Pocket Hematoma: A Call for Definition

Adverse clinical events during the first 24 h of bedrest following cardiac electronic device implantation: a prospective observational study

AIMS

To describe the incidence and impact of adverse clinical events (ACEs) during first 24 h of bedrest of patients after cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We conducted a prospective observational study of patients aged over 18 years undergoing elective placement of permanent bicameral pacemaker (PM), cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) PM, CRT defibrillator, or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. Patients were maintained on bedrest post-operatively for 24 h and delirium, post-operative urinary retention, severe post-operative pain, pressure ulcer, and sleep disturbance were recorded using standardized assessments. Of 90 patients, 66 (73.3%) were male and average age was 76 ± 10 years. The median time to first mobilization was 23 (21-24) h. The adverse clinical events occurred in 48/90, with severe pain (38/90), sleep disturbance (12/90), delirium (9/90), and urinary retention requiring urinary catheterization (8/90) most frequent. Patients receiving implantable cardioverter-defibrillator or CRT defibrillator experienced ACEs significantly more frequently than those receiving PM. Adverse clinical event was associated with prolonged hospital stay [odds ratio (OR) 2.5; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.16-6.17]. Patients with delirium were more dependent for daily living activities on admission (OR 8.0; 95% CI 1.55-41.3).

CONCLUSION

Adverse clinical events frequently occur post-insertion of a CIED and impact patient clinical course and experience. The progressive increase in ageing and frailty of CIED implant candidates requires special nursing attention to improve patients' satisfaction and to prevent increased healthcare resource use.

Successful transcatheter arterial embolization treatment for chest wall haematoma following permanent pacemaker implantation: A case report

BACKGROUND

Haematoma is one of the main complications associated with pacemaker implantation. Pseudoaneurysm is a rare condition that is not easy to identify and is often overlooked.

CASE SUMMARY

A female patient diagnosed with high-grade atrioventricular block underwent permanent pacemaker implantation. During the operation, puncturing a small branch of the right subclavian artery developed into a pseudoaneurysm and resulted in further haematoma formation. Conventional treatment of compression haemostasis and haemostatic drugs was not effective. A series of timely transcatheter arterial embolizations avoided serious complications.

CONCLUSION

More possible conditions should be taken into consideration as haematoma is discovered, and timely treatment might prevent severe adverse events.

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

Purpose

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

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

Background

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

Objective

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Effect of a Novel Pocket Compression Device on Hematomas Following Cardiac Electronic Device Implantation in Patients Receiving Direct Oral Anticoagulants

Background

A pocket hematoma is a well-recognized complication that occurs after pacemaker or defibrillator implantation. It is associated with increased pocket infection and hospital stay. Patients suffering from atrial fibrillation and undergoing cardiovascular electronic implantable device (CIED) surgery are widely prescribed and treated with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). In this study, the use of a novel compression device was evaluated to examine its ability to decrease the incidence of pocket hematomas following device implantation with uninterrupted DOACs.

Methods

A total of 204 participants who received DOACs and underwent CIED implantation were randomized into an experimental group (novel compression device) and a control group (elastic adhesive tape with a sandbag). The primary outcome was pocket hematoma, and the secondary outcomes were skin erosions and patient comfort score. Grade 3 hematoma was defined as a hematoma that required anticoagulation therapy interruption, re-operation, or prolonged hospital stay.

Results

The baseline characteristics of both groups had no significant differences. The incidence of grades 1 and 2 hematomas was significantly lower in the compression device group than in the conventional pressure dressing group (7.8 vs. 23.5 and 2.0 vs. 5.9%, respectively; P &lt; 0.01). Grade 3 hematoma occurred in 2 of 102 patients in the experimental group and 7 of 102 patients in the control group (2.0 vs. 6.9%; P = 0.03). The incidence rates of skin erosion were significantly lower, and the patient comfort score was much higher in the compression device group than in the control group (P &lt; 0.01). Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that the use of novel compression device was a significant protective factor for pocket hematoma (OR = 0.42; 95% CI, 0.29–0.69, P = 0.01).

Conclusions

The incidence of pocket hematomas and skin erosions significantly decreases when the proposed compression device is used for patients undergoing device implantation with uninterrupted DOACs. Thus, the length of hospital stay and re-operation rate can be reduced, and patient comfort can be improved.

Clinical Trial Registration

http://www.chictr.org.cn, identifier: ChiCTR2100049430.

Effect of a pocket compression device on hematomas, skin reactions, and comfort in patients receiving a cardiovascular implantable electronic device: a randomized controlled trial

AIM/OBJECTIVE

Aim to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of a pocket compression device in patients undergoing cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This randomized controlled trial included 54 patients in the control group (elastic adhesive tape) and 54 patients in the experimental group (pocket compression device). A sandbag was positioned over the pocket after CIED implantation, using elastic adhesive tape in the control group and a novel pocket compression device in the experimental group. The primary outcome was the incidence of pocket hematomas, and the secondary outcomes were adverse skin reactions, the need for sandbag positional adjustments, and patient comfort.

RESULTS

The distributions of age, sex, and clinical and procedure characteristics was not significantly different between the two groups (P>0.05). The occurrence of hematomas was lower when using the pocket compression device than in the control group (13.0% vs. 44.4%, P<0.001). The incidence rates of hematomas of grades 1 and the grade 2 hematomas were significantly lower in the experimental group than in the control group (13.0% vs. 31.5%, 0% vs. 11.1% respectively, [all P<0.05]). The incidence rates of adverse skin reactions and sandbag positional adjustments were much lower and the patient comfort score was significantly higher in the experimental group than in the control group (all P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

A pocket compression device can significantly decrease the incidence of pocket hematomas, adverse skin reactions, and positional adjustments when patients are undergoing CIED, which can improve patient comfort and decrease the nursing workload. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV : NCT04389398.

Cardiac device implant wound closure with a novel low-density suture spacing single layer method

BACKGROUND

To establish a novel time-saving and safe suture method for cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation.

METHODS

From January 2017 to April 2020, a total of 1317 patients scheduled for CIED procedure were consecutively enrolled in this study. Wound closure of all patients were prospectively assigned either to low-density suture spacing single layer suture group (single-layer group) or traditional two layer suture group (two-layer group). The effects of two closure methods on wound healing and pocket related complications were compared.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in age, gender, BMI, comorbid diseases (diabetes, hypertension, coronary heart disease, and chronic kidney disease), and antiplatelet or anticoagulant drug use between the two groups. The number of suture stitches in the single-layer group was significantly less than that in the two-layer group [3.03(3-4) vs. 7.17(7-10), p < .001], the suture time in the single-layer group was significantly shorter than that in the two-layer group [190.57(167-256) s vs. 493.36(452-655) s, p < .001], and the incidence of clinically significant hematoma in the single-layer group was comparable to that in the two-layer group (0.7% vs. 0.3%, p = .742). Additionally, there were no significant differences in the incidence of pocket infection, dehiscence and keloid between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Novel single-layer suture with low-density suture spacing is feasible and associated with a low incidence of wound dehiscence or infection for CIED implantation.

Clinical predictors of pocket hematoma after cardiac device implantation and replacement

AIMS

Pocket hematoma is a common complication of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) procedures. the aim of the study was to research the clinical factors associated with pocket hematoma formation after CIED implantation or replacement and to identify the best perioperative antithrombotic management.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 500 consecutive patients who underwent to CIED implantation or replacement at our center from November 2014.

RESULTS

Among our population, 206 patients (41.2%) were on anticoagulant therapy at the time of the intervention: 68 (13.6%) on ongoing Warfarin; 111 (22.2%) on low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH); and 27 (5.4%) on ongoing direct oral anticoagulants. Antiplatelet therapy was present in 262 (52.4%) patients: in particular, 50 (10%) were on dual antiplatelet therapy, 64 (12.8%) were on single antiplatelet therapy and anticoagulant therapy, whereas 12 (2.4%) were on anticoagulant with dual antiplatelet therapy.Incidence of pocket hematoma after CIEDs implantation was of 4.6%. Considering the different perioperative anticoagulant strategies, patients on LMWH presented the higher hematoma rate [11/100 patients (11.0%), P < 0.001]. At the multivariate analysis, anticoagulant with dual antiplatelet therapy (P = 0.021, OR 6.3, IC 1.3-30.8), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) less than 30% (P < 0.001, OR 7.4, IC 2.7-20.4), and use of LMWH (P = 0.008, OR 3.8, IC 1.4-10.6) resulted the strongest predictors of pocket hematoma (Hosmer test = 0.899).Considering replacement procedures, incidence of pocket hematoma was of 4.4%. The incidence was higher after ICD/CRT-D replacement. The majority of pocket hematoma occurred in patients with mechanical valve prosthesis (3/4 cases, 75%, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The use of LMWH and a low LVEF expose patients to a higher risk of pocket hematoma after CIED procedures. Anticoagulant with dual antiplatelet therapy and LMWH should be avoided.

Frequency of "Pocket" Hematoma in Patients Receiving Vitamin K Antagonist and Antiplatelet Therapy at the Time of Pacemaker or Cardioverter Defibrillator Implantation (from the POCKET Study)

In patients undergoing cardiac device implantation, anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy are associated with an increased risk of pocket hematoma. In case of vitamin K antagonist therapy, a strategy of continued warfarin with no heparin bridge showed a reduction of pocket hematoma. Evidence regarding antiplatelet therapy management is limited. This is a single-center observational study which reflects our systematic approach to the problem. In 2012, we proposed an improved management protocol for anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy (no-bridge protocol) based on individual thromboembolic risk stratification, noninterruption of oral anticoagulation, no bridge with heparin and elastic adherence compression bandage. The primary end point was the incidence of clinically significant pocket hematoma in the first 30 days after implantation. A total of 1,035 patients were enrolled, of whom 522 received the standard management and 513 the new protocol. The primary end point occurred in 34 patients of the standard management group and 8 patients of the no-bridge protocol group (6.5% vs 1.6%, p <0.001). Patients in the standard management group had a higher incidence of pocket infections (2.3% vs 0.6%, p = 0.02), lead dislodgements (4.8% vs 2.1%, p = 0.02), and thromboembolic events (1.3% vs 0.0%, p <0.01). On a multivariate analysis, heparin and coronary artery disease were independent predictors of pocket hematoma (relative risk [RR] 3.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.55 to 7.83 and RR 2.43, 95% CI 1.25 to 4.76, respectively), whereas the no-bridge protocol was associated with a reduction of pocket hematoma (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.76). New anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy management protocol was associated with a reduced incidence of clinically significant pocket hematomas, thromboembolic events, pocket infections, and lead dislodgements.

Arguments to Apply Epinephrine for Pocket Hematoma Reduction. The MAITRE Study

Pocket hematoma (PH) is a common complication of implantations of cardiac electrophysiological devices with occurring at a particularly high rate in patients on oral anticoagulation or antiplatelet treatment. Different pharmacological agents with hemostatic effect are used to avoid PH. We supposed that the vasoconstrictor effects of epinephrine may reduce bleeding extent and be effective in prevention of PH. Maitre is the first clinical trial conducted with an aim to show the safety and efficacy of epinephrine in PH prophylaxis. We randomized 133 patients to receive either epinephrine or saline solution, which were added to a local anesthetic administered during pacemaker implantation. In cases of diffuse bleeding a method of pocket drainage was effectively used. Results showed that risk of PH was significantly higher in the group receiving epinephrine. We conclude that a local epinephrine effect may lead to a false impression of adequate hemostasis and force a surgeon to refuse from drainage insertion.

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).