Risk factors associated with bleeding after multi antithrombotic therapy during implantation of cardiac implantable electronic devices

Early Pacemaker Implantation after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Impact of PlasmaBlade™ for Prevention of Device-Associated Bleeding Complications

Background and Objectives: Permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) is frequently required following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) or oral anticoagulation therapy (OAK) is often necessary in these patients since they are at higher risk of thromboembolic events due to TAVR implantation, high incidence of coronary artery diseases (CAD) with the necessity of coronary intervention, and high rate of atrial fibrillation with the need of stroke prevention. We sought to evaluate the safety, efficiency, and clinical outcomes of early PPI following TAVR using the PlasmaBlade™ (Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) pulsed electron avalanche knife (PEAK) for bleeding control in patients under DAPT or OAK. Materials and Methods: This retrospective single-center study included patients who underwent PPI after transfemoral TAVR (TF) at our center between December 2015 and May 2020. All PPI were performed using the PlasmaBlade™ Device. Results: The overall PPI rate was 14.1% (83 of 587 patients; 82.5 ± 4.6 years; 45.8% male). The PPI procedures were used to treat high-grade atrioventricular block (81.9%), severe sinus node dysfunction (13.3%), and alternating bundle branch block (4.8%). At the time of the procedure, 35 (42.2%) patients received DAPT, and 48 (57.8%) patients received OAK (50% with vitamin K antagonist (VKA) and 50% with novel oral anticoagulants (NOAK)). One device-pocket hematoma treated conservatively occurred in a patient (1.2%) receiving NOAK. Two re-operations were necessary in patients due to immediate lead dislocation (2.4%). Conclusions: The results of this study illustrate that the use of PlasmaBlade™ for PPI in patients after a TAVR who require antithrombotic treatment is feasible and might result into lower rates of severe bleeding complications compared to rates reported in the literature. Use of the PlasmaBlade device may be considered in this specific group of patients because of their high risk of bleeding.

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.