Hassan Awada1, J Christoph Geller2, Michele Brunelli3, Marc-Alexander Ohlow4. 1. Department of Cardiology, Zentralklinik, Robert-Koch-Allee 9, 99437, Bad Berka, Germany. 2. Department of invasive and interventional Electrophysiology, Zentralklinik, Robert-Koch-Allee 9, 99437, Bad Berka, Germany. 3. Department of Cardiology and Endocrinology, Staedtisches Klinikum, 39130, Magdeburg, Germany. 4. Department of Cardiology, Zentralklinik, Robert-Koch-Allee 9, 99437, Bad Berka, Germany. marc.ohlow@zentralklinik.de.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We sought to assess the safety and effectiveness of three different devices: (1) vacuum drainage system, (2) hemostatic gelatin sponge (Stypro®), and (3) compression device (Premofix®) compared to standard of care (control) in patients undergoing cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation receiving anticoagulation and/or dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). METHODS: We enrolled all consecutive patients admitted for first permanent CIED implantation receiving anticoagulation and/or DAPT into a prospective registry. The primary endpoint (1°EP) was a composite of hematoma grade > 1 and pocket infection. RESULTS: We included 406 patients (median age 73 years, 71% male) of whom 103 (25%) received a vacuum drainage system, 99 (24%) received Stypro®, 103 (25%) received Premofix®, and 101 (25%) were in the control group. One hundred eighty patients (44%) were treated with anticoagulation (median INR 2.0), 176 (43%) received DAPT, and 50 (12%) both. The occurrence of the 1°EP was reduced by Stypro® (hazard ratio (HR) 0.38 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.16-0.94) and Premofix® (HR: 0.37 (95% CI 0.15-0.90)) compared to controls (p < 0.05 for both). The incidence of hematoma grade 2 or 3 was exclusively lowered by Premofix® compared to control (6% versus 15%; p < 0.05) and was not affected by the type of CIED, INR (≥ 2.5 versus < 2.5), body mass index (≥ 30 versus < 30), or CIED implantation under anticoagulation plus DAPT. The vacuum drainage system did not affect the 1°EP or the incidence of hematoma. CONCLUSIONS: In patients receiving anticoagulation and/or DAPT undergoing CIED implantation, the use of Premofix® and Stypro® significantly lowered the 1°EP occurrence compared to control. Premofix® additionally lowered the frequency of pocket hematomas >grade 1.
PURPOSE: We sought to assess the safety and effectiveness of three different devices: (1) vacuum drainage system, (2) hemostatic gelatin sponge (Stypro®), and (3) compression device (Premofix®) compared to standard of care (control) in patients undergoing cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation receiving anticoagulation and/or dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). METHODS: We enrolled all consecutive patients admitted for first permanent CIED implantation receiving anticoagulation and/or DAPT into a prospective registry. The primary endpoint (1°EP) was a composite of hematoma grade > 1 and pocket infection. RESULTS: We included 406 patients (median age 73 years, 71% male) of whom 103 (25%) received a vacuum drainage system, 99 (24%) received Stypro®, 103 (25%) received Premofix®, and 101 (25%) were in the control group. One hundred eighty patients (44%) were treated with anticoagulation (median INR 2.0), 176 (43%) received DAPT, and 50 (12%) both. The occurrence of the 1°EP was reduced by Stypro® (hazard ratio (HR) 0.38 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.16-0.94) and Premofix® (HR: 0.37 (95% CI 0.15-0.90)) compared to controls (p < 0.05 for both). The incidence of hematoma grade 2 or 3 was exclusively lowered by Premofix® compared to control (6% versus 15%; p < 0.05) and was not affected by the type of CIED, INR (≥ 2.5 versus < 2.5), body mass index (≥ 30 versus < 30), or CIED implantation under anticoagulation plus DAPT. The vacuum drainage system did not affect the 1°EP or the incidence of hematoma. CONCLUSIONS: In patients receiving anticoagulation and/or DAPT undergoing CIED implantation, the use of Premofix® and Stypro® significantly lowered the 1°EP occurrence compared to control. Premofix® additionally lowered the frequency of pocket hematomas >grade 1.
Authors: Larry M Baddour; Michael A Bettmann; Ann F Bolger; Andrew E Epstein; Patricia Ferrieri; Michael A Gerber; Michael H Gewitz; Alice K Jacobs; Matthew E Levison; Jane W Newburger; Thomas J Pallasch; Walter R Wilson; Robert S Baltimore; Donald A Falace; Stanford T Shulman; Lloyd Y Tani; Kathryn A Taubert Journal: Circulation Date: 2003-10-21 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Julio Cesar de Oliveira; Martino Martinelli; Silvana Angelina D'Orio Nishioka; Tânia Varejão; David Uipe; Anísio Alexandre Andrade Pedrosa; Roberto Costa; Andre D'Avila; Stephan B Danik Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2009-02-10
Authors: Matthew R Reynolds; David J Cohen; Aaron D Kugelmass; Phillip P Brown; Edmund R Becker; Steven D Culler; April W Simon Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2006-05-30 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Uwe K H Wiegand; Dominik LeJeune; Frank Boguschewski; Hendrik Bonnemeier; Frank Eberhardt; Heribert Schunkert; Frank Bode Journal: Chest Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Didier Klug; Mamadou Balde; Dominique Pavin; Françoise Hidden-Lucet; Jacques Clementy; Nicolas Sadoul; Jean Luc Rey; Gilles Lande; Arnaud Lazarus; Jacques Victor; Claude Barnay; Bruno Grandbastien; Salem Kacet Journal: Circulation Date: 2007-08-27 Impact factor: 29.690