Refine
Year of publication
- 2020 (2)
Document Type
- Article (2)
Language
- English (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2)
Keywords
Institute
- Medizin (2)
Aims: This post hoc analysis of ELIMINATE-AF evaluated requirements of unfractionated heparin (UFH) and procedure-related bleeding in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients undergoing ablation with uninterrupted edoxaban or vitamin K antagonist (VKA) therapy.
Methods and results: Patients were randomized 2:1 to once-daily edoxaban 60 mg (or dose-reduced 30 mg) or dose-adjusted VKA (target international normalized ratio: 2.0–3.0). Uninterrupted anticoagulation was mandated for 21–28 days’ pre-ablation and 90 days’ post-ablation. During ablation, UFH administration targeted an activated clotting time (ACT) of 300–400 s. Periprocedural bleeding was differentiated between procedure-related (bleeding at puncture side, cardiac tamponade) and unrelated events. Of 614 randomized patients, 553 received study drug and underwent catheter ablation (edoxaban n = 375; VKA n = 178). The median (Q1–Q3) time from last dose to ablation procedure was 14.8 (13.3–16.5) vs. 16.5 (14.8–19.5) h (edoxaban vs. VKA group, respectively). Mean ACT (SD) ≥300 s was observed in 52% edoxaban- vs. 76% VKA-treated patients, despite a higher mean (SD) UFH dose in the edoxaban vs. VKA group [14 261 (6397) IU vs. 11 473 (4300) IU; exploratory P-value < 0.0001]. In the edoxaban group, 13 patients (3.5%) had procedure-related bleeds of whom 9 had received an UFH dose above the median (13 000 IU). In the VKA arm, 7 patients (3.9%) had procedure-related bleeds of whom 3 had received an UFH dose above the median (10 225 IU).
Conclusion: The rate of procedure-related major/clinically relevant non-major bleeding did not differ between the treatment arms despite higher doses of UFH used with edoxaban vs. VKA to achieve a target ACT during AF ablation.
Background: The number of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) infections is increasing due to an increased number of ICD implants, higher-risk patients, and more frequent replacement procedures, which carry a higher risk of infection. Reducing the morbidity, mortality, and cost of ICD-related infections requires an understanding of the current rate of this complication and its predictors.
Methods: The Shock Implant Evaluation Trial (SIMPLE) trial randomized 2500 ICD recipients to defibrillation testing or not. Over an average of 3.1 years, patients were seen every 6 months and examined for evidence of ICD infection, which was defined as requiring device removal and/or intravenous antibiotics.
Results: Within 24 months, 21 patients (0.8%) developed infection. Fourteen patients (67%) with infection presented within 30 days, 20 patients by 12 months, and only 1 patient beyond 12 months. Univariate analysis demonstrated that patients with primary electrical disorders (3 patients, P = 0.009) and those with a secondary prevention indication (13 patients, P = 0.0009) were more likely to develop infection. Among the 2.2% of patients who developed an ICD wound hematoma, 10.4% developed an infection. Among the 8.3% of patients requiring an ICD reintervention, 1.9% developed an infection.
Conclusions: This cohort of ICD recipients at high-volume centres have a low risk of device-related infection. However; strategies to reduce wound hematoma and the need for ICD reintervention could further reduce the rate of infection.