Evaluation of a new standardized protocol for the perioperative management of chronically anticoagulated patients receiving implantable cardiac arrhythmia devices

Background Perioperative management of oral anticoagulation (OAC) in patients receiving pacemakers or implantable cardioverter-defibrillators remains an issue of concern. Objective We sought to evaluate the safety and the effect on the hospital length of stay of a new standardized protocol for perio...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Heart rhythm 2012-03, Vol.9 (3), p.361-367
Hauptverfasser: Cano, Oscar, MD, Muñoz, Begoña, MD, Tejada, David, MD, Osca, Joaquín, MD, PhD, Sancho-Tello, María-José, MD, Olagüe, José, MD, Castro, José E., MD, Salvador, Antonio, MD, PhD
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background Perioperative management of oral anticoagulation (OAC) in patients receiving pacemakers or implantable cardioverter-defibrillators remains an issue of concern. Objective We sought to evaluate the safety and the effect on the hospital length of stay of a new standardized protocol for perioperative management of OAC in this setting. Methods The new standardized protocol classified patients according to a renewed evaluation of their thromboembolic (TE) risk. Briefly, patients were considered at moderate-to-high TE risk if they had a mechanical valvular prostheses irrespective of type and location or atrial fibrillation associated with a CHADS2 score of ≥2, mitral stenosis or previous stroke, and underwent device implantation without stopping OAC (OAC continued, n = 129). Complete interruption of OAC before surgery was performed in low-TE-risk patients (OAC interrupted, n = 82). A retrospective cohort of patients managed with a classic heparin-bridging strategy served as a control group, with 62 patients considered at moderate-to-high TE risk according to previous guidelines (receiving pre- and postoperative low-molecular-weight heparin) and 146 considered at low TE risk (receiving only low doses of postoperative low-molecular-weight heparin). Results TE events were comparable between the 2 strategies. Patients entering the new standardized protocol had significantly lower rates of pocket hematoma (2.3% for OAC continued vs 17.7% for moderate-to-high TE risk bridging controls, P = .0001, and 0% for OAC interrupted vs 13% for low-TE-risk bridging controls, P
ISSN:1547-5271
1556-3871
DOI:10.1016/j.hrthm.2011.10.010