Guía basada en la evidencia para el manejo anticoagulante de pacientes sometidos a procedimientos en Electrofisiología / Evidence-based guideline for anticoagulant management of Electrophysiology procedures

Resumen El manejo perioperatorio de pacientes que requieren procedimientos en electrofisiología es desafiante, pues muchos de ellos tienen alto riesgo embólico de base y, a menudo, están en terapia anticoagulante oral. La decisión de continuar, interrumpir la anticoagulación oral o indicar terapia puente es controversial. Este artículo se propone generar recomendaciones basadas en la evidencia sobre el manejo perioperatorio de la anticoagulación de pacientes, quienes, por su riesgo embólico, requieren anticoagulación oral y serán llevados a implante de dispositivos de estimulación cardíaca o ablación de arritmias. Se ha efectuado una revisión sistemática siguiendo los criterios del protocolo PRISMA. La búsqueda se realizó en la base de datos MEDLINE-PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Google Scholar, NICE, Epistemonikos y LILACS. Esta revisión sistemática incluyó guías de práctica clínica, revisiones sistemáticas de literatura y metáanalisis. Se actualizó la evidencia desde el 1.o de enero del 2014 hasta el 28 de febrero del 2022. Se tomaron como cuerpo de evidencia 3 guías de práctica clínica y 4 revisiones sistemáticas de literatura las cuales se calificaron con los instrumentos AGREE II y AMSTAR II, respectivamente. Se generan recomendaciones basadas en la evidencia usando la metodología GRADE, en las que se destaca que la anticoagulación oral con antagonistas de la vitamina K debe indicarse de forma ininterrumpida tanto para ablación de FA, como para implante de dispositivos y ablación de arritmias; no obstante, no hay mayor evidencia de la anticoagulación oral directa en el implante de dispositivos.

Abstract Perioperative management of patients undergoing electrophysiology procedures is challenging, as many of these patients have a high background embolic risk and are often on oral anticoagulant therapy. The decision to continue, discontinue oral anticoagulation, or indicate bridging therapy is controversial. This article aims to generate evidence-based recommendations on the perioperative management of anticoagulation in patients who, due to their embolic risk, require oral anticoagulation with and will undergo cardiac pacing device implantation or arrhythmia ablation. A systematic review has been carried out following the criteria of the PRISMA protocol. The search was performed in the MEDLINE-PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Google Scholar, NICE, Epistemonikos and LILACS databases. This systematic review included clinical practice guidelines, systematic reviews of the literature, and meta-analyses. The evidence was updated from January 1, 2014 to February 28, 2022. 3 CPG and 4 RSL were taken as a body of evidence, which were qualified with the AGREE II and AMSTAR II instruments, respectively. Evidence-based recommendations, using the GRADE methodology, are generated which highlight that oral anticoagulation with vitamin K antagonists should be ordered continuously for both atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation and device implantation, and continuously for DOAC in arrhythmia ablation; however, there is not much evidence on direct oral anticoagulation in device implantation.

Clinical characteristics of patients with indication of cardiac implantable electronic devices implantation complicating with acute pulmonary thromboembolism / 中华心血管病杂志

Objective: To investigate the clinical characteristics of inpatients with the indication of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) therapy and combined acute pulmonary thromboembolism (APTE). Methods: We retrospectively screened 8 641 inpatients who admitted with the indication of CIED implantation in Fuwai Hospital from January 2014 to May 2019. The clinical characteristics, management strategies and clinical outcome were analyzed for patients diagnosed as APTE. Results: APTE were identified in 45 (5‰) patients in this cohort, there were 18(40%) male patients, the average age was (73±8) years old and body mass index was (27±10) kg/m2.Thirty-two (70%) patients were at intermediate-risk and 13 (30%) at low-risk. Anti-coagulation therapy was initiated in 38(84%) patients, and 30 patients underwent CIED implantation (27 pacemaker, 2 CRT and 1 ICD). No postoperative bleeding or pocket hematoma were detected in the 23 patients taking anticoagulation medication before implantation. During an average of (30±7) months' follow up, thrombus was dissolved in 20 patients, hemorrhage complications were observed in 2 patients (1 cerebral hemorrhage and 1 hematuria), anticoagulation therapy was discontinued in these 2 patients. Among 15 patients without immediate CIED implantation and treated with anticoagulation therapy during hospitalization, 2 patients developed complete paroxysmal Ⅲ° atrioventricular block, and recovered after therapy during hospitalization. Seven patients were re-hospitalized for CIED implantation due to bradycardia. Five patients died during follow-up (3 sudden cardiac death, 1 APTE combined with cerebral infarction, and 1 pulmonary infection). Conclusion: APTE is not rare in patients with the indication of CIED implantation, CIED implantation and anti-coagulation therapy are safe for these patients, and transient atrioventricular block could be detected in APTE patients.

A pilot study comparing two sites for incision during pacemaker implantation and their influence on the scar

Objective There are two most common incisions that are used during most pacemaker implantation procedures, with the first type of incision being inferior and parallel to the clavicle (Group C) and the second type of incision along the deltopectoral groove (Group D). We evaluated the scars resulting from the two types of incision to objectively evaluate the degree of superiority in cosmetic outcomes, between these two types of incisions. Methods Seventy-six patients who underwent left pre-pectoral pacemaker insertion were evaluated, close to 6 months after the date of the pacemaker implantation, using a simple scoring system based on atrophy, contour and colour of the scar. The likelihood of reduced severity in scar scores were compared between the two groups and the number of patients with elevation or inversion of the scar and with keloid formation were quantified. Results Seventy-six patients, with 47 belonging to the ‘Group C’ and 29 belonging to the ‘Group D’ were evaluated. The average length (C: 25 ± 2 mm; D: 24 ± 3 mm) and thickness (C: 25 ± 3 mm; D: 26 ± 2 mm) of the scars were not significantly different. The mean cumulative total scores in ‘Group C’ (1.98 ± 1.50) and ‘Group D’ (1.93 ± 1.31) were comparable. The odds ratio (OR) estimate showed that outcomes for atrophy (OR:0.73), contour (OR:0.53) and the cumulative total scores (OR:0.72) were also comparable. Conclusion This pilot study showed that the deltopectoral groove incision as a site of incision is comparable to the infraclavicular incision.

Overview of implantable cardioverter defibrillator and cardiac resynchronisation therapy in heart failure management

Clinical trials have established the benefits of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) and cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) in the treatment of heart failure patients. As adjuncts to guideline-directed medical therapy, ICDs confer mortality benefits from sudden cardiac arrest, while CRT reduces mortality, hospitalisation rates and improves functional capacity. This review discusses the use of ICDs and CRT devices in heart failure management, outlining the evidence supporting their use, indications and contraindications.

Remote monitoring of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices: a Southeast Asian, single-centre pilot study

<p><b>INTRODUCTION</b>Remote monitoring of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) has been shown to improve patient safety and reduce in-office visits. We report our experience with remote monitoring via the Medtronic CareLink(®) network.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>Patients were followed up for six months with scheduled monthly remote monitoring transmissions in addition to routine in-office checks. The efficacy of remote monitoring was evaluated by recording compliance to transmissions, number of device alerts requiring intervention and time from transmission to review. Questionnaires were administered to evaluate the experiences of patients, physicians and medical technicians.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>A total of 57 patients were enrolled; 16 (28.1%) had permanent pacemakers, 34 (59.6%) had implantable cardioverter defibrillators and 7 (12.3%) had cardiac resynchronisation therapy defibrillators. Overall, of 334 remote transmissions scheduled, 73.7% were on time, 14.5% were overdue and 11.8% were missed. 84.6% of wireless transmissions were on time, compared to 53.8% of non-wireless transmissions. Among all transmissions, 4.4% contained alerts for which physicians were informed and only 1.8% required intervention. 98.6% of remote transmissions were reviewed by the second working day. 73.2% of patients preferred remote monitoring. Physicians agreed that remote transmissions provided information equivalent to in-office checks 97.1% of the time. 77.8% of medical technicians felt that remote monitoring would help the hospital improve patient management. No adverse events were reported.</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>Remote monitoring of CIED is safe and feasible. It has possible benefits to patient safety through earlier detection of arrhythmias or device malfunction, permitting earlier intervention. Wireless remote monitoring, in particular, may improve compliance to device monitoring. Patients may prefer remote monitoring due to possible improvements in quality of life.</p>