Évaluation du risque hémorragique de différents protocoles d’anticoagulation péri-opératoire lors d’une primo-implantation ou un remplacement d’un stimulateur ou d’un défibrillateur cardiaque : analyse d’une cohorte de patients en centre hospitalier général

Aims

Perioperative management of anticoagulation in patients referred for pacemaker or cardiac defibrillator implantation isn’t consensual. Our objective was to evaluate, in a large cohort, hemorrhagic complications in patients having implantation or replacement of a cardiac pacemaker or defibrillator, and to assess perioperative anticoagulation effect on hemorrhagic risk.

Methods and results

A cohort of 461 consecutive patients having implantation or replacement of a cardiac pacemaker or defibrillator has been analyzed. Thirty patients (6,5%) had oral anticoagulants (OAC) switched to heparin/low-molecular-weight heparin, while 76 (16,5%) had their oral anticoagulation disrupted habitually for 48 hours. A total of six over 30 (20%) and two over 76 (2.6%) patients in the bridge and OAC, respectively experienced a pocket hematoma (bridge vs. OAC, p < 0.05), while ten over 355 (2.8%) had a pocket hematoma in the control group (bridge vs. control p = 0.006). Duration of the hospital stay was longer in the bridge group in comparison with OAC and control groups (9 vs. 7 vs. 6 days, respectively, p = 0.006).

Conclusion

Oral anticoagulation bridging with heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin is associated with a higher risk of pocket hematoma and a longer duration of hospitalization, in comparison with a strategy allowing a temporary disruption of OAC adapted to the thromboembolic risk.