Incidence of Bleeding-Related Complications During Primary Implantation and Replacement of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices

Management of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Surrounding Placement or Revision of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices

BACKGROUND

Pocket hematoma is a rare complication in patients on anticoagulation after placement of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). Current guidance for periprocedural management of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) varies.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to report the time before and after procedure that a DOAC was interrupted, compare with guideline best practice, and report the incidence of device-related pocket hematoma.

METHODS

This was a single-center retrospective chart review of patients admitted for CIED insertion or revision from January 2018 to September 2021. Patients were included if on apixaban, edoxaban, rivaroxaban, or dabigatran prior to a CIED procedure. Patients excluded if the time of last DOAC dose was not documented in the inpatient health record or if there was no record of patient advice on stopping time as an outpatient prior to procedure. Major endpoints included time from last dose of DOAC prior to and reinitiation after procedure. Minor endpoints included incidence of device-related pocket hematoma and major bleeding events defined by the International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis.

RESULTS

A total of 214 patients were included and analyzed. The median time a DOAC was held prior to procedure was 39.9 hours [24.4, 61.6] with 68.2% (146 patients) restarting at least 36 hours or more postprocedure. The incidence of device-related pocket hematoma was 8.9% (19 patients) and major bleeding occurred in 1.9% (4 patients).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Time from last dose of DOAC prior to and reinitiation after procedure varies, and impaired renal function did not appear to be a factor in longer hold durations. The results of this study demonstrate that few patients continue DOAC therapy uninterrupted before CIED procedures. This study found that DOAC periprocedural management varies despite institutional and management guidelines from clinical trials and might not be driven by patient's renal function and clearance of DOAC.

Efficacy of Hypothermic Compression Bandages in Cardiac Device Surgical Wounds: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Pocket hematoma is the most prevalent complication with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs), especially in patients who are undergoing oral anticoagulation and/or antiplatelet therapy.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of hypothermic compression bandaging versus conventional compression bandaging for the prevention of surgical wound hematoma of CIEDs in patients who are undergoing chronic anticoagulant drug use and/or antiplatelet therapy.

METHODS

This was a single-center randomized prospective study. The intervention group received a hypothermic compression bandage, and the control group received a conventional compression bandage. The primary endpoint was the appearance of hematoma 10 days after the intervention.

RESULTS

A total of 310 patients participated in the study. The mean age of the participants was 73.77 ± 10.68 years, and 74.8% were men. In the intervention group, 5.88% (n = 18) of patients developed ecchymosis, and 1.3% (n = 4) developed mild hematoma. In the control group, 5.88% (n = 18) of patients developed ecchymosis, and 2.9% (n = 9) developed mild hematoma. No patient in either group had a severe hematoma. No significant differences were observed between the two types of dressing in any of the three degrees of hematoma.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that compression bandaging with or without hypothermic therapy effectively prevents pocket hematoma of CIEDs in patients at high risk of bleeding.

Impact of raising the upper extremity siding cardiac implantable electrical devices on postoperative safety

Background

The upper extremity siding cardiac implantable electrical device tends to have a limited range of motion during the perioperative period; however, the underlying reason lacks scientific evidence. This study aimed to investigate the safety of the two methods (stepwise or early) of postoperative early upper extremity rehabilitation.

Methods

We retrospectively investigated 650 consecutive patients with a new implantable pacemaker (PM), implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD), cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), or generator exchange between March 2017 and December 2020.The limitation program was conducted from March 2017 to March 2018. The intervention program started as a stepwise protocol in April 2018 and was switched to an early protocol in December 2019.

Results

This study analyzed 591 patients, excluding 59 who met the exclusion criteria. The mean age was 76.0 (69.0-82.0) years; 412 (69.7%) patients had a PM, 79 (13.4%) had an ICD, and 100 (16.9%) utilized CRT. There were 155 patients in the limitation protocol, 251 in the stepwise protocol, and 185 patients in the early protocol groups. Postoperative complications occurred in 53 (9.0%) patients. There was no significant difference in the incidence of all complications between the three groups (16 patients [10.3%] vs. 26 patients [10.4%] vs. 11 patients [5.9%]). Shoulder exercise-related complications were defined as hematoma (p = .94), lead dislodgement (p = .16), and increased pacing threshold (p = .23). General complications included wound infection (p = .51), pneumothorax (p = .27), tamponade (p = .07), and deep venous thrombosis (p = .26).

Conclusion

Raising of the upper extremity siding cardiac implantable electrical devices above the head did not compromise postoperative safety.

Utilization of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators Among Patients with a Left Ventricular Assist Device: Insights From a National Database

The trends and predictors of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) use in patients with a durable left ventricular assist device (LVAD) remain uncertain. We used the National Inpatient Sample to identify hospitalizations between 2009 and 2018 in which patients received a new LVAD or had a pre-existing one. Procedure codes were then used to identify hospitalizations in which a new ICD was implanted. In 34,113 hospitalizations for new/replacement LVADs, an ICD was implanted in 1297 (3.8%). The rate of ICD implantation along with an LVAD declined from 2009-2018 (annual percent change: -23.2%; p-trend<0.001). Independent factors associated with concurrent ICD implantation in patients receiving LVAD were younger age, White (compared with Black) race, and in-hospital cardiac arrest. Concurrent ICD implantation was associated with a longer hospital stay (adjusted mean difference: 4.48 days) and higher inflation-adjusted costs (adjusted mean difference: $31,679), but lower in-hospital mortality rates (adjusted odds ratio: 0.29; p<0.001), compared with LVAD placement alone. Amongst 95,583 hospitalizations of patients with a pre-existing LVAD, an ICD was placed in 616 (0.64%). There was no change in the rate of ICD implantation from 2009-2018 in patients with a pre-existing LVAD (annual percent change: -10.34%; p=0.18).

Impact of Comorbidity Burden on Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices Outcomes

Background:

There is limited data on the impact of comorbidity burden on clinical outcomes of patients undergoing cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) implantation.

Objectives:

Our aim was to assess trends in CIED implantations and explore the relationship between comorbidity burden and outcomes in patients undergoing de novo implantations.

Methods:

Using the National Inpatient Sample database from 2000 to 2014, we identified adults ⩾18 years undergoing de novo CIED procedures. Comorbidity burden was assessed by Charlson comorbidity Index (CCI), and patients were classified into 4 categories based on their CCI scores (CCI = 0, CCI = 1, CCI = 2, CCI ⩾3). Annual implantation trends were evaluated. Logistic regression was conducted to measure the association between categorized comorbidity burden and outcomes.

Results:

A total of 3 103 796 de-novo CIED discharge records were identified from the NIS database. About 22.4% had a CCI score of 0, 28.2% had a CCI score of 1, 22% had a CCI score of 2, and 27.4 % had a CCI score ⩾3. Annual de-novo CIED implantations peaked in 2006 and declined steadily from 2010 to 2014. Compared to CCI 0, CCI ⩾3 was independently associated with increased odds of in-hospital mortality, bleeding, pericardial, and cardiac complications (all P < .05). Length of stay and hospital charges increased with increasing comorbidity burden.

Conclusions:

CCI is a significant predictor of adverse outcomes after CIED implantation. Therefore, comorbidity burden needs to be considered in the decision-making process for CIED implant candidates.

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.

Early Versus Delayed Pacemaker for Heart Block After Valve Surgery: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

BACKGROUND

A significant percentage of patients who acutely develop high-grade atrioventricular block after valve surgery will ultimately recover, yet the ability to predict recovery is limited. The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of two different management strategies for the timing of permanent pacemaker implantation for new heart block after valve surgery.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness model was developed using costs and probabilities of short- and long-term complications of pacemaker placement, short-term atrioventricular node recovery, intensive care unit stays, and long-term follow-up. We aggregated the total expected cost and utility of each option over a 20-y period. Quality-adjusted survival with a pacemaker was estimated from the literature and institutional patient-reported outcomes. Primary decision analysis was based on an expected recovery rate of 36.7% at 12 d with timing of pacemaker implantation: early placement (5 d) versus watchful waiting for 12 d.

RESULTS

A strategy of watchful waiting was more costly ($171,798 ± $45,695 versus $165,436 ± $52,923; P < 0.0001) but had a higher utility (9.05 ± 1.36 versus 8.55 ± 1.33 quality-adjusted life years; P < 0.0001) than an early pacemaker implantation strategy. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of watchful waiting was $12,724 per quality-adjusted life year. The results are sensitive to differences in quality-adjusted survival and rates of recovery of atrioventricular node function.

CONCLUSIONS

Watchful waiting for pacemaker insertion is a cost-effective management strategy compared with early placement for acute atrioventricular block after valve surgery. Although this is cost-effective from a population perspective, clinical risk scores predicting recovery will aid in personalized decision-making.

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.

Updates in periprocedural management of direct oral anticoagulants

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

As the prevalence of patients on antithrombotics is increasing, anesthesiologists must have a firm understanding of these medications and considerations for their periprocedural management. This review details up-to-date periprocedural management of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs).

RECENT FINDINGS

DOACs have favorable pharmacokinetics including quick onset of action and short half-lives. Periprocedural management of DOACs relies heavily on drug half-life as well as procedural risk of bleeding. Other than a few exceptions, the American College of Cardiologists generally recommends complete clearance of oral anticoagulants prior to high-risk bleeding procedures and partial clearance prior to low-risk bleeding procedures. Procedures with little to no clinical risk of bleeding can be performed without any drug interruption or during trough levels. Exceptions to periprocedural DOAC management pertain to electrophysiology procedures.

SUMMARY

With the exception of no clinically relevant bleeding risk or certain electrophysiology procedures, DOACs should be discontinued periprocedurally in accordance with bleeding risks and drug's half-life. Bridging is generally not recommended for DOACs.

Periprocedural Anticoagulation Management For Nonoperating Room Anesthesia Procedures: A Clinical Guide

Non-operating room anesthesia presents unique challenges for anesthesiologists. Limited preprocedural optimization and unfamiliarity with the location and procedure itself add to the difficulties in delivering safe care for these patients. Management of chronic oral anticoagulation can prove especially problematic since risks of bleeding for non-operating room procedures vary widely and differ from traditional surgeries. In addition, many physicians may not be familiar with the growing number of newly approved oral anticoagulants and their periprocedural management. This review will examine common non-operating procedures, their risks of bleeding, as well as pharmacokinetics of oral anticoagulants available on the market and periprocedural management options.

Real-world effectiveness of infection prevention interventions for reducing procedure-related cardiac device infections: Insights from the veterans affairs clinical assessment reporting and tracking program

OBJECTIVE

To measure the association between receipt of specific infection prevention interventions and procedure-related cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infections.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort with manually reviewed infection status.

SETTING

Setting: National, multicenter Veterans Health Administration (VA) cohort.

PARTICIPANTS

Sampling of procedures entered into the VA Clinical Assessment Reporting and Tracking-Electrophysiology (CART-EP) database from fiscal years 2008 through 2015.

METHODS

A sample of procedures entered into the CART-EP database underwent manual review for occurrence of CIED infection and other clinical/procedural variables. The primary outcome was 6-month incidence of CIED infection. Measures of association were calculated using multivariable generalized estimating equations logistic regression.

RESULTS

We identified 101 procedure-related CIED infections among 2,098 procedures (4.8% of reviewed sample). Factors associated with increased odds of infections included (1) wound complications (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 8.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.16-24.20), (2) revisions including generator changes (aOR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.59-3.63), (3) an elevated international normalized ratio (INR) &gt;1.5 (aOR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.12-2.18), and (4) methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus colonization (aOR, 9.56; 95% CI, 1.55-27.77). Clinically effective prevention interventions included preprocedural skin cleaning with chlorhexidine versus other topical agents (aOR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.22-0.76) and receipt of β-lactam antimicrobial prophylaxis versus vancomycin (aOR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.37-0.96). The use of mesh pockets and continuation of antimicrobial prophylaxis after skin closure were not associated with reduced infection risk.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings regarding the real-world clinical effectiveness of different prevention strategies can be applied to the development of evidence-based protocols and infection prevention guidelines specific to the electrophysiology laboratory.