Hematoma-induced Twiddler-like phenomenon as a presentation of DBS hardware failure: Case report

Deep brain stimulators (DBS) may fail for a multitude of reasons. We present a 79-year-old Parkinson's disease patient who suffered a DBS failure following impulse generator (IPG) replacement surgery due to the IPG flipping within an expanded capsular pocket. This creation of the pocket was unintentional, and the pocket formed around an undiagnosed postoperative hemorrhage. The syndrome could be considered "Twiddler-like" because it resulted in device flipping. There were, however, many characteristic differences between our case and classical Twiddler's syndrome. DBS neurostimulator failure due to hematoma induced device flipping should be suspected when device interrogation is impossible or there are abnormally high impedances across multiple DBS lead contacts. A plain film X-ray series should be ordered and can be useful in providing radiological evidence of device flipping. In cases like ours the extensive braiding encountered in Twiddler's syndrome may be absent. Anchoring the IPG to a deep fascial layer as well as the use of an antimicrobial pouch are two methods that may be employed to prevent or to treat this complication.

Access Site Bleeding Complications with NOACs versus VKAs in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Cardiac Implantable Device Intervention

There are no data on procedure-related bleeding outcome with non-vitamin K antagonist anticoagulants (NOACs) versus vitamin K antagonist anticoagulants (VKAs) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) intervention. Our aim was to evaluate whether NOACs have a safety benefit even in terms of fewer hemorrhagic complications at the site of CIED implant. Consecutive AF patients receiving NOACs or VKAs at the time of CIED procedure were included in this observational, retrospective, and monocentric investigation. Primary endpoint was the incidence of post-intervention pocket hematoma. A total of 311 patients were enrolled, 146 on NOACs, and 165 on VKAs. The incidence of pocket hematoma was 3.4% in the NOAC versus 13.3% in the VKA group (p = 0.002). Primary outcome-free survival at 30-days was 96.6% in patients on NOACs and 86.0% in those on VKAs (p = 0.019). Multivariate analysis, adjusted by propensity-score calculation of inverse-probability-weighting, showed a significantly lower occurrence of pocket hematoma in patients receiving NOACs versus VKAs (HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.13–0.96, p = 0.042). Such NOACs benefit was confirmed versus patients on VKAs without peri-procedural bridging with low-molecular-weight heparin (HR 0.34, 95% CI 0.11–0.99, p = 0.048). The incidence of pocket infection, surgical pocket evacuation, ischemic events, and major bleeding complications at 30 days (secondary endpoints) was similar in the two groups. In conclusion, our data suggest that, among patients with AF undergoing implantable cardiac defibrillator or pacemaker intervention, the use of NOACs versus VKAs may be associated with significant reduction of post-procedural pocket hematoma, regardless of bridging with low-molecular-weight heparin in the VKA group. These results are hypothesis generating and need to be confirmed in a specific randomized study.

Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Device Surgery Following Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to determine the indications, characteristics, and outcomes of cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) surgery in patients with LVAD.

BACKGROUND

Many patients with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) will require implantable cardioverter-defibrillator generator change or device revision or are candidates for de novo implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation following LVAD implantation.

METHODS

We performed an observational retrospective study of all LVAD recipients who subsequently underwent CIED surgery at Duke University Hospital from 2009 to 2019.

RESULTS

A total of 159 patients underwent CIED surgery following LVAD implantation, including generator change (n = 93), device revision (n = 38), and de novo implant (n = 28). The median (interquartile range) time from LVAD implantation to CIED surgery was 18.1 months (5.5 to 35.1 months). Pre-operative risk for infection was elevated in the overall cohort with a median (interquartile range) Prevention of Arrhythmia Device Infection Trial (PADIT) score of 7.0 (5.0 to 9.0). Pocket hematoma occurred in 21 patients (13.2%) following CIED surgery. Antimicrobial envelops were used in 43 patients (27%). Device infection due to CIED surgery occurred in 5 (3.1%) patients and occurred only in patients who developed post-operative pocket hematoma (p < 0.001). Mortality at 1 year following CIED surgery was 20% (n = 32).

CONCLUSIONS

CIED surgery following LVAD implantation is associated with an increased risk for pocket hematoma and CIED infection. Further studies are needed to determine the risk-benefit ratio of CIED surgery in patients with LVADs.

T wave oversensing in subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator secondary to hematoma formation: A potential cause of early postimplantation inappropriate shocks

T wave oversensing (TWOS) is the most common cause of inappropriate shocks in subcutaneous cardioverter-defibrillators (S-ICD). We are presenting a patient with severe ischemic cardiomyopathy who received a S-ICD while on antiplatelets therapy. Pressure dressing was applied due to significant bleeding. On the first postoperative day, the device delivered 26 inappropriate shocks after removal of the pressure dressing. Interrogation revealed new TWOS, likely related to changes in the sensing vectors after hematoma formation.

Clinical analysis of the effect of anti-allergy treatment on pocket-related complications following pacemaker implantation

A total number of 339 patients who received a pacemaker implantation between June 2012 and June 2014 at Tongji Hospital of Tongji Medical College (Wuhan, China) were investigated in the present study. The aims of the present study were to explore the risk factors of pocket hematoma following pacemaker implantation, and to analyze the effect of anti-allergy treatment on pocket-related complications following pacemaker implantation. Predictors of hematoma occurrence were determined and analyzed via a Chi-square test. Patients suffering from pocket hematoma, which were indicated to be partially caused by an allergic reaction to the pacemaker component, were distinguished by routine blood parameters. Furthermore, the pacemaker component was distinguished by histopathological examinations in one patient. Promethazine (25 mg/day) was used to treat allergic patients. The results demonstrated that in patients with a history of allergies, the rate of pocket hematoma was significantly higher when compared with patients without a history of allergies (22.00 vs. 7.61%; P=0.027). A significantly increased incidence of hematoma was indicated in patients with a lower body mass index when compared with patients of normal weight (15.79 vs. 7.38%; P=0.042). Furthermore, implantation of larger-sized devices, such as an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and cardiac resynchronization therapy, were significantly predictive of hematoma development (29.63 vs. 8.01%; P=0.015). Patients with diabetes were also identified to exhibit a significantly high incidence of hematoma (22.22 vs. 8.25%; P=0.023). Promethazine administration significantly decreased the incidence of re-operating (P=0.017) and the duration of hospital stay (P=0.038) in patients whose pocket hematoma was caused by an allergy. In conclusion, promethazine may be a beneficial agent to treat pocket hematoma caused by allergic reactions following pacemaker surgery.

Association of Uninterrupted Oral Anticoagulation During Cardiac Device Implantation with Pocket Hematoma

PURPOSE

Implantation of permanent pacemakers (PPMs) or implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICDs) may be complicated by the development of pocket hematomas. Current practice guidelines provide little guidance to clinicians about the preferred strategy for chronic oral anticoagulation (OAC). The purpose of this study was to examine the frequency and clinical significance of pocket hematoma among patients receiving uninterrupted OAC during cardiac device implantation.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of adult patients undergoing cardiac device implantation between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2012, at an academic teaching hospital. Medical records were reviewed for demographics, comorbidities, and medications. The primary outcome was development of pocket hematomas within 30 days of device implantation. Clinical significance was based on the need for additional intervention. Data were assessed using descriptive statistics, logistic regression, and chi-square tests.

RESULTS

The final cohort included 380 patients. The median age was 68.4 years, and 56.6% were male. Cardiovascular comorbidities were common. Among 80 patients receiving uninterrupted OAC, 71.3% were taking warfarin, 11.2% rivaroxaban, and 17.5% dabigatran. The incidence of pocket hematomas for the entire cohort was 9.7%, of which 1.3% were clinically significant. Pocket hematoma occurred in 21.4% of patients continued on OAC versus 7.7% of those not anticoagulated (P = .001). Pocket hematoma was more common among those receiving ICDs than PPMs (18.5% vs 5.7%, respectively; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Continuing chronic OAC increased pocket hematoma formation but most were clinically insignificant. Pocket hematoma occurred irrespective of the oral anticoagulant drug used, but additional study is needed to determine comparative risks among the drugs.

Pocket Hematoma: A Call for Definition

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