Demir Gültekin Gunhan, Guler Gamze Babur, Guler Ekrem, Güneş HacıMurat, Kizilirmak Filiz, Karaca İbrahim Oğuz, Omaygenç Mehmet Onur, Çakal Beytullah, Olgun Erkam, Savur Umeyr, Ibisoglu Ersın, Barutçu Irfan, Kiliçaslan Fethi
a Medipol University Medicine Faculty, Cardiology Department , Istanbul , Turkey.
Acta Cardiol. 2017 Feb;72(1):47-52. doi: 10.1080/00015385.2017.1281539.
Objective In modern cardiology practice, implantation of cardiac electronic devices in patients taking anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy is a common clinical scenario. Bleeding complications are of particular concern in this patient population and pocket haematoma is one of the most frequent complications. We sought to determine the relationship between periprocedural antiplatelet/anticoagulant therapy and pocket haematoma formation in patients undergoing cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation. Methods We conducted a retrospective study including 232 consecutive patients undergoing CIED implantation in the department of cardiology of the Medipol University Hospital. Patients were divided into six groups: clopidogrel group (n = 12), acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) group (n = 73), ASA + clopidogrel group (n = 29), warfarin group (n = 34), warfarin + ASA group (n = 21) and no antiplatelet-anticoagulant therapy group as the control group (n = 63). CIED implantations were stratified under four subtitles including implantable cardioverter/defibrillator (ICD), cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), permanent pacemaker and the last group as either device upgrade or generator replacement. Results The mean age of the patients was 63 ± 14 years and 140 patients were male (60.3%). A pocket haematoma was documented in 6 of 232 patients (2.6%). None of the patients with pocket haematoma needed pocket exploration or blood transfusion. The type of the device did not have a significant effect on pocket haematoma incidence (P = 0.250). Univariate logistic regression showed that platelet level and ASA plus clopidogrel use were significantly associated with haematoma frequency after CIED implantations, respectively (OR: 0.977, CI 95% [0.958-0.996]; OR: 16.080, CI 95% [2.801-92.306]). Multivariate analysis revealed that dual antiplatelet treatment (β = 3.016, P = 0.002, OR: 2.410, 95% CI [3.042-136.943]) and baseline platelet level (β = -0.027, p:0.025, OR: 0.974, 95% CI [0.951-0.997]) were independent risk factors for pocket haematoma formation. Conclusion Dual antiplatelet therapy and low platelet levels significantly increased the risk of pocket haematoma formation in patients undergoing CIED implantations.
目的 在现代心脏病学实践中,为正在接受抗凝或抗血小板治疗的患者植入心脏电子设备是常见的临床情况。出血并发症在这类患者群体中尤为令人担忧,而囊袋血肿是最常见的并发症之一。我们试图确定在接受心脏植入式电子设备(CIED)植入的患者中,围手术期抗血小板/抗凝治疗与囊袋血肿形成之间的关系。方法 我们进行了一项回顾性研究,纳入了梅迪波尔大学医院心脏病科连续232例接受CIED植入的患者。患者被分为六组:氯吡格雷组(n = 12)、阿司匹林(ASA)组(n = 73)、ASA + 氯吡格雷组(n = 29)、华法林组(n = 34)、华法林 + ASA组(n = 21)以及未进行抗血小板-抗凝治疗的组作为对照组(n = 63)。CIED植入被分为四个小标题进行分层,包括植入式心律转复除颤器(ICD)、心脏再同步治疗(CRT)、永久性起搏器以及最后一组为设备升级或发生器更换。结果 患者的平均年龄为63±14岁,140例患者为男性(60.3%)。232例患者中有6例(2.6%)记录有囊袋血肿。所有有囊袋血肿的患者均无需进行囊袋探查或输血。设备类型对囊袋血肿发生率没有显著影响(P = 0.250)。单因素逻辑回归显示,血小板水平以及使用ASA加氯吡格雷分别与CIED植入后血肿发生频率显著相关(OR:0.977,95%CI[0.958 - 0.996];OR:16.080,95%CI[2.801 - 92.306])。多因素分析显示,双重抗血小板治疗(β = 3.016,P = 0.002,OR:2.410,95%CI[3.042 - 136.943])和基线血小板水平(β = -0.027,p:0.025,OR:0.974,95%CI[0.951 - 0.997])是囊袋血肿形成的独立危险因素。结论 双重抗血小板治疗和低血小板水平显著增加了接受CIED植入患者囊袋血肿形成的风险。