Key result
Bridging UFH and 3-month OAC yields 0% postdischarge thromboembolic events after extensive infarct-related VT ablation.
Why the study?
Does a thromboembolic prophylaxis protocol with UFH bridging and 3 months of oral anticoagulation prevent thromboembolic events safely in patients undergoing infarct-related VT ablation?
Cohort (n=217)
Does a thromboembolic prophylaxis protocol with UFH bridging and 3 months of oral anticoagulation prevent thromboembolic events safely in patients undergoing infarct-related VT ablation?
Absolute Event Rate: 0% vs 0%
A protocol of slowly escalating UFH bridging followed by 3 months of oral anticoagulation is associated with low thromboembolic and bleeding risks after extensive infarct-related VT ablation.
Supports cautious adoption of this protocol after infarct-related VT ablation; leaves open need for randomized confirmation of safety.
INTRODUCTION: Ablation in the left ventricle (LV) is associated with a risk of thromboembolism. There are limited data on the use of specific thromboembolic prophylaxis strategies postablation. We aimed to evaluate a thromboembolic prophylaxis protocol after ventricular tachycardia (VT) ablation. METHODS AND RESULTS: The index procedures of 217 patients undergoing ablation for infarct-related VT with open irrigated-tip catheters were included. Patients with large LV endocardial ablation area (>3 cm between ablation lesions) were started on low-dose, slowly escalating unfractionated heparin (UFH) infusion 8 hours after access hemostasis, followed by 3 months of anticoagulation. Patients with less extensive ablation were treated only with antiplatelet agents postablation. Postablation bridging anticoagulation was used in 181 (83%) patients. Of them, 11 (6%) patients experienced bleeding events (1 required endovascular intervention) and 1 (0.6%) experienced lower extremity arterial embolism requiring vascular surgery. Systemic anticoagulation was prescribed in 190 (89%) of 214 patients discharged from the hospital (warfarin in 98%), while the rest received single- or dual-antiplatelet therapy alone. Patients treated with an anticoagulant had significantly longer radiofrequency time compared to patients treated with antiplatelet agents only. One (0.5%) of the patients treated with oral anticoagulation experienced major bleeding 2 weeks postablation. No thromboembolic events were documented in either the anticoagulation or the "antiplatelet only" group postdischarge. CONCLUSION: A slowly escalating bridging regimen of UFH, followed by 3 months of oral anticoagulation, is associated with low thromboembolic and bleeding risks after infarct-related VT ablation. In the absence of extensive ablation, antiplatelet therapy alone is reasonable.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Siontis et al. (2018) conducted a cohort in Infarct-related ventricular tachycardia (n=217). Thromboembolic prophylaxis protocol (UFH bridging and oral anticoagulation) vs. Antiplatelet agents only was evaluated on Thromboembolic events postdischarge. A thromboembolic prophylaxis protocol using bridging UFH and 3 months of oral anticoagulation after extensive infarct-related VT ablation resulted in 0% thromboembolic events postdischarge.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: