Use of MPH hemostatic powder for electrophysiology device implantation reduces postoperative rates of pocket hematoma and infection. (3rd October 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Reynbakh, Olga; Akhrass, Philippe; Souvaliotis, Nektarios; Pamidimukala, Chaithanya K.; Nahar, Hasnun; Bastawrose, Joseph; Boktor, Pierre; Aziz, Joshua E.; Mehta, Davendra; Aziz, Emad F.
• Is Part Of: Current medical research and opinion. Volume 34:Number 10(2018)
• Page Start: 1861
• Page End: 1867
• Publication Date: 2018-10-03
• Subjects: Pocket hematoma -- cardiac implantable electronic device -- cardiac device infection -- hemostatic agent; Clinical medicine -- Periodicals; Therapeutics -- Periodicals; 615.5
• DOI: 10.1080/03007995.2018.1476847
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0300-7995

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Surgical site bleeding and infection are potential complications after electrophysiology (EP) device implantation procedures. To date, there is a wide variety of tools for management of intraoperative bleeding but it still remains unclear what methods are preferred. Objective: The aim of our study is to compare the rate of complications in patients who underwent cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation utilizing MPH hemostatic powder to the rate of complications in those patients who underwent standard procedure protocol without MPH hemostatic powder. Methods: In our study, a new plant-derived microporous polysaccharide hemostatic powder (Arista) was used. A total of 283 consecutive patients were retrospectively studied to assess the rate of complications in patients who underwent CIED implantation with MPH hemostatic powder ( n = 77, MPH hemostatic powder) and without ( n = 206, no MPH hemostatic powder). Patients were followed for 12 months. Results: The MPH hemostatic powder group of patients had a lower complication rate when compared to no MPH hemostatic powder, 0.3% vs. 1.7% ( p < .05), respectively. The rate of device implantation site MPH hematoma in the MPH hemostatic powder group was 0.4%, versus 0.9% in the other group. There were no postoperative infections in the MPH hemostatic powder group versus 3.2% infections in the other group. The main predictor of increased risk of post-procedural complication was the usage of anticoagulation with a hazard ration of 2.7. Conclusion: Using MPH hemostatic powder for post-procedural hemostasis was shown to result in a significant reduction in the rate of overall post-procedural complications (a composite endpoint of hematoma and infections), and a trend in reduction of the infections rates and device implantation site hematoma rates.