학술논문
Clinical predictors of pocket hematoma after cardiac device implantation and replacement.
Document Type
Academic Journal
Author
Ferretto S; Department of Cardiac, Thoracic and Vascular Sciences, University of Padua.; Department of Cardiology, San Donà di Piave Hospital, Venice, Italy.; Mattesi G; Department of Cardiac, Thoracic and Vascular Sciences, University of Padua.; Migliore F; Department of Cardiac, Thoracic and Vascular Sciences, University of Padua.; Susana A; Department of Cardiology, Cittadella Hospital, Padua, Italy.; De Lazzari M; Department of Cardiac, Thoracic and Vascular Sciences, University of Padua.; Iliceto S; Department of Cardiac, Thoracic and Vascular Sciences, University of Padua.; Leoni L; Department of Cardiac, Thoracic and Vascular Sciences, University of Padua.; Bertaglia E; Department of Cardiac, Thoracic and Vascular Sciences, University of Padua.
Source
Publisher: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 101259752 Publication Model: Print Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1558-2035 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 15582027 NLM ISO Abbreviation: J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown) Subsets: MEDLINE
Subject
Language
English
Abstract
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.
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.