ArticleJournal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing2020
Peri-procedural use of direct anticoagulation agents during cardiac device implantation: vitamin K antagonists vs direct oral anticoagulants.
Article in Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- ICM Implantation and Remote Follow-Up Management by Trained Nurses in Italian Hospitals: Current Practice and Nurse Feedback.Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 2025Article
- Complete atrial screw lead penetration and contralateral pneumothorax post-pacemaker implantation.Journal of cardiology cases · 2025Article
- Anticoagulant therapy during cardiovascular implantable electronic device procedures.Postepy w kardiologii interwencyjnej = Advances in interventional cardiology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWarfarin is deemed safe compared to bridging with heparin in the peri-procedure setting while implanting cardiac devices. The timing of discontinuation and re-initiation of direct anticoagulant agents (DOACs) such as dabigatran, apixaban, and rivaroxaban in the peri-procedural setting in comparison to warfarin is not well studied.
objectiveWe wanted to compare three DOAC agents with warfarin during cardiac device implantation.
methodsConsecutive patients on treatment with dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or apixaban (group A) undergoing a cardiac device generator change, upgrade, or new implantation procedure were compared to those on warfarin (group B). Incidence of hematoma, infection, effusion, stroke, and other complications were noted at 1 day, 1 week, and 3 months.
resultsA total of 311 patients in group A underwent the above procedures with 73 patients on dabigatran, 153 on rivaroxaban, and 85 on apixaban. There were 467 patients on warfarin in group B. Mean age of the total population was 68 ± 12 years with 67% males and > 80% Caucasians. The last dose of the DOAC was the night prior to the procedure and resumed the night of the procedure (single dose interruption for apixaban and dabigatran and no un-interruption for rivaroxaban). There was no difference noted in the incidence of minor or major hematoma (9% vs 8.5%, p = 0.7). No stroke occurred in either group.
conclusionUse of DOAC agents with transient interruption of one dose is as safe as warfarin in the peri-procedural setting during implantation of cardiac devices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.