Concomitant anti-platelet therapy in warfarin-treated patients undergoing cardiac rhythm device implantation: A secondary analysis of the BRUISE CONTROL trial

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.

Management of combined oral antithrombotic therapy by an Antithrombotic Stewardship Program: a prospective study

AIMS

Antithrombotic management initiatives could prevent inappropriate prescribing and improve patient outcomes especially in patients on combined antithrombotic therapy. To investigate this, a multidisciplinary antithrombotic stewardship program (ASP) was implemented in our hospital. The primary aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of this ASP by assessing the number of patients on combined antithrombotic therapy for whom one or more interventions were needed.

METHODS

A prospective cohort study in a large teaching hospital was conducted. Hospitalized patients were included who received combined antithrombotic therapy in which an oral anticoagulant was combined with one (double therapy) or two (triple therapy) platelet aggregation inhibitors. The ASP proactively evaluated the appropriateness of this combined antithrombotic therapy. If needed, ASP improved the concerned therapy. Each improvement measurement recommended by the ASP was counted as one intervention.

RESULTS

A total of 460 patients were included over a period of 12 months. 251 (54.6%) patients required at least one intervention from the ASP. The most common interventions were: 1) to define and document the maximum duration of the combined antithrombotic therapy needed instead of lifetime use of the combination (65.5%), 2) to discontinue antithrombotic therapy as the proper indication was lacking (19.4%), and 3) to adjust the dosage (8.1%).

CONCLUSION

An intervention was needed in more than half of the patients on combined antithrombotic therapy. Implementation of an dedicated ASP evaluating combined antithrombotic therapy improves the use and safety of antithrombotic medication.

Trends and concerns of potentially inappropriate medication use in patients with cardiovascular diseases

Introduction: The use of potentially inappropriate medications (PIM) is an alarming social risk factor in cardiovascular patients. PIM administration may result in iatrogenic disorders and adverse consequences may be attenuated by limiting PIM intake.Areas covered: The goal of this review article is to discuss the trends, risks, and concerns regarding PIM administration with focus on cardiovascular patients. To find data, we searched literature using electronic databases (Pubmed/Medline 1966-2021 and Web of Science 1975-2021). The data search terms were cardiovascular diseases, potentially inappropriate medication, potentially harmful drug-drug combination, potentially harmful drug-disease combination, drug interaction, deprescribing, and electronic health record.Expert opinion: Drugs for heart diseases are the most commonly prescribed medications in older individuals. Despite the availability of explicit and implicit PIM criteria, the incidence of PIM use in cardiovascular patients remains high ranging from 7 to 85% in different patient categories. Physician-induced disorders often occur when PIM is administered and adverse effects may be reduced by limiting PIM intake. Main strategies promising for addressing PIM use include deprescribing, implementation of systematic electronic records, pharmacist medication review, and collaboration among cardiologists, internists, geriatricians, clinical pharmacologists, pharmacists, and other healthcare professionals as basis of multidisciplinary assessment teams.

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.

Edoxaban-based versus vitamin K antagonist-based antithrombotic regimen after successful coronary stenting in patients with atrial fibrillation (ENTRUST-AF PCI): a randomised, open-label, phase 3b trial

BACKGROUND

We aimed to assess the safety of edoxaban in combination with P2Y12 inhibition in patients with atrial fibrillation who had percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

METHODS

ENTRUST-AF PCI was a randomised, multicentre, open-label, non-inferiority phase 3b trial with masked outcome evaluation, done at 186 sites in 18 countries. Patients had atrial fibrillation requiring oral anticoagulation, were aged at least 18 years, and had a successful PCI for stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndrome. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) from 4 h to 5 days after PCI using concealed, stratified, and blocked web-based central randomisation to either edoxaban (60 mg once daily) plus a P2Y12 inhibitor for 12 months or a vitamin K antagonist (VKA) in combination with a P2Y12 inhibitor and aspirin (100 mg once daily, for 1-12 months). The edoxaban dose was reduced to 30 mg per day if one or more factors (creatinine clearance 15-50 mL/min, bodyweight ≤60 kg, or concomitant use of specified potent P-glycoprotein inhibitors) were present. The primary endpoint was a composite of major or clinically relevant non-major (CRNM) bleeding within 12 months. The primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population and safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of their assigned study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02866175, is closed to new participants, and follow-up is completed.

FINDINGS

From Feb 24, 2017, through May 7, 2018, 1506 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the edoxaban regimen (n=751) or VKA regimen (n=755). Median time from PCI to randomisation was 45·1 h (IQR 22·2-76·2). Major or CRNM bleeding events occurred in 128 (17%) of 751 patients (annualised event rate 20·7%) with the edoxaban regimen and 152 (20%) of 755 patients (annualised event rate 25·6%) patients with the VKA regimen; hazard ratio 0·83 (95% CI 0·65-1·05; p=0·0010 for non-inferiority, margin hazard ratio 1·20; p=0·1154 for superiority).

INTERPRETATION

In patients with atrial fibrillation who had PCI, the edoxaban-based regimen was non-inferior for bleeding compared with the VKA-based regimen, without significant differences in ischaemic events.

FUNDING

Daiichi Sankyo.