Background Given the increasing number of patients who require dual antiplatelet （DAP） therapy and electrophysiological device （EPD） placement, perioperative antiplatelet management is a current challenge. In this...Background Given the increasing number of patients who require dual antiplatelet （DAP） therapy and electrophysiological device （EPD） placement, perioperative antiplatelet management is a current challenge. In this study, we investigated the incidence of pocket hema-toma formation after EPD placement in patients undergoing DAP therapy or an alternative low-molecular-weight heparin （LMWH） regimen. Methods This clinical observational study was performed from July 2010 to July 2012. In total, 171 patients were enrolled in the analysis after meeting the inclusion criteria. These patients were divided into two groups： 86 patients were treated with DAP therapy at the time of device implantation, and the DAP therapy was discontinued for 5 to 7 days and replaced with enoxaparin before device implantation in the other 85 patients. Adenosine phosphate （ADP）-mediated platelet aggregation and arachidonic acid-induced platelet aggregation were tested preoperatively. We compared the incidence of pocket hematoma between the two groups and the association of pocket hematoma develop-ment with ADP-mediated platelet aggregation and arachidonic acid-induced platelet aggregation.Results The incidence of pocket hema-toma in the patients who continued DAP was lower than that in the patients who replaced the dual antiplatelet regimen with LMWH （3.49%vs. 16.47%, respectively;X2 = 6.66,P 〈 0.01）. Among the patients who continued DAP therapies, the rate of ADP-mediated platelet aggre-gation inhibition in patients with pocket hematomas was higher than that in patients without pocket hematomas. None of the patients under-going DAP or enoxaparin therapy developed pocket infection, thromboembolic events, or other serious complications. Multiple logistic re-gression analysis revealed that LMWH therapy was an independent risk factor for the development of pocket hematoma （RR = 0.054, 95%CI = 0.012-0.251）. Furthermore, patients undergoing LMWH therapy were 5.1-fold more likely to develop pocket hematomas than were DAP-treated individuals.Conclusion Continuance of DAP therapy does not increase the risk of pocket hematoma formation after EPD placement.展开更多
文摘Background Given the increasing number of patients who require dual antiplatelet （DAP） therapy and electrophysiological device （EPD） placement, perioperative antiplatelet management is a current challenge. In this study, we investigated the incidence of pocket hema-toma formation after EPD placement in patients undergoing DAP therapy or an alternative low-molecular-weight heparin （LMWH） regimen. Methods This clinical observational study was performed from July 2010 to July 2012. In total, 171 patients were enrolled in the analysis after meeting the inclusion criteria. These patients were divided into two groups： 86 patients were treated with DAP therapy at the time of device implantation, and the DAP therapy was discontinued for 5 to 7 days and replaced with enoxaparin before device implantation in the other 85 patients. Adenosine phosphate （ADP）-mediated platelet aggregation and arachidonic acid-induced platelet aggregation were tested preoperatively. We compared the incidence of pocket hematoma between the two groups and the association of pocket hematoma develop-ment with ADP-mediated platelet aggregation and arachidonic acid-induced platelet aggregation.Results The incidence of pocket hema-toma in the patients who continued DAP was lower than that in the patients who replaced the dual antiplatelet regimen with LMWH （3.49%vs. 16.47%, respectively;X2 = 6.66,P 〈 0.01）. Among the patients who continued DAP therapies, the rate of ADP-mediated platelet aggre-gation inhibition in patients with pocket hematomas was higher than that in patients without pocket hematomas. None of the patients under-going DAP or enoxaparin therapy developed pocket infection, thromboembolic events, or other serious complications. Multiple logistic re-gression analysis revealed that LMWH therapy was an independent risk factor for the development of pocket hematoma （RR = 0.054, 95%CI = 0.012-0.251）. Furthermore, patients undergoing LMWH therapy were 5.1-fold more likely to develop pocket hematomas than were DAP-treated individuals.Conclusion Continuance of DAP therapy does not increase the risk of pocket hematoma formation after EPD placement.
