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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Heart rhythm 2012-03, Vol.9 (3), p.361-367 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
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 |