European Heart Journal Advance Access first published online on May 31, 2009
This version published online on June 4, 2009
European Heart Journal, doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehp194
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Preparation for pacemaker or implantable cardiac defibrillator implants in patients with high risk of thrombo-embolic events: oral anticoagulation or bridging with intravenous heparin? A prospective randomized trial
1 Cardiology Department, Thorax Institute, Hospital Clinic, University of Barcelona, Institut d'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS)
2 Hemotherapy and Hemostasis Department, Villarroel 170, Barcelona 08036, Catalonia, Spain
Received 7 May 2008; revised 5 March 2009; accepted 28 April 2009 * Corresponding author. Tel: +34 932275551, Fax: +34 934513045, Email: lmont{at}clinic.ub.es
Aims: Current guidelines recommend stopping oral anticoagulation (OAC) and starting heparin infusion before implanting/replacing a pacemaker/implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) in patients with high risk for thrombo-embolic events. The aim of this study was to demonstrate that the maintenance of OAC during device implantation/replacement is as safe as bridging to intravenous heparin and shortens in-hospital stay.
Methods and results: A cohort of 101 consecutive patients with high risk for embolic events and indication for implant/replacement of a pacemaker/ICD were randomized to two anticoagulant strategies: bridging from OAC to heparin infusion (n = 51) vs. maintenance of OAC to reach an INR = 2 ± 0.3 at the day of the procedure (n = 50). Haemorrhagic and thrombo-embolic complications were evaluated at discharge, 15 and 45 days after the procedure. A total of 4/51 patients (7.8%) from heparin group and 4/50 (8.0%) from the OAC group developed pocket haematoma following the implant (P = 1.00). One haematoma in each group required evacuation (1.9 vs. 2%, P = 1.00). No other haemorrhagic events or embolic complications developed during the follow-up. Duration of the hospital stay was longer in the heparin group [median of 5 (4–7) vs. 2 (1–4) days; P < 0.001].
Conclusion: Implant of devices maintaining OAC is as safe as bridging to heparin infusion and allows a significant reduction of in-hospital stay.
Key Words: Pacemaker Mechanical prosthetic valve Atrial fibrillation Pocket haematoma Thrombo-embolism
The originally published version of this paper was incorrect. In the list of author names the name of the fourth author should have read Magda Heras. The publisher wishes to apologize for this error.
![]()
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
J.-C. Daubert and P. Mabo Continue or withhold oral anticoagulation in high-risk patients undergoing pacemaker or ICD implantation Eur. Heart J., August 28, 2009; (2009) ehn491v1. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
