Risk of Hematoma Complications After Device Implant in the Clopidogrel Era

Prevention and Risk Assessment of Cardiac Device Infections in Clinical Practice

The implantation of cardiac electronic devices (CIEDs), including pacemakers and defibrillators, has become increasingly prevalent in recent years and has been accompanied by a significant rise in cardiac device infections (CDIs), which pose a substantial clinical and economic burden. CDIs are associated with hospitalizations and prolonged antibiotic therapy and often necessitate device removal, leading to increased morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs worldwide. Approximately 1-2% of CIED implants are associated with infections, making this a critical issue to address. In this contemporary review, we discuss the burden of CDIs with their risk factors, healthcare costs, prevention strategies, and clinical management.

DOACs vs Vitamin K Antagonists During Cardiac Rhythm Device Surgery: A Multicenter Propensity-Matched Study

BACKGROUND

There is a paucity of data comparing vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) to direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) at the time of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) surgery. Furthermore, the best management of DOACs (interruption vs continuation) is yet to be determined.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to compare the incidence of device-related bleeds and thrombotic events based on anticoagulant type (DOAC vs VKA) and regimen (interrupted vs uninterrupted).

METHODS

This was an observational multicenter study. We included patients on chronic oral anticoagulation undergoing CIED surgery. Patients were matched using propensity scoring.

RESULTS

We included 1,975 patients (age 73.8 ± 12.4 years). Among 1,326 patients on DOAC, this was interrupted presurgery in 78.2% (n = 1,039) and continued in 21.8% (n = 287). There were 649 patients on continued VKA. The matched population included 861 patients. The rate of any major bleeding was higher with continued DOAC (5.2%) compared to interrupted DOAC (1.7%) and continued VKA (2.1%) (P = 0.03). The rate of perioperative thromboembolism was 1.4% with interrupted DOAC, whereas no thromboembolic events occurred with DOAC or VKA continuation (P = 0.04). The use of dual antiplatelet therapy, DOAC continuation, and male sex were independent predictors of major bleeding on a multivariable analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large real-world cohort, a continued DOAC strategy was associated with a higher bleeding risk compared to DOAC interruption or VKA continuation in patients undergoing CIED surgery. However, DOAC interruption was associated with increased thromboembolic risk. Concomitant dual antiplatelet therapy should be avoided whenever clinically possible. A bespoke approach is necessary, with a strategy of minimal DOAC interruption likely to represent the best compromise.

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.

Prevention and Management of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections: State-of-the-Art and Future Directions

Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection is an increasingly common complication of device therapy. CIED infection confers significant patient morbidity and health care expenditure, hence it is essential that clinicians recognise the contemporary strategies for predicting, reducing and treating these events. Recent technological advances-in particular, the development of antimicrobial envelopes, leadless devices and validated risk scores-present decision-makers with novel strategies for managing this expanding patient population. This review summarises the key issues facing CIED patients and their physicians, and explores the supporting evidence for the latest therapeutic developments in this field.

Risk factors for hematoma in patients undergoing cardiac device procedures: A WRAP-IT trial analysis

Background

Implant site hematoma is a known complication of cardiac device procedures and can lead to major consequences.

Objectives

To evaluate risk factors for hematoma and further understand the relationship between anticoagulant (AC), antiplatelet (AP) use, and hematoma development.

Methods

We included 6800 patients from the WRAP-IT trial. To assess baseline and procedural characteristics associated with hematoma within the first 30 days postprocedure, a stepwise Cox regression model was implemented with minimal Akaike information criterion. Cox regressions were also used to evaluate AC/AP use and hematoma risk.

Results

The overall rate of hematoma was 2.2%. The model identified 11 baseline and procedural characteristics associated with hematoma risk. AC use (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.44, P < .001), lower body mass index (HR: 1.06, P < .001), and history of valve surgery (HR: 2.11, P < .001) were associated with the highest risk. AP use, male sex, history of coronary artery disease, existing pocket, history of nonischemic cardiomyopathy, number of previous cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) procedures, procedure time, and lead revision were associated with moderate risk. Antithrombotic use was high overall (86%) and AC+AP use was highly predictive of hematoma risk. Regardless of AC status, AP use was associated with an almost doubling of risk vs no AP (HR = 1.85, P = .0006) in the general cohort. Interruption of AC was associated with the lowest hematoma risk (HR = 2.35) while heparin bridging (HR = 4.98) and AP use vs no AP use (HR = 1.85) was associated with the highest hematoma risk.

Conclusion

The results of this analysis highlight risk factors associated with the development of hematoma in patients undergoing CIED procedures and can inform antithrombotic management.

Burden of disease and costs of infections associated with cardiac implantable electronic devices

INTRODUCTION

Infections are complications of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device (CIED) procedures, associated with high mortality (20-25% at 1 year), long hospitalizations (23-30 days), and high costs for health-care systems (often higher than 30.000 €). The incidence rates are around 1-4%. Prevention strategies appear to be the best approach for minimizing the occurrence of CIED infections, but in real-world, the recommendations for the best practices are not always followed. Among the recommended preventive measures, the antibacterial envelope has proven to be effective in reducing CIED-related infections.

AREAS COVERED

Published studies investigate the role of antibacterial envelopes in infection prevention and the use of infection risk scores to select high-risk patients undergoing CIED implantation/replacement who can benefit from additional preventive measures.

EXPERT OPINION

A proficient selection of the best candidates for the antibacterial envelope can be the basis for reducing the healthcare system's costs, in line with the principles of cost-effectiveness. Risk scores have been developed to select patients at high risk of CIED infections and their use appears simple and more complete than individual factors alone. Among them, the PADIT score seems to be effective in selecting patients eligible for antibacterial envelope insertion, with a good cost-effectiveness profile.

Avoiding implant complications in cardiac implantable electronic devices: what works?

Nearly one in ten patients experience complications in relation to cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantations. CIED complications have serious implications for the patients and for the healthcare system. In light of the rising rates of new implants and consistent rate of complications, primary prevention remains a major concern. To guide future efforts, we sought to review the evidence base underlying common preventive actions made during a primary CIED implantation.

Infectious consequences of hematoma from cardiac implantable electronic device procedures and the role of the antibiotic envelope: A WRAP-IT trial analysis

BACKGROUND

Hematoma is a complication of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) procedures and may lead to device infection. The TYRX antibacterial envelope reduced major CIED infection by 40% in the randomized WRAP-IT (World-wide Randomized Antibiotic Envelope Infection Prevention Trial) study, but its effectiveness in the presence of hematoma is not well understood.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the incidence and infectious consequences of hematoma and the association between envelope use, hematomas, and major CIED infection among WRAP-IT patients.

METHODS

All 6800 study patients were included in this analysis (control 3429; envelope 3371). Hematomas occurring within 30 days postprocedure (acute) were characterized and grouped by study treatment and evaluated for subsequent infection risk. Data were analyzed using Cox proportional hazard regression modeling.

RESULTS

Acute hematoma incidence was 2.2% at 30 days, with no significant difference between treatment groups (envelope vs control hazard ratio [HR] 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84-1.58; P = .39). Through all follow-up, the risk of major infection was significantly higher among control patients with hematoma vs those without (13.1% vs 1.6%; HR 11.3; 95% CI 5.5-23.2; P <.001). The risk of major infection was significantly lower in the envelope vs control patients with hematoma (2.5% vs 13.1%; HR 0.18; 95% CI 0.04-0.85; P = .03).

CONCLUSION

The risk of hematoma was 2.2% among WRAP-IT patients. Among control patients, hematoma carried a >11-fold risk of developing a major CIED infection. This risk was significantly mitigated with antibacterial envelope use, with an 82% reduction in major CIED infection among envelope patients who developed hematoma compared to control.

European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) international consensus document on how to prevent, diagnose, and treat cardiac implantable electronic device infections-endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS), International Society for Cardiovascular Infectious Diseases (ISCVID) and the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS)

Pacemakers, implantable cardiac defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices are potentially life-saving treatments for a number of cardiac conditions, but are not without risk. Most concerning is the risk of a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection, which is associated with significant morbidity, increased hospitalizations, reduced survival, and increased healthcare costs. Recommended preventive strategies such as administration of intravenous antibiotics before implantation are well recognized. Uncertainties have remained about the role of various preventive, diagnostic, and treatment measures such as skin antiseptics, pocket antibiotic solutions, anti-bacterial envelopes, prolonged antibiotics post-implantation, and others. Guidance on whether to use novel device alternatives expected to be less prone to infections and novel oral anticoagulants is also limited, as are definitions on minimum quality requirements for centres and operators and volumes. Moreover, an international consensus document on management of CIED infections is lacking. The recognition of these issues, the dissemination of results from important randomized trials focusing on prevention of CIED infections, and observed divergences in managing device-related infections as found in an European Heart Rhythm Association worldwide survey, provided a strong incentive for a 2019 International State-of-the-art Consensus document on risk assessment, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of CIED infections.

European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) international consensus document on how to prevent, diagnose, and treat cardiac implantable electronic device infections-endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS), International Society for Cardiovascular Infectious Diseases (ISCVID) and the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS)

Pacemakers, implantable cardiac defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices are potentially life-saving treatments for a number of cardiac conditions, but are not without risk. Most concerning is the risk of a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection, which is associated with significant morbidity, increased hospitalizations, reduced survival, and increased healthcare costs. Recommended preventive strategies such as administration of intravenous antibiotics before implantation are well recognized. Uncertainties have remained about the role of various preventive, diagnostic, and treatment measures such as skin antiseptics, pocket antibiotic solutions, anti-bacterial envelopes, prolonged antibiotics post-implantation, and others. Guidance on whether to use novel device alternatives expected to be less prone to infections and novel oral anticoagulants is also limited, as are definitions on minimum quality requirements for centres and operators and volumes. Moreover, an international consensus document on management of CIED infections is lacking. The recognition of these issues, the dissemination of results from important randomized trials focusing on prevention of CIED infections, and observed divergences in managing device-related infections as found in an European Heart Rhythm Association worldwide survey, provided a strong incentive for a 2019 International State-of-the-art Consensus document on risk assessment, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of CIED infections.

A Review of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections for the Practicing Electrophysiologist

Cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) infections are morbid, costly, and difficult to manage. This review explores the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management of CIED infections. Diagnostic accuracy has been improved through increased awareness and improved imaging strategies. Pocket or bloodstream infection with virulent organisms often requires complete system extraction. Emerging prophylactic interventions and novel devices have expanded preventative strategies and options for re-implantation. A clear and nuanced understanding of CIED infection is important to the practicing electrophysiologist.

Postimplantation pocket hematoma increases risk of cardiac implantable electronic device infection: A meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

 Several studies have shown an inconsistent relationship between postimplantation pocket hematoma and cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection. In this study, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the effect of postimplantation hematoma and the risk of CIED infection.

METHODS

 We searched the databases of MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to March 2020. Included studies were cohort studies, case-control studies, cross-sectional studies, and randomized controlled trials that reported incidence of postimplantation pocket hematoma and CIED infection during the follow-up period. CIED infection was defined as either a device-related local or systemic infection. Data from each study were combined using the random effects, generic inverse variance method of Der Simonian and Laird to calculate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were included in final analysis, involving a total of 28 319 participants. In random-effect model, we found that postimplantation pocket hematoma significantly increases the risk of overall CIED infection (OR = 6.30, 95% CI: 3.87-10.24, I 2 = 49.3%). There was no publication bias observed in the funnel plot as well as no small-study effect observed in Egger's test.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis demonstrated that postimplantation pocket hematoma significantly increases the risk of CIED infection. Precaution should be taken during device implantation to reduce postimplantation hematoma and subsequent CIED infection.

Prevention of cardiac implantable electronic device infections: guidelines and conventional prophylaxis

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) are potentially life-saving treatments for several cardiac conditions, but are not without risk. Despite dissemination of recommended strategies for prevention of device infections, such as administration of antibiotics before implantation, infection rates continue to rise resulting in escalating health care costs. New trials conveying important steps for better prevention of device infection and an EHRA consensus paper were recently published. This document will review the role of various preventive measures for CIED infection, emphasizing the importance of adhering to published recommendations. The document aims to provide guidance on how to prevent CIED infections in clinical practice by considering modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors that may be present pre-, peri-, and/or post-procedure.

European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) international consensus document on how to prevent, diagnose, and treat cardiac implantable electronic device infections-endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS), International Society for Cardiovascular Infectious Diseases (ISCVID), and the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS)

Pacemakers, implantable cardiac defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices are potentially lifesaving treatments for a number of cardiac conditions but are not without risk. Most concerning is the risk of a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection, which is associated with significant morbidity, increased hospitalizations, reduced survival, and increased health care costs. Recommended preventive strategies such as administration of intravenous antibiotics before implantation are well-recognized. Uncertainties have remained about the role of various preventive, diagnostic, and treatment measures such as skin antiseptics, pocket antibiotic solutions, antibacterial envelopes, prolonged antibiotics post-implantation, and others. When compared with previous guidelines or consensus statements, the present consensus document gives guidance on the use of novel device alternatives, novel oral anticoagulants, antibacterial envelopes, prolonged antibiotics post-implantation, as well as definitions on minimum quality requirements for centres and operators and volumes. The recognition that an international consensus document focused on management of CIED infections is lacking, the dissemination of results from new important randomized trials focusing on prevention of CIED infections, and observed divergences in managing device-related infections as found in an European Heart Rhythm Association worldwide survey, provided a strong incentive for a Novel 2019 International State-of-the-art Consensus document on risk assessment, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of CIED infections.

Sub-pocket small-hole drainage for pocket hematoma after cardiac device implantation

AIMS

Pocket hematoma is a common complication associated with cardiac device implantation, but there are limited strategies to deal with this problem. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of sub-pocket small-hole drainage (SSD) as a new way to manage severe pocket hematoma.

METHODS

A total of 11 patients with severe pocket hematoma were selected for this case series study. The SSD procedure was performed and wound healing was monitored.

RESULTS

The SSD procedure was successfully performed on all 11 patients. The time window for SSD was 10-14 days (mean 12.0 ± 1.3 days) after cardiac device implantation. On average, 18.3 ± 2.3 ml of hematoma was drained , with a mean procedural time of 21.3 ± 2.6 min. The patients were followed up for 4-12 months and all pockets healed well, without any complications such as pocket infection, bleeding, device exposure, and electrode fracture.

CONCLUSION

Sub-pocket small-hole drainage is an alternative approach for dealing with severe pocket hematoma after cardiac device implantation.

Current strategies to minimize postoperative hematoma formation in patients undergoing cardiac implantable electronic device implantation: A review

There are an increasing number of cardiac electronic device implants and generator changes with a longer patient life expectancy along with concomitant increase in antiplatelet and anticoagulant regimens, which can increase the incidence of pocket hematomas. We have conducted an in-depth analysis on the relevant literature, which is rife with varying definition of hematomas, on ways to reduce pocket hematomas. We have analyzed studies on periprocedural medication management, intraprocedural use of prohemostatic agents, and postprocedure role of compression devices.

Risk factors concerning complications following permanent pacemaker implantation for patients on antithrombotic therapy: a cohort study

The objective of this study was to identify the complications and associated factors presented by patients after pacemaker implantation, according to a regimen of antithrombotic therapy or without it. This is an analytical observational study on a prospective cohort of 310 consecutive patients with a permanent pacemaker implanted, included from January 1 to December 31, 2014 from 1 single center. The follow-up was conducted on 310 patients for 6 months. 239 patients (77%) received antithrombotic therapy at the time of the pacemaker implantation. 20.8% of complications are presented in patients without anticoagulant therapy, 80.8% of them being minor ones. In the case of patients with anticoagulant therapy, 30.3% of the complications are major ones. Factors associated with major complications were contusion (OR 2; 95% CI 1 to 3.8; p=0.049), and minor complications, arm immobilization >24 hours (p=<0.001) and contusion (p=0.002). This study found an increase in the overall risk and complications that can occur when implanting a permanent pacemaker in patients with antithrombotic therapy based on the time of immobilization and contusions after the implantation.

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.

Effectiveness of a Non-Taped Compression Dress in Patients Receiving Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices

Background

Hematoma and skin damage are not uncommon after cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) placement. The use of conventional hemostatic gauze and tape seems to be suboptimal in controlling these complications. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of a novel compression dress with a special pad and elastic bands for postoperative care.

Methods

A total of 175 CIED recipients were randomly divided into two groups: an experimental group with 85 patients who used a non-taped compression dress and a control group with 90 patients who used conventional gauze ball and elastic tapes. Skin integrity, hematoma, and oozing were compared between these two groups within 7 days after surgery.

Results

The mean age of the patients was 71.2 ± 13.3 years, and 83 (47.4%) were male. The results of the experimental vs. control group were as follows: skin integrity - 96.5% vs. 86.7% (p < 0.05); hematoma - 0% vs. 7.8% (p < 0.05); and oozing - 1.2% vs. 7.8% (p < 0.05). All observed endpoints were better in the experimental group.

Conclusions

The use of a non-taped compression dress was associated with less unfavorable outcomes in terms of skin integrity and hemostasis.

Use of MPH hemostatic powder for electrophysiology device implantation reduces postoperative rates of pocket hematoma and infection

BACKGROUND

Surgical site bleeding and infection are potential complications after electrophysiology (EP) device implantation procedures. To date, there is a wide variety of tools for management of intraoperative bleeding but it still remains unclear what methods are preferred.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of our study is to compare the rate of complications in patients who underwent cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation utilizing MPH hemostatic powder to the rate of complications in those patients who underwent standard procedure protocol without MPH hemostatic powder.

METHODS

In our study, a new plant-derived microporous polysaccharide hemostatic powder (Arista) was used. A total of 283 consecutive patients were retrospectively studied to assess the rate of complications in patients who underwent CIED implantation with MPH hemostatic powder (n = 77, MPH hemostatic powder) and without (n = 206, no MPH hemostatic powder). Patients were followed for 12 months.

RESULTS

The MPH hemostatic powder group of patients had a lower complication rate when compared to no MPH hemostatic powder, 0.3% vs. 1.7% (p < .05), respectively. The rate of device implantation site MPH hematoma in the MPH hemostatic powder group was 0.4%, versus 0.9% in the other group. There were no postoperative infections in the MPH hemostatic powder group versus 3.2% infections in the other group. The main predictor of increased risk of post-procedural complication was the usage of anticoagulation with a hazard ration of 2.7.

CONCLUSION

Using MPH hemostatic powder for post-procedural hemostasis was shown to result in a significant reduction in the rate of overall post-procedural complications (a composite endpoint of hematoma and infections), and a trend in reduction of the infections rates and device implantation site hematoma rates.

Wound haematoma following defibrillator implantation: incidence and predictors in the Shockless Implant Evaluation (SIMPLE) trial

Aims

Pocket haematoma is a common complication after defibrillator [implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD)] implantation, which is not only painful, but also increases the risk of device-related infection, and possibly embolic events. The present study seeks to evaluate the rate and predictors of clinically significant pocket haematoma.

Methods and results

This study included 2500 patients receiving an ICD in the SIMPLE trial. A clinically significant pocket haematoma was defined as a haematoma that required re-operation or interruption of oral anticoagulation (OAC) therapy. Clinically significant pocket haematoma occurred in 56 of 2500 patients (2.2%) of which 6 (10.7%) developed device-related infection. Patients who developed pocket haematoma were older (mean age 67.6 ± 8.8 years vs. 62.7 ± 11.6 years, P < 0.001), were more likely to have permanent atrial fibrillation (30.4 vs. 6.7%, P < 0.001) and a history of stroke (17.9 vs. 6.7%, P = 0.004), or were more likely to receive peri-operative OAC (50.0 vs. 28.4%, P < 0.001), unfractionated heparin (16.1 vs. 5.2%, P = 0.003), or low-molecular-weight heparin (37.5 vs. 17.5%, P < 0.001). Independent predictors of wound haematoma on multivariable analysis included the use of heparin bridging (OR 2.65, 95% CI 1.48-4.73, P = 0.001), sub-pectoral location of ICD (OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.12-3.57, P =0.020), previous stroke (OR 2.47, 95% CI 1.20-5.10, P = 0.015), an upgrade from permanent pacemaker (OR 2.52, 95% CI 1.07-5.94, P = 0.035), and older age (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.00-1.06, P = 0.049).

Conclusion

Pocket haematoma remains an important complication of ICD implantation and is associated with a high risk of infection. Independent predictors of pocket haematoma include heparin bridging, prior stroke, sub-pectoral placement of ICD, older age, and upgrade from a pacemaker.

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.

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.

Perioperative management of antithrombotic treatment during implantation or revision of cardiac implantable electronic devices: the European Snapshot Survey on Procedural Routines for Electronic Device Implantation (ESS-PREDI)

The European Snapshot Survey on Procedural Routines for Electronic Device Implantation (ESS-PREDI) was a prospective European survey of consecutive adults who had undergone implantation/surgical revision of a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) on chronic antithrombotic therapy (enrolment March-June 2015). The aim of the survey was to investigate perioperative treatment with oral anticoagulants and antiplatelets in CIED implantation or surgical revision and to determine the incidence of complications, including clinically significant pocket haematomas. Information on antithrombotic therapy before and after surgery and bleeding and thromboembolic complications occurring after the intervention was collected at first follow-up. The study population comprised 723 patients (66.7% men, 76.9% aged ≥66 years). Antithrombotic treatment was continued during surgery in 489 (67.6%) patients; 6 (0.8%) had their treatment definitively stopped; 46 (6.4%) were switched to another antithrombotic therapy. Heparin bridging was used in 55 out of 154 (35.8%) patients when interrupting vitamin K antagonist (VKA) treatment. Non-vitamin K oral anticoagulant (NOAC) treatment was interrupted in 88.7% of patients, with heparin bridging in 25.6%, but accounted for only 25.3% of the oral anticoagulants used. A total of 108 complications were observed in 98 patients. No intracranial haemorrhage or embolic events were observed. Chronic NOAC treatment before surgery was associated with lower rates of minor pocket haematoma (1.4%; P= 0.042) vs. dual antiplatelet therapy (13.0%), VKA (11.4%), VKA + antiplatelet (9.2%), or NOAC + antiplatelet (7.7%). Similar results were observed for bleeding complications (P= 0.028). Perioperative management of patients undergoing CIED implantation/surgical revision while on chronic antithrombotic therapy varies, with evidence of a disparity between guideline recommendations and practice patterns in Europe. Haemorrhagic complications were significantly less frequent in patients treated with NOACs. Despite this, the incidence of severe pocket haematomas was low.

Totally Implantable IV Treprostinil Therapy in Pulmonary Hypertension Assessment of the Implantation Procedure

BACKGROUND

Prostacyclins improve symptoms and survival in pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). In response to risks associated with external delivery systems, an implantable IV infusion system was developed. A multicenter, prospective, single-arm, clinical trial (DelIVery for PAH) was conducted to evaluate this system for treprostinil in PAH. This analysis describes the findings related to the implant procedure.

METHODS

Patients (N = 64) with PAH (World Health Organization group 1) receiving stable IV treprostinil were enrolled. Patients were transitioned to a temporary peripheral IV infusion catheter prior to the procedure. System implantation was performed at 10 centers under general anesthesia or deep IV sedation by clinicians from various specialties. Central venous access was via the cephalic, subclavian, jugular, or axillary vein. Using an introducer and fluoroscopic guidance, the distal tip of the infusion catheter was placed at the superior caval-atrial junction. The catheter was tunneled from the venous access site to an abdominal subcutaneous pocket, where the pump was placed.

RESULTS

Of the 64 patients enrolled, four exited prior to implantation. All 60 implant procedures were successful. At baseline, all patients were receiving treprostinil via an external pump at a mean dose of 71.4 ± 27.8 ng/kg/min (range: 22-142 ng/kg/min). The implant averaged 102 ± 32 min (range: 47-184 min). Clinically significant implant procedure-related complications included one pneumothorax, two infections, and one episode of atrial fibrillation. There were three postimplantation catheter dislocations in two patients. Common implant-related events that were not complications included implant site pain (83%) and bruising (17%).

CONCLUSIONS

The procedure for inserting a fully implantable system for treprostinil was successfully performed, with few complications.

TRIAL REGISTRY

ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT01321073; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Pocket haematoma after cardiac electronic device implantation in patients receiving antiplatelet and anticoagulant treatment: a single-centre experience

Objective In modern cardiology practice, implantation of cardiac electronic devices in patients taking anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy is a common clinical scenario. Bleeding complications are of particular concern in this patient population and pocket haematoma is one of the most frequent complications. We sought to determine the relationship between periprocedural antiplatelet/anticoagulant therapy and pocket haematoma formation in patients undergoing cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation. Methods We conducted a retrospective study including 232 consecutive patients undergoing CIED implantation in the department of cardiology of the Medipol University Hospital. Patients were divided into six groups: clopidogrel group (n = 12), acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) group (n = 73), ASA + clopidogrel group (n = 29), warfarin group (n = 34), warfarin + ASA group (n = 21) and no antiplatelet-anticoagulant therapy group as the control group (n = 63). CIED implantations were stratified under four subtitles including implantable cardioverter/defibrillator (ICD), cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), permanent pacemaker and the last group as either device upgrade or generator replacement. Results The mean age of the patients was 63 ± 14 years and 140 patients were male (60.3%). A pocket haematoma was documented in 6 of 232 patients (2.6%). None of the patients with pocket haematoma needed pocket exploration or blood transfusion. The type of the device did not have a significant effect on pocket haematoma incidence (P = 0.250). Univariate logistic regression showed that platelet level and ASA plus clopidogrel use were significantly associated with haematoma frequency after CIED implantations, respectively (OR: 0.977, CI 95% [0.958-0.996]; OR: 16.080, CI 95% [2.801-92.306]). Multivariate analysis revealed that dual antiplatelet treatment (β = 3.016, P = 0.002, OR: 2.410, 95% CI [3.042-136.943]) and baseline platelet level (β = -0.027, p:0.025, OR: 0.974, 95% CI [0.951-0.997]) were independent risk factors for pocket haematoma formation. Conclusion Dual antiplatelet therapy and low platelet levels significantly increased the risk of pocket haematoma formation in patients undergoing CIED implantations.

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.

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.

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator management: an update

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is the cornerstone of primary and secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death. In 35 years of technologic improvement and clinical trials, there has been a continuous increase in implantation rate. Purpose of this review is to point out and discuss every aspect related to actual ICD management, investigating implantation procedure and predischarge care, office and remote monitoring follow-up, diagnostic evaluations, management of patients with suspected therapies or malfunctions, heart failure, surgery, radiotherapy and endoscopic procedures. Also, ICD backface such as infections and other complications will be discussed. Finally, we will focus on interesting future perspectives for this setting of patients.

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.

Bleeding complications during cardiac electronic device implantation in patients receiving antithrombotic therapy: is there any value of local tranexamic acid?

Background

The perioperative use of antithrombotic therapy is associated with increased bleeding risk after cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation. Topical application of tranexamic acid (TXA) is effective in reducing bleeding complications after various surgical operations. However, there is no information regarding local TXA application during CIED procedures. The purpose of our study was to evaluate bleeding complications rates during CIED implantation with and without topical TXA use in patients receiving antithrombotic treatment.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective analysis of consecutive patients undergoing CIED implantation while receiving warfarin or dual antiplatelet (DAPT) or warfarin plus DAPT treatment. Study population was classified in two groups according to presence or absence of topical TXA use during CIED implantation. Pocket hematoma (PH), major bleeding complications (MBC) and thromboembolic events occuring within 90 days were compared.

Results

A total of 135 consecutive patients were identified and included in the analysis. The mean age was 60 ± 11 years old. Topical TXA application during implantation was reported in 52 patients (TXA group). The remaining 83 patients were assigned to the control group. PH occurred in 7.7 % patients in the TXA group and 26.5 % patients in the control group (P = 0.013). The MBC was reported in 5.8 % patients in the TXA and 20.5 % patients in control group (P = 0.024). Univariate logistic regression analysis identified age, history of recent stent implantation, periprocedural spironolactone use, periprocedural warfarin use, perioperative warfarin plus DAPT use, cardiac resynchronization therapy, and topical TXA application during CIED implantation as predicting factors of PH. Multivariate analysis showed that perioperative warfarin plus DAPT use (OR = 10.874, 95 % CI: 2.496–47.365, P = 0.001) and topical TXA application during CIED procedure (OR = 0.059, 95 % CI: 0.012–0.300, P = 0.001) were independent predictors of PH. Perioperative warfarin plus DAPT use and topical TXA application were also found to be independent predictors of MBC in multivariate analyses. No thromboembolic complications was recorded in the study group.

Conclusion

The present study demonstrated that the topical TXA application during CIED implantation is associated with reduced PH and MBC in patients with high bleeding risk.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12872-016-0251-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Implantation

Implantation of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs), including pacemakers, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, and biventricular pacemakers/cardioverter-defibrillators, is becoming increasingly common with new implants now exceeding 1.5 million per year globally. As a result, health care providers in all disciplines are caring for an increasing number of patients with CIEDs. Although the risk of complications associated with implantation of CIEDs is relatively low, the sequela can be catastrophic. Management requires an understanding of an individual patient’s indication for CIED implant, the steps of implant procedures, device function, and natural history of each complication.

Dual antiplatelet therapy increases pocket hematoma complications in Chinese patients with pacemaker implantation

Objective

To assess the prevalence of the bleeding complications in pacemaker implanted patients receiving different antiplatelet regimens, and the influence of each regimen on hospital stays after device implantation.

Methods

We prospectively enrolled 364 patients receiving the cardiac rhythm device implantations in Fuwai Hospital from July 2012 to December 2013. Bleeding complications including pocket hematoma, hemothorax, cardiac tamponade and blood transfusion requirement were measured as endpoints. Post operation hospital stay was also included in the endpoints.

Results

Bleeding complications were detected in 15 patients (14 with hematoma, one with hemothorax) out of all 364 patients (4.12%). Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAT) significantly increased hematoma (19.3%) compared with aspirin treatment (ASA) (3.2%, P = 0.001) and no antiplatelet therapy (1.9%, P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in incidence of pocket hematoma between the ASA group and the control group (P = 0.45). The post procedure hospital stay was longer in DAT group (5.45 ± 2.01 days) compared to those in the ASA group (3.65 ± 1.37 days, P < 0.05) or control group (3.99 ± 2.27 days, P < 0.05). Pocket hematoma was considered an independent predictor of hospital stay prolongation (OR: 5.26; 95% CI: 1.56−16.64; P = 0.007).

Conclusions

Among the Chinese patients undergoing device implantation in this study, the use of dual antiplatelet agents significantly increased the risk of pocket hematoma complications and led to a longer hospital stay. Use of aspirin alone did not increase the risk.

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.