Safety of anticoagulation with uninterrupted warfarin vs. interrupted dabigatran in patients requiring an implantable cardiac device
Authors
Madan, ShivanshuMuthusamy, Purushothaman
Mowers, Katie L.
Elmouchi, Darryl A.
Finta, Bohuslav
Gauri, Andre J.
Woelfel, Alan K.
Fritz, Timothy D.
Davis, Alan T.
Chalfoun, Nagib T.
UMass Chan Affiliations
Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiovascular MedicineDocument Type
Journal ArticlePublication Date
2016-02-01Keywords
Dabigatrandefibrillator
pacemaker
perioperative anticoagulation
warfarin
Cardiology
Cardiovascular Diseases
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
BACKGROUND: The optimal strategy of peri-procedural anticoagulation in patients undergoing permanent cardiac device implantation is controversial. Our objective was to compare the major bleeding and thromboembolic complications in patients managed with uninterrupted warfarin (UW) vs. interrupted dabigatran (ID) during permanent pacemaker (PPM) or implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) implantation. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of all eligible patients from July 2011 through January 2012 was performed. UW was defined as patients who had maintained a therapeutic international normalized ratio (INR) on the day of the procedure. ID was defined as stopping dabigatran > /=12 hours prior to the procedure and then resuming after implantation. Major bleeding events included hemothorax, hemopericardium, intracranial hemorrhage, gastrointestinal bleed, epistaxis, or pocket hematoma requiring surgical intervention. Thromboembolic complications included stroke, transient ischemic attack, deep venous thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, or arterial embolism. RESULTS: Of the 133 patients (73.4+/-11.0 years; 91 males) in the study, 86 received UW and 47 received ID. One (1.2%) patient in the UW group sustained hemopericardium perioperatively and died. In comparison, the ID patients had no complications. As compared to the ID group, the UW group had a higher median CHADS2 score (2 vs. 3, P=0.04) and incidence of Grade 1 pocket hematoma (0% vs. 7%, P=0.09). Neither group developed any thromboembolic complications. CONCLUSIONS: Major bleeding rates were similar among UW and ID groups. Perioperative ID appears to be a safe anticoagulation strategy for patients undergoing PPM or ICD implantation.Source
Cardiovasc Diagn Ther. 2016 Feb;6(1):3-9. doi: 10.3978/j.issn.2223-3652.2015.10.06. Link to article on publisher's siteDOI
10.3978/j.issn.2223-3652.2015.10.06Permanent Link to this Item
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14038/39947PubMed ID
26885486Related Resources
Link to Article in PubMedae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
10.3978/j.issn.2223-3652.2015.10.06