OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the effect of administering intravenous protamine immediately post-radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) on thrombotic and bleeding complications in heparinized patients. METHODS: Heparinized patients that had RFCA for atrial or ventricular arrhythmias at our institution between January 2001 and March 2006 and had a complete data set were included in this cohort evaluation. Patients receiving at least one dose of protamine within 15 min of RFCA were deemed the prophylactic group while those not receiving protamine within 15 min were the control group. Thrombotic (cerebrovascular event, transient ischemic attack, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, or myocardial infarction) and bleeding events (blood loss requiring transfusion, hematoma requiring intervention, or intracranial hemorrhage) were compared between groups. RESULTS: Overall, 158 patients (74% male, 55 +/- 13.5) met inclusion criteria. Of these, 73.4% received prophylactic protamine (average dose = 39 mg +/- 17). Only one patient (0.9%) in the prophylactic protamine group and zero patients in the control group experienced a thrombotic event (p > 0.99). Only two patients (1.7%) in the protamine group (n = 2 blood transfusions) and zero patients in the control group experienced bleeding events (p = 0.839). CONCLUSIONS: Administering prophylactic intravenous protamine to allow for quicker catheter removal following RFCA in heparinized patients did not markedly impact thrombotic or bleeding complication rates in our population. The perceived benefit in our institution to protamine administration in this population is a reduction in postoperative patient immobilization and discomfort, reduced PACU nursing care, and earlier time to discharge. Given the low rate of thrombotic and bleeding events, a study of several thousand patients would be needed to fully evaluate the impact on these events.
OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the effect of administering intravenous protamine immediately post-radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) on thrombotic and bleeding complications in heparinized patients. METHODS: Heparinized patients that had RFCA for atrial or ventricular arrhythmias at our institution between January 2001 and March 2006 and had a complete data set were included in this cohort evaluation. Patients receiving at least one dose of protamine within 15 min of RFCA were deemed the prophylactic group while those not receiving protamine within 15 min were the control group. Thrombotic (cerebrovascular event, transient ischemic attack, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, or myocardial infarction) and bleeding events (blood loss requiring transfusion, hematoma requiring intervention, or intracranial hemorrhage) were compared between groups. RESULTS: Overall, 158 patients (74% male, 55 +/- 13.5) met inclusion criteria. Of these, 73.4% received prophylactic protamine (average dose = 39 mg +/- 17). Only one patient (0.9%) in the prophylactic protamine group and zero patients in the control group experienced a thrombotic event (p > 0.99). Only two patients (1.7%) in the protamine group (n = 2 blood transfusions) and zero patients in the control group experienced bleeding events (p = 0.839). CONCLUSIONS: Administering prophylactic intravenous protamine to allow for quicker catheter removal following RFCA in heparinized patients did not markedly impact thrombotic or bleeding complication rates in our population. The perceived benefit in our institution to protamine administration in this population is a reduction in postoperative patient immobilization and discomfort, reduced PACU nursing care, and earlier time to discharge. Given the low rate of thrombotic and bleeding events, a study of several thousand patients would be needed to fully evaluate the impact on these events.
Authors: Melvin Scheinman; Hugh Calkins; Paul Gillette; Richard Klein; Bruce B Lerman; Fred Morady; Sanjeev Saksena; Albert Waldo Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 1.976
Authors: M Pan; J Suárez de Lezo; A Medina; M Romero; E Hernández; J Segura; F Melian; F Wangüemert; M Landin; F Benítez; M Amat; F Velasco; A Torres Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 1997-11-15 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Edmond M Cronin; Frank M Bogun; Philippe Maury; Petr Peichl; Minglong Chen; Narayanan Namboodiri; Luis Aguinaga; Luiz Roberto Leite; Sana M Al-Khatib; Elad Anter; Antonio Berruezo; David J Callans; Mina K Chung; Phillip Cuculich; Andre d'Avila; Barbara J Deal; Paolo Della Bella; Thomas Deneke; Timm-Michael Dickfeld; Claudio Hadid; Haris M Haqqani; G Neal Kay; Rakesh Latchamsetty; Francis Marchlinski; John M Miller; Akihiko Nogami; Akash R Patel; Rajeev Kumar Pathak; Luis C Saenz Morales; Pasquale Santangeli; John L Sapp; Andrea Sarkozy; Kyoko Soejima; William G Stevenson; Usha B Tedrow; Wendy S Tzou; Niraj Varma; Katja Zeppenfeld Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2020-10 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Edmond M Cronin; Frank M Bogun; Philippe Maury; Petr Peichl; Minglong Chen; Narayanan Namboodiri; Luis Aguinaga; Luiz Roberto Leite; Sana M Al-Khatib; Elad Anter; Antonio Berruezo; David J Callans; Mina K Chung; Phillip Cuculich; Andre d'Avila; Barbara J Deal; Paolo Della Bella; Thomas Deneke; Timm-Michael Dickfeld; Claudio Hadid; Haris M Haqqani; G Neal Kay; Rakesh Latchamsetty; Francis Marchlinski; John M Miller; Akihiko Nogami; Akash R Patel; Rajeev Kumar Pathak; Luis C Sáenz Morales; Pasquale Santangeli; John L Sapp; Andrea Sarkozy; Kyoko Soejima; William G Stevenson; Usha B Tedrow; Wendy S Tzou; Niraj Varma; Katja Zeppenfeld Journal: Europace Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Karuna Chilukuri; Charles A Henrikson; Darshan Dalal; Daniel Scherr; Edwin C MacPherson; Alan Cheng; David Spragg; Saman Nazarian; Sunil Sinha; Ronald Berger; Joseph E Marine; Hugh Calkins Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2009-03-05 Impact factor: 1.900