Safety of apixaban and rivaroxaban compared to warfarin after cardiac surgery.

BACKGROUND: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are frequently prescribed for the management of atrial fibrillation and venous thrombosis. There is a lack of published data on the utilization of DOACs in individuals who have undergone recent cardiac surgery. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of apixaban and rivaroxaban compared to warfarin in patients postcardiac surgery. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, patients were separated into a DOAC cohort or a warfarin cohort based on the agent they received after cardiac surgery. Patients could be included if they were ≥18 years of age and received or were discharged on either rivaroxaban, apixaban, or warfarin within 7 days after cardiac surgery. The primary outcome for the study was the rate of International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis (ISTH) major bleeding during hospitalization and for 30 days following discharge or until first follow-up appointment. RESULTS: There were a total of 194 patients included in the analysis, 97 in the DOAC cohort and 97 in the warfarin cohort. Four patients (4.1%) in the DOAC group experienced ISTH major bleeding, while 2 patients (2.1%) in the warfarin cohort experienced ISTH major bleeding (p = 0.68). No patients in the DOAC cohort experienced a thrombotic event, whereas 2 patients (2.1%) in the warfarin cohort experienced a thrombotic complication (p = 0.5). CONCLUSION: Apixaban and rivaroxaban demonstrated similar safety when compared to a matched cohort of warfarin patients. Larger prospective randomized studies are needed to confirm these findings.

RIsk Stratification prior to lead Extraction and impact on major intraprocedural complications (RISE protocol).

BACKGROUND: An internal risk stratification algorithm was developed to decrease the risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) during lead extractions (LEs). OBJECTIVE: To report upon the impact of a risk stratification algorithm (RISE [RIsk Stratification prior to lead Extraction] protocol) on outcomes of LEs in a high-volume center. METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained LEs database was performed to identify features associated with MACEs. On the basis of the retrospective data, the RISE protocol differentiated LEs procedures into "High" and "Low" risk for occurrence of MACEs. High-risk LEs included dual-coil defibrillator lead (≥3 years), pacemaker and single-coil lead (≥5 years), and any StarFix coronary sinus lead. During the prospective evaluation of the RISE protocol, "High-risk" LEs were performed in an operating room (OR) or hybrid laboratory with the cardiac anesthesiologist, OR nursing team, perfusionist in the room, and a cardiac surgeon on the premises. "Low-risk" LEs were performed in the electrophysiology (EP) laboratory with anesthesia provided by EP nursing team. The preintervention (pre-RISE) and postintervention (post-RISE) group spanned 19 and 40 months and consisted of 449 (632 leads) and 751 patients (1055 leads), respectively. The primary outcome of MACEs in the two groups was compared. RESULTS: Protocol compliance was 100%. The primary outcome of MACEs occurred in 15 patients (3.34%) before and 12 (1.6%) after implementation of the RISE protocol (P = .04). CONCLUSION: RISE identified a low-risk group where minimal resources are needed and allowed for rapid intervention in the high-risk group that reduced the consequences of MACEs.

Comprehensive strategy to reduce the incidence of lead dislodgement for cardiac implantable electronic devices.

BACKGROUND: Lead dislodgement (LD) is a well-recognized complication during implantation of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). An intraprocedural protocol, referred to as reduction of LD protocol, was developed to reduce the risk of LD. METHODS: The protocol involved (1) inserting a straight stylet down the right atrial lead and applying forward pressure while monitoring for fluoroscopic stability, (2) visualizing all leads during deep inspiration to determine if there is adequate lead redundancy, and (3) having the patient take a deep breath and cough while pacing just at capture threshold to assess for loss of capture in each lead. Any intraprocedural change in the parameters fulfilling the predefined criteria for inadequate lead implantation prompted lead repositioning. Data regarding demographic factors, clinical characteristics, and incidence of LD in the first 30 days after implant was obtained from intramural CIED database. The preintervention (control) group spanned 27 months and consisted of a total of 4,294 leads while the postintervention (intervention) group spanned 17 months and consisted of 2,361 leads implanted. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the demographic factors and clinical characteristics in the two groups. Protocol compliance was > 90%. There were 44 occurrences of LD (1.02%) before and 10 (0.4%) after implementation of the protocol. The protocol significantly reduced the incidence of LD during the 30 days after implant (P = 0.014). No clinical characteristic predicted the risk of LD. CONCLUSION: Intraprocedural maneuvers performed to assess the adequacy of lead implantation results in reduced risk of LD.