CSH is associated with a significantly increased risk of infection requiring hospitalization within 1 year following cardiac implantable electronic device surgery. Strategies aimed at reducing hematomas may decrease the long-term risk of infection. (Bridge or Continue Coumadin for Device Surgery Randomized Controlled Trial [BRUISE CONTROL]; NCT00800137).

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Background: Oral anticoagulant use is common among patients undergoing pacemaker or defibrillator surgery. BRUISE CONTROL (Bridge or Continue Coumadin for Device Surgery Randomized Controlled Trial; NCT00800137) demonstrated that perioperative warfarin continuation reduced clinically significant hematomas (CSH) by 80% compared with heparin bridging (3.5% versus 16%). BRUISE-CONTROL-2 (NCT01675076) observed a similarly low risk of CSH when comparing continued versus interrupted direct oral anticoagulant (2.1% in both groups). Using patient level data from both trials, the current study aims to: (1) evaluate the effect of concomitant antiplatelet therapy on CSH, and (2) understand the relative risk of CSH in patients treated with direct oral anticoagulant versus continued warfarin. Methods: We analyzed 1343 patients included in BRUISE-CONTROL-1 and BRUISE-CONTROL-2. The primary outcome for both trials was CSH. There were 408 patients identified as having continued either a single or dual antiplatelet agent at the time of device surgery. Results: Antiplatelet use (versus nonuse) was associated with CSH in 9.8% versus 4.3% of patients ( P <0.001), and remained a strong independent predictor after multivariable adjustment (odds ratio, 1.965; 95% CI, 1.202–3.213; P =0.0071). In multivariable analysis, adjusting for antiplatelet use, there was no significant difference in CSH observed between direct oral anticoagulant use compared with continued warfarin (odds ratio, 0.858; 95% CI, 0.375–1.963; P =0.717). Conclusions: Concomitant antiplatelet therapy doubled the risk of CSH during device surgery. No difference in CSH was found between direct oral anticoagulant versus continued warfarin. In anticoagulated patients undergoing elective or semi-urgent device surgery, the patient specific benefit/risk of holding an antiplatelet should be carefully considered. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifiers: NCT00800137, NCT01675076.

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of single dose intravenous adenosine in differentiating atrioventricular nodal re-entrant tachycardia (AVNRT) from concealed pathway mediated atrioventricular re-entrant tachycardia (AVRT) using surface ECG at the bedside. Method: 12 mg of adenosine was administered to 97 consecutive patients who had documented narrow QRS tachycardia without manifest pre-excitation. The test was labelled positive for AVNRT if surface ECG recordings showed signs of dual atrioventricular (AV) node physiology-namely, PR jump or AV nodal echo. The diagnostic value of this test was evaluated by electrophysiological study as the yardstick.Results: The adenosine test was positive for AVNRT in 48 patients (adenosine induced PR jump in 48, AV nodal echo in 3) and negative in 49 patients. On electrophysiological study, 62 patients had AVNRT and 35 had concealed pathway mediated AVRT. Thus, the test had a sensitivity of 74% and specificity of 94%. The positive predictive value was 96% and the negative predictive value was 67%. Conclusion: Single dose (12 mg) intravenous adenosine administered during sinus rhythm can identify dual AV node physiology on surface ECG recording at the bedside. A positive adenosine test identified by a PR jump can differentiate AVNRT from AVRT with a high specificity and positive predictive accuracy.

Background— The Riata lead under advisory has posed a unique clinical scenario where inside-out abrasion results in externalization of conductor cables, with a higher risk of electrical failure. We developed a comprehensive registry to assist with clinical management of this lead. Methods and Results— This Canadian registry reports the findings of 3763 (74.2% of all Riata leads in Canada) Riata leads under advisory, with a mean follow-up time of 8.9±1.5 years. The overall electrical failure rate was 5.2% at 8 years, with no difference between 7-French and 8-French lead models. Cable externalization was found to be more common in the 8-French model (12.3% versus 5.2%, P <0.0001) and was associated with a higher risk of electrical failure. Predictors of electrical lead failure included cable externalization, higher left ventricular ejection fraction, younger age, higher body mass index, and a passive fixation lead. One patient died due to electrical failure, a further 2 patients survived an event where the device failed to deliver high-voltage therapy. Major complications because of lead extraction were higher when compared with lead abandonment, no difference among lead model observed. Two deaths occurred as a consequence of lead extraction, in the context of an underlying infection. Conclusions— The Riata lead under advisory has a steady electrical failure rate over time. There are identifiable predictors of lead failure that can assist with clinical decisions as to whether lead revision should be performed prophylactically.

No abstract