Key result
No clinical data is available in the provided text, which consists only of the journal's editorial board and masthead information.
Why the study?
Does oral anticoagulation continuation reduce bleeding complications and thromboembolic events compared to heparin bridging therapy in high-risk patients undergoing implantation of cardiac rhythm devices?
Does oral anticoagulation continuation reduce bleeding complications and thromboembolic events compared to heparin bridging therapy in high-risk patients undergoing implantation of cardiac rhythm devices?
Continuing oral anticoagulation during cardiac rhythm device implantation significantly reduces the risk of pocket hematoma compared to heparin bridging, without increasing thromboembolic events.
Continuing OAC reduces pocket haematoma and revision risk without excess thromboembolism; extends evidence favoring uninterrupted anticoagulation over bridging.
It was the objective of this study to systematically compare the effects of oral anticoagulation (OAC) with heparin bridging therapy among patients at high risk for thromboembolism undergoing implantation of cardiac rhythm devices. A systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Ovid and Elsevier, and the Cochrane Library databases was conducted. Six trials that met our inclusion criteria were identified and included in the present study. The endpoints of this meta-analysis included pocket haematoma, severe haematoma requiring drainage/revision, thromboembolic events, and length of hospital stay. Data were expressed as odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence interval (CIs). There was a statistically significant reduction of pocket haematoma (OR 0.29, 95% CI: 0.17 to 0.49, p<0.00001) and haematoma drainage/revision (OR 0.15, 95%CI: 0.04 to 0.54, p=0.004), respectively, in the OAC continuation group versus the heparin bridging group. We did not detect any statistically significant differences of thromboembolic events (OR 0.48, 95%CI: 0.07 to 3.54, p=0.48) in the two groups. There was a trend that patients in bridging group had longer hospital stays. In conclusion, OAC continuation had a better risk-beneficial ratio and shorter length of hospital stay, and was more convenient to implement compared with heparin bridging therapy among patients at high risk for thromboembolism undergoing implantation of cardiac rhythm devices.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Feng et al. (2012) studied this question. No clinical data is available in the provided text, which consists only of the journal's editorial board and masthead information.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: