCT00800137, NCT01675076.

Hybrid venous recanalization and cardiac implantable electronic device lead revision procedures: A single-center retrospective analysis of 38 patients

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to describe the safety and efficacy of hybrid recanalization procedures in a series of patients with obstructed central veins requiring cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) revision.

METHODS

Between 2008 and 2016, 38 consecutive patients (24 M; age 60.5 ± 16.2 years; range 25-87 years) with central venous obstruction underwent 42 recanalization interventions performed in conjunction with CIED revision or extraction. Fifty percent of patients (19/38) presented with veno-occlusive symptoms, and 13% (5/38) of patients had CIED leads with an ipsilateral upper extremity dialysis conduit.

RESULTS

Ninety-one percent (38/42) of all procedures resulted in successful recanalization and CIED revision. Twenty-four percent (9/38) of all patients required secondary procedures due to recurrent stenosis, and 78% (7/9) of those requiring secondary procedures had indwelling dialysis conduits and/or clinical symptoms related to venous occlusion before the initial procedure. There were complications in 2 patients related to recanalization, and in 3 related to CIED revision.

CONCLUSIONS

Recanalization of central venous stenosis/occlusion in patients with CIED can be technically challenging but is successful in most patients. Symptomatic patients and those with dialysis conduits often require more aggressive revascularization interventions and may be at increased risk of complication or need for secondary interventions.

Guidelines for Gastroenterological Endoscopy in Patients Undergoing Antithrombotic Treatment: 2017 Appendix on Anticoagulants Including Direct Oral Anticoagulants

In 2012, the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society published "Guidelines for Gastroenterological Endoscopy in Patients Undergoing Antithrombotic Treatment" concerning thromboembolism associated with antithrombotic therapy withdrawal. Since then, physicians have started prescribing oral anticoagulants, creating a need for standards reflecting their use in clinical practice. Therefore, new findings regarding anticoagulants are included in this appendix. However, the evidence levels are low for many statements contained herein and these appended guidelines still need to be verified in clinical settings.

Post-polypectomy bleeding and thromboembolism risks associated with warfarin vs direct oral anticoagulants

AIM

To verify the validity of the endoscopy guidelines for patients taking warfarin or direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC).

METHODS

We collected data from 218 patients receiving oral anticoagulants (73 DOAC users, 145 warfarin users) and 218 patients not receiving any antithrombotics (age- and sex-matched controls) who underwent polypectomy. (1) We evaluated post-polypectomy bleeding (PPB) risk in patients receiving warfarin or DOAC compared with controls; (2) we assessed the risks of PPB and thromboembolism between three AC management methods: Discontinuing AC with heparin bridge (HPB) (endoscopy guideline recommendation), continuing AC, and discontinuing AC without HPB.

RESULTS

PPB rate was significantly higher in warfarin users and DOAC users compared with controls (13.7% and 13.7% vs 0.9%, P < 0.001), but was not significantly different between rivaroxaban (13.2%), dabigatran (11.1%), and apixaban (13.3%) users. Two thromboembolic events occurred in warfarin users, but none in DOAC users. Compared with the continuing anticoagulant group, the discontinuing anticoagulant with HPB group (guideline recommendation) had a higher PPB rate (10.8% vs 19.6%, P = 0.087). These findings were significantly evident in warfarin but not DOAC users. One thrombotic event occurred in the discontinuing anticoagulant with HPB group and the discontinuing anticoagulant without HPB group; none occurred in the continuing anticoagulant group.

CONCLUSION

PPB risk was similar between patients taking warfarin and DOAC. Thromboembolism was observed in warfarin users only. The guideline recommendations for HPB should be re-considered.

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.

Perioperative management of antithrombotic therapy in patients receiving cardiovascular implantable electronic devices: a network meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Network meta-analysis (NMA) has advantages including being able to simultaneously compare and rank multiple treatments over traditional meta-analysis. We evaluated by a NMA the optimal antithrombotic strategy during the perioperative period of implantation of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs).

METHODS

We performed a network meta-analysis of observational studies (cohort and case-control studies). The eligible studies tested the following antithrombotic therapy during the CIED placement: aspirin, clopidogrel, warfarin, novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs), and heparin bridging.

RESULTS

Thirty-one observational studies with 119 study arms were included (41,174 patients receiving long-term antithrombotic therapy; median age, 72.6 years; 70.1% males; median follow-up, 3.6 years). Aspirin (4.26 [2.88-7.22]), warfarin (3.37 [2.17-5.23]), and clopidogrel (3.30 [1.49-5.88]) reduced the risk of bleeding as compared with heparin bridging, and there was no significance difference between continued NOACs and heparin bridging (0.67 [0.21-2.18]). The comparison of commonly used protocols in the management of anticoagulant therapy revealed that continued warfarin (0.38 [0.20-0.74]), continued NOACs (0.19 [0.04-0.89]), and heparin bridging therapy (0.01 [0.05-0.21]) increased the risk of bleeding as compared that of control, and continued warfarin (3.74 [1.96-7.16]), interrupted warfarin (4.89 [2.20-10.88]), and interrupted NOACs (12.5 [1.25-100]) reduced the risk of bleeding compared with that of heparin bridging.

CONCLUSIONS

Among various antithrombotic drugs, aspirin had the lowest bleeding risk, followed by warfarin, clopidogrel and NOACs, and heparin, with the greatest bleeding risk. NOACs therapy appears safe and effective, and interrupted NOACs may be the optimal anticoagulation protocol for use during the perioperative period of CIED implantation.

Postoperative bleeding in patients on antithrombotic therapy after gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection

AIM

To investigated the relationship between postoperative bleeding following gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and individual antithrombotic agents.

METHODS

A total of 2488 gastric neoplasms in 2148 consecutive patients treated between May 2001 and June 2016 were studied. The antithrombotic agents were categorized into antiplatelet agents, anticoagulants, and other antithrombotic agents, and we included combination therapies [e.g., dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT)]. The risk factors associated with post-ESD bleeding, namely, antithrombotic agents overall, individual antithrombotic agents, withdrawal or continuation of antithrombotic agents, and bleeding onset period (during the first six days or thereafter), were analyzed using univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

The en bloc resection and complete curative resection rates were 99.2% and 91.9%, respectively. Postoperative bleeding occurred in 5.1% cases. Bleeding occurred in 10.3% of the patients administered antithrombotic agents. Being male (P = 0.007), specimen size (P < 0.001), and antithrombotic agent used (P < 0.001) were independent risk factors for postoperative bleeding. Heparin bridging therapy (HBT) (P = 0.002) and DAPT/multidrug combinations (P < 0.001) were independent risk factors associated with postoperative bleeding. The bleeding rate of the antithrombotic agent continuation group was significantly higher than that of the withdrawal group (P < 0.01). Bleeding within postoperative day (POD) 6 was significantly higher in warfarin (P = 0.015), and bleeding after POD 7 was significantly higher in DAPT/multidrug combinations (P = 0.007). No thromboembolic events were reported.

CONCLUSION

We must closely monitor patients administered HBT and DAPT/multidrug combinations after gastric ESD, particularly those administered multidrug combinations after discharge.

Incidence of Bleeding-Related Complications During Primary Implantation and Replacement of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices

BACKGROUND

Use of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) is increasing. The incidence of bleeding-related complications during CIED procedures and the association with subsequent infection risk have been studied in trial settings but not in nonrandomized "real-world" populations.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This retrospective database analysis of US insurance claims from the Truven MarketScan database (2009-2013) evaluated the incidence of bleeding complications during, or in the 30 days following, a CIED procedure and the association between bleeding and subsequent infection in days 31 to 365 of follow-up. This study identified 42 606 patients who had a primary or replacement CIED procedure and met all inclusion criteria. Incidence of bleeding ranged from 0.58% to 2.81% by type of pharmaceutical therapy. Incidence of infection during days 31 to 365 of follow-up was significantly higher among patients with a bleeding complication in the first 30 days versus those without (6.56% vs 1.24%, P<0.001), with results upheld in multivariate analysis (HR=2.97, 95% CI 1.94-4.54, P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides a lower bound of the real-world incidence of bleeding complications following a CIED procedure within the coding limitations of an insurance claims database. Results confirm the association between bleeding in the pocket and risk of subsequent infection. Further research is needed to precisely identify the costs associated with bleeding in the pocket.

A prospective, multicenter survey on the validity of shorter periendoscopic cessation of antithrombotic agents in Japan

BACKGROUND

The management of antithrombotic agents for endoscopic procedures has recently focused on preventing periprocedural thrombosis in Western countries. However, this focus on shorter cessation of antithrombotic agents needs to be examined for its implications for post-procedural bleeding, with potential risk factors for such bleeding clarified in real-world clinical settings in Japan.

METHODS

A Sapporo consensus group convened and developed a consensus document on the criteria for cessation of antithrombotic agents. In the multicenter, prospective, observational study that followed to validate the criteria in a real-world clinical setting, of all patients ≥20 years of age receiving antithrombotic agents and undergoing endoscopic procedures, all consenting patients were enrolled. All participating facilities were followed up on their adherence to the criteria and clinical outcomes, such as the occurrence of post-procedural bleeding and thrombosis.

RESULTS

A total of 5250 patients, who accounted for 6944 endoscopic procedures, were enrolled from 19 study sites. The consensus criteria, which proved to be nearly consistent with the JSGE criteria revised in 2012, had been adhered to in a total of 6531 procedures performed in 4921 patients. Bleeding and thrombosis were reported in 53 (0.76 %) and two (0.03 %) patients, respectively, among those receiving antithrombotic agents. Post-procedural bleeding was significantly associated with high-bleeding-risk procedures, a high thromboembolic risk with heparin bridging, and the presence of renal failure/dialysis.

CONCLUSIONS

With the new criteria in place for cessation of antithrombotic agents focused on prevention of periprocedural thrombosis, endoscopic procedures may be safely performed without substantially increasing bleeding in clinical practice in Japan.

Early postoperative bridging anticoagulation after mechanical heart valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies evaluating anticoagulation during the early postoperative period following mechanical heart valve implantation.

METHODS

Five literature databases were searched to assess the rates of bleeding and thromboembolic events among patients receiving oral anticoagulation (OAC), both with and without bridging anticoagulation therapy with unfractionated heparin (UFH) or subcutaneous low molecular weight heparin (LMWH). The studies' results were pooled via a mixed effects meta-analysis. Heterogeneity (I(2) ) and publication bias were both evaluated.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies including 9534 patients were included. The bleeding rates were 1.8% (95% confidence interval CI 1.0-3.3) in the group receiving OAC, 2.2% (95% CI 0.9-5.3) in the OAC + UFH group, and 5.5% (95% CI 2.9-10.4) in the OAC + LMWH group (P = 0.042). The thromboembolic event rate was 2.1% (95% CI 1.5-2.9) in the group receiving OAC, as compared with 1.1% (95% CI 0.7-1.8) when the bridging therapy groups were combined as follows: OAC + UFH and OAC + LMWH (P = 0.035). Most of the analyses showed moderate heterogeneity and negative test results for publication bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Bridging therapy following cardiac valve surgery was associated with a lower thromboembolic event rate, although the difference was small, with considerable overlap of the CIs. Direct comparisons are missing. Bridging therapy with UFH appears to be safe; however, this observation has a risk of bias. Early bridging therapy with LMWH appears to be associated with consistently high bleeding rates across multiple analyses. On the basis of the quality of the included studies, more trials are necessary to establish the clinical relevance of bridging therapy and the safety of LMWH.

Multicenter study on hemorrhagic risk of heparin bridging therapy for periendoscopic thromboprophylaxis

Background

For endoscopic interventions, heparin bridging therapy is recommended in patients who are at high risk from interruption of antithrombotic therapy. Although heparin bridging has been reported to be effective in preventing thrombosis, several reports have raised concerns about increased risk of bleeding. The aim of this study was to clarify complications of hepari  bridging therapy in therapeutic endoscopy.

Methods

A nationwide multicenter survey using questionnaire was performed about patients undergoing therapeutic endoscopy with heparin bridging. Patients who underwent therapeutic endoscopy without heparin bridging therapy were considered as controls. Compliance scores of heparin bridging therapy guideline were employed, and association was analyzed between the score and occurrence of post-procedural bleeding.

Results

The incidence of post-procedural bleeding was significantly higher (13.5 %, 33/245) in the heparin group compared with the control group (2.7 %, 299/11102)(p < 0.001). Thrombosis occurred in 1 patient each in the two groups. In the heparin group, post-procedural bleeding was more likely to be delayed bleeding. Dose adjustment of heparin was a significant factor contributing to bleeding. The compliance score of heparin bridging therapy guideline was significantly higher in those who suffered bleeding.

Conclusions

Heparin bridging therapy significantly increased the risk of post-procedural bleeding compared with the control. The bleeding risk was associated with greater adherence with guidelines for heparin bridging therapy.

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.

The safety and efficacy of antithrombotic therapy in patients undergoing cardiac rhythm device implantation: a meta-analysis

AIMS

The meta-analysis was to assess the safety and efficacy of periprocedural antithrombotic therapy and to evaluate the risk factors potentially associated with bleeding among patients undergoing cardiac implantable electronic devices implantations.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A systematic literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register was performed. Anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapies were assessed separately. Uninterrupted anticoagulation was associated with significant lower bleeding risk compared with heparin bridging strategy [odds ratio (OR) = 0.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18-0.53, and P < 0.0001], but there was no significant difference in thromboembolic risk between these two strategies (OR = 0.82, 95% CI 0.32-2.09, and P = 0.65). The haematoma rate was significantly increased in dual antiplatelet therapy group (OR = 6.84, 95% CI 4.16-11.25, and P < 0.00001), but not in single antiplatelet therapy (OR = 1.52, 95% CI 0.93-2.46, and P = 0.09). Clopidogrel increased the risk of haematoma vs. aspirin (OR = 2.91, 95% CI 1.27-6.69, and P = 0.01). Otherwise, a lower risk of haematoma was observed in pacemaker group vs. cardiac resynchronization therapy and/or implantable cardioverter defibrillator group (OR = 0.64, 95% CI 0.50-0.82, and P = 0.0004).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis suggested that uninterrupted oral anticoagulation seems to be the better strategy, associated with a lower risk of bleeding complications rather than heparin bridging, and dual antiplatelet therapy carried a significant risk of bleeding whereas single antiplatelet therapy was relatively safe among patients undergoing cardiac implantable electronic devices implantations. Meanwhile, cardiac resynchronization therapy and/or implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantations increase the bleeding.

Guidelines for the diagnosis, prevention and management of implantable cardiac electronic device infection. Report of a joint Working Party project on behalf of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (BSAC, host organization), British Heart Rhythm Society (BHRS), British Cardiovascular Society (BCS), British Heart Valve Society (BHVS) and British Society for Echocardiography (BSE)

Infections related to implantable cardiac electronic devices (ICEDs), including pacemakers, implantable cardiac defibrillators and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices, are increasing in incidence in the USA and are likely to increase in the UK, because more devices are being implanted. These devices have both intravascular and extravascular components and infection can involve the generator, device leads and native cardiac structures or various combinations. ICED infections can be life-threatening, particularly when associated with endocardial infection, and all-cause mortality of up to 35% has been reported. Like infective endocarditis, ICED infections can be difficult to diagnose and manage. This guideline aims to (i) improve the quality of care provided to patients with ICEDs, (ii) provide an educational resource for all relevant healthcare professionals, (iii) encourage a multidisciplinary approach to ICED infection management, (iv) promote a standardized approach to the diagnosis, management, surveillance and prevention of ICED infection through pragmatic evidence-rated recommendations, and (v) advise on future research projects/audit. The guideline is intended to assist in the clinical care of patients with suspected or confirmed ICED infection in the UK, to inform local infection prevention and treatment policies and guidelines and to be used in the development of educational and training material by the relevant professional societies. The questions covered by the guideline are presented at the beginning of each section.

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 .