Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2024
Perioperative direct oral anticoagulant management during cardiac implantable electronic device surgery: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ezenna Chidubem, Pereira Vinicius, Abozenah Mohammed, Franco Ancy Jenil, Gbegbaje Oghenetejiri, Zaidi Ayesha, Krishna Mrinal Murali, Joseph Meghna, Ramesh Prasana, Chalhoub Fadi
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation are often on direct oral anticoagulation (DOAC). However, the evidence on whether to continue or temporarily discontinue DOAC therapy during the perioperative period in these patients is unclear.
METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive literature review using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases through July 2024. We included studies comparing uninterrupted versus interrupted perioperative DOAC therapy in patients undergoing CIED procedure- primary implants, pulse generator replacement, and device upgrades. Primary outcomes were clinically significant device-pocket hematoma and thromboembolic events. Secondary outcomes included any device-pocket hematoma, all-cause mortality, major bleeding, and any bleeding.
RESULTS: A total of 1,607 patients from 8 studies were included. The mean age was 73.2 years, with atrial fibrillation as the indication for DOAC therapy in most patients. The mean CHA2DS2-VASc was 3.4. Among the included studies, 2 were randomized control trials (RCTs), while the others were observational cohort studies, including one that was propensity score matched. Our meta-analysis found both strategies to be similar in terms of clinically significant pocket hematoma (RR 1.70; 95%CI 0.84-3.45; p = 0.14; I2 = 0%), thromboembolic complications (RR 0.35; 95%CI 0.04-3.32; p = 0.36; I2 = 19%), any pocket hematoma, all-cause mortality and any bleeding with a higher risk of major bleeding with uninterrupted anticoagulation.
CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis shows that uninterrupted DOAC therapy is comparable to interrupted therapy for CIED procedures, with a potential increase in major bleeding risk but low overall complication rates. Further research is needed to confirm the best approach of periprocedural anticoagulation in these patients.
METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive literature review using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases through July 2024. We included studies comparing uninterrupted versus interrupted perioperative DOAC therapy in patients undergoing CIED procedure- primary implants, pulse generator replacement, and device upgrades. Primary outcomes were clinically significant device-pocket hematoma and thromboembolic events. Secondary outcomes included any device-pocket hematoma, all-cause mortality, major bleeding, and any bleeding.
RESULTS: A total of 1,607 patients from 8 studies were included. The mean age was 73.2 years, with atrial fibrillation as the indication for DOAC therapy in most patients. The mean CHA2DS2-VASc was 3.4. Among the included studies, 2 were randomized control trials (RCTs), while the others were observational cohort studies, including one that was propensity score matched. Our meta-analysis found both strategies to be similar in terms of clinically significant pocket hematoma (RR 1.70; 95%CI 0.84-3.45; p = 0.14; I2 = 0%), thromboembolic complications (RR 0.35; 95%CI 0.04-3.32; p = 0.36; I2 = 19%), any pocket hematoma, all-cause mortality and any bleeding with a higher risk of major bleeding with uninterrupted anticoagulation.
CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis shows that uninterrupted DOAC therapy is comparable to interrupted therapy for CIED procedures, with a potential increase in major bleeding risk but low overall complication rates. Further research is needed to confirm the best approach of periprocedural anticoagulation in these patients.