Comparison between two different local hemostatic methods for dental extractions in patients on dual antiplatelet therapy: a within-person, single-blind, randomized study.

BACKGROUND: Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) provides additional risk reduction of ischemic events compared to aspirin monotherapy, at cost of higher bleeding risk. There are few data comparing new techniques for reducing bleeding after dental extractions in these patients. PURPOSE: This study investigated the effectiveness of the HemCon Dental Dressing (HDD) compared to oxidized cellulose gauze. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This randomized study included 60 patients on DAPT who required at least two dental extractions (120 procedures). Each surgical site was randomized to HDD or oxidized regenerated cellulose gauze as the local hemostatic method. Intra-oral bleeding time was measured immediately after the dental extraction and represents our main endpoint for comparison of both hemostatic agents. Prolonged bleeding, platelet reactivity measured by Multiplate Analyser (ADPtest and ASPItest) and tissue healing comparison after 7 days were also investigated. RESULTS: Intra-oral bleeding time was lower in HDD compared with control (2 [2-5] vs. 5 [2-8] minutes, P=0.001). Prolonged postoperative bleeding was observed in 7 cases (11.6%), all of them successfully managed with local sterile gauze pressure. More HDD treated sites presented better healing when compared with control sites [21 (36.8%) vs. 5 (8.8%), P=0.03]. There was poor correlation between platelet reactivity and intra-oral bleeding time. CONCLUSIONS: In patients on DAPT, HDD resulted in a lower intra-oral bleeding time compared to oxidized cellulose gauze after dental extractions. Moreover, HDD also seems to improve healing conditions.

Favorable Safety Experience of Local Dental Anesthesia in ICD Recipients with Cardiac Channelopathies

Abstract Background Dental anesthetic management in implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) recipients with cardiac channelopathies (CCh) can be challenging due to the potential risk of life-threatening arrhythmias and appropriate ICD therapies during procedural time. Objectives The present study assessed the hypothesis that the use of local dental anesthesia with 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine or without a vasoconstrictor can be safe in selected ICD and CCh patients, not resulting in life-threatening events (LTE). Methods Restorative dental treatment under local dental anesthesia was made in two sessions, with a wash-out period of 7 days (cross-over trial), conducting with a 28h - Holter monitoring, and 12-lead electrocardiography, digital sphygmomanometry, and anxiety scale assessments in 3 time periods. Statistical analysis carried out the paired Student's t test and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. In all cases, a significance level of 5% was adopted. All patients were in stable condition with no recent events before dental care. Results Twenty-four consecutive procedures were performed in 12 patients (9 women, 3 men) with CCh and ICD: 7 (58.3%) had long QT syndrome (LQTS), 4 (33.3%) Brugada syndrome (BrS), and 1 (8.3%) Catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (CPVT). Holter analysis showed no increased heart rate (HR) or sustained arrhythmias. Blood pressure (BP), electrocardiographic changes and anxiety measurement showed no statistically significant differences. No LTE occurred during dental treatment, regardless of the type of anesthesia. Conclusion Lidocaine administration, with or without epinephrine, can be safely used in selected CCh-ICD patients without LTE. These preliminary findings need to be confirmed in a larger population with ICD and CCh.

Is It Safe for Patients With Cardiac Channelopathies to Undergo Routine Dental Care? Experience From a Single-Center Study.

Background Brugada syndrome and long-QT syndrome may account for at least one third of unexplained sudden cardiac deaths. Dental care in patients with cardiac channelopathies is challenging because of the potential risk of life-threatening events. We hypothesized that the use of local dental anesthesia with lidocaine with and without epinephrine is safe and does not result in life-threatening arrhythmias in patients with channelopathies. Methods and Results We performed a randomized, double-blind pilot trial comparing the use of 2% lidocaine without a vasoconstrictor and with 1:100 000 epinephrine in 2 sessions of restorative dental treatment with a washout period of 7 days (crossover trial). Twenty-eight-hour Holter monitoring was performed, and 12-lead electrocardiography, digital sphygmomanometry, and anxiety scale assessments were also conducted at 3 time points. Fifty-six dental procedures were performed in 28 patients (18 women, 10 men) with cardiac channelopathies: 16 (57.1%) had long-QT syndrome, and 12 (42.9%) had Brugada syndrome; 11 (39.3%) of patients had an implantable defibrillator. The mean age was 45.9±15.9 years. The maximum heart rate increased after the use of epinephrine during the anesthesia period from 82.1 to 85.8 beats per minute (P=0.008). In patients with long-QT syndrome, the median corrected QT was higher, from 450.1 to 465.4 ms (P=0.009) at the end of anesthesia in patients in whom epinephrine was used. The other measurements showed no statistically significant differences. No life-threatening arrhythmias occurred during dental treatment. Conclusions The use of local dental anesthesia with lidocaine, regardless of the use of a vasoconstrictor, did not result in life-threatening arrhythmias and appears to be safe in stable patients with cardiac channelopathies. Clinical Trial Registration URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT03182777.

Local anesthesia with epinephrine is safe and effective for oral surgery in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and coronary disease: a prospective randomized study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the variations in blood glucose levels, hemodynamic effects and patient anxiety scores during tooth extraction in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus T2DM and coronary disease under local anesthesia with 2% lidocaine with or without epinephrine. STUDY DESIGN: This is a prospective randomized study of 70 patients with T2DM with coronary disease who underwent oral surgery. The study was double blind with respect to the glycemia measurements. Blood glucose levels were continuously monitored for 24 hours using the MiniMed Continuous Glucose Monitoring System. Patients were randomized into two groups: 35 patients received 5.4 mL of 2% lidocaine, and 35 patients received 5.4 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. Hemodynamic parameters (blood pressure and heart rate) and anxiety levels were also evaluated. RESULTS: There was no difference in blood glucose levels between the groups at each time point evaluated. Surprisingly, both groups demonstrated a significant decrease in blood glucose levels over time. The groups showed no significant differences in hemodynamic and anxiety status parameters. CONCLUSION: The administration of 5.4 mL of 2% lidocaine with epinephrine neither caused hyperglycemia nor had any significant impact on hemodynamic or anxiety parameters. However, lower blood glucose levels were observed. This is the first report using continuous blood glucose monitoring to show the benefits and lack of side effects of local anesthesia with epinephrine in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and coronary disease.

Local anesthesia with epinephrine is safe and effective for oral surgery in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and coronary disease: a prospective randomized study

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the variations in blood glucose levels, hemodynamic effects and patient anxiety scores during tooth extraction in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus T2DM and coronary disease under local anesthesia with 2% lidocaine with or without epinephrine. STUDY DESIGN: This is a prospective randomized study of 70 patients with T2DM with coronary disease who underwent oral surgery. The study was double blind with respect to the glycemia measurements. Blood glucose levels were continuously monitored for 24 hours using the MiniMed Continuous Glucose Monitoring System. Patients were randomized into two groups: 35 patients received 5.4 mL of 2% lidocaine, and 35 patients received 5.4 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. Hemodynamic parameters (blood pressure and heart rate) and anxiety levels were also evaluated. RESULTS: There was no difference in blood glucose levels between the groups at each time point evaluated. Surprisingly, both groups demonstrated a significant decrease in blood glucose levels over time. The groups showed no significant differences in hemodynamic and anxiety status parameters. CONCLUSION: The administration of 5.4 mL of 2% lidocaine with epinephrine neither caused hyperglycemia nor had any significant impact on hemodynamic or anxiety parameters. However, lower blood glucose levels were observed. This is the first report using continuous blood glucose monitoring to show the benefits and lack of side effects of local anesthesia with epinephrine in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and coronary disease. .