PURPOSE: Anticoagulation with heparin is required during catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) to reduce systemic thromboembolism. In this study, we aim to compare safety and efficacy outcomes between patients who receive protamine administration for reversal of heparin and those who do not, following cryoballoon-based pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) for AF. METHODS: Patients with symptomatic paroxysmal or persistent AF despite ≥1 antiarrhythmic drug(s) were scheduled for PVI per the recent consensus recommendations. Some patients were administered protamine at the end of the procedure depending on the operator's choice. RESULTS: Among 380 patients [48.2% male, 56 (20-86) years] that were enrolled, 188 patients received protamine at the end of the procedure. Baseline characteristics did not differ between groups (p > 0.05). Mean protamine dose was 39.1 ± 6.4 mg. Only 1 patient developed rash following protamine infusion. Hospital stay was significantly shorter in patients who were administered protamine (1 [1-5] vs. 2 [1-7] days, p < 0.001). Hematoma/pseudoaneurysm or femoral AV fistula requiring surgical or interventional repair in the femoral access site occurred in 2 (1.1 %) patients who received protamine and 12 (6.3%) patients who did not (p = 0.011). Deep vein thrombosis was seen in 1 patient in whom protamine was not administered (p = 0.499). CONCLUSION: To the best of our knowledge, this is one of the largest series showing that protamine administration for heparin reversal in patients undergoing cryoballoon-based PVI allows quicker sheath removal and minimizes the risk of potential vascular complications without causing an increase in thrombotic events.
PURPOSE: Anticoagulation with heparin is required during catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) to reduce systemic thromboembolism. In this study, we aim to compare safety and efficacy outcomes between patients who receive protamine administration for reversal of heparin and those who do not, following cryoballoon-based pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) for AF. METHODS:Patients with symptomatic paroxysmal or persistent AF despite ≥1 antiarrhythmic drug(s) were scheduled for PVI per the recent consensus recommendations. Some patients were administered protamine at the end of the procedure depending on the operator's choice. RESULTS: Among 380 patients [48.2% male, 56 (20-86) years] that were enrolled, 188 patients received protamine at the end of the procedure. Baseline characteristics did not differ between groups (p > 0.05). Mean protamine dose was 39.1 ± 6.4 mg. Only 1 patient developed rash following protamine infusion. Hospital stay was significantly shorter in patients who were administered protamine (1 [1-5] vs. 2 [1-7] days, p < 0.001). Hematoma/pseudoaneurysm or femoral AV fistula requiring surgical or interventional repair in the femoral access site occurred in 2 (1.1 %) patients who received protamine and 12 (6.3%) patients who did not (p = 0.011). Deep vein thrombosis was seen in 1 patient in whom protamine was not administered (p = 0.499). CONCLUSION: To the best of our knowledge, this is one of the largest series showing that protamine administration for heparin reversal in patients undergoing cryoballoon-based PVI allows quicker sheath removal and minimizes the risk of potential vascular complications without causing an increase in thrombotic events.
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: A John Camm; Gregory Y H Lip; Raffaele De Caterina; Irene Savelieva; Dan Atar; Stefan H Hohnloser; Gerhard Hindricks; Paulus Kirchhof Journal: Europace Date: 2012-08-24 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Craig T January; L Samuel Wann; Joseph S Alpert; Hugh Calkins; Joaquin E Cigarroa; Joseph C Cleveland; Jamie B Conti; Patrick T Ellinor; Michael D Ezekowitz; Michael E Field; Katherine T Murray; Ralph L Sacco; William G Stevenson; Patrick J Tchou; Cynthia M Tracy; Clyde W Yancy Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2014-03-28 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Kudret Aytemir; Kadri Murat Gurses; Muhammed Ulvi Yalcin; Duygu Kocyigit; Muhammet Dural; Banu Evranos; Hikmet Yorgun; Ahmet Hakan Ates; Mehmet Levent Sahiner; Ergun Baris Kaya; Mehmet Ali Oto Journal: Europace Date: 2014-11-05 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Luigi Di Biase; J David Burkhardt; Prasant Mohanty; Javier Sanchez; Rodney Horton; G Joseph Gallinghouse; Dhanunjay Lakkireddy; Atul Verma; Yaariv Khaykin; Richard Hongo; Steven Hao; Salwa Beheiry; Gemma Pelargonio; Antonio Dello Russo; Michela Casella; Pietro Santarelli; Pasquale Santangeli; Paul Wang; Amin Al-Ahmad; Dimpi Patel; Sakis Themistoclakis; Aldo Bonso; Antonio Rossillo; Andrea Corrado; Antonio Raviele; Jennifer E Cummings; Robert A Schweikert; William R Lewis; Andrea Natale Journal: Circulation Date: 2010-06-01 Impact factor: 29.690
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
Authors: Aarti A Patel; Christopher A Clyne; Nickole N Henyan; C Michael White; Bryan F Zembrowski; Magdy Migeed; Ravi Yarlagadda; Jeffrey Kluger; Craig I Coleman Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2007-02-23 Impact factor: 1.759