Bleeding complications during cardiac electronic device implantation in patients receiving antithrombotic therapy: is there any value of local tranexamic acid?

Table 2 Procedure related characteristics between the tranexamic acid and control groups

Characteristic	All patients (n = 135)	Tranexamic acid (n = 52)	Control (n = 83)	P-value
INR at the day of implant^a	2.1 (1.9–2.5)	2.1(1.9–2.5)	2.1(1.9–2.5)	0.932
Generator exchange and/or pocket revision, n (%)	14 (10.4)	5 (9.6)	9 (10.8)	0.968
New implantation, n (%)	101 (74.8)	39 (75.0)	62 (74.7)	1.0
Upgrade and/or lead revision, n (%)	20 (14.8)	8 (15.4)	12 (14.5)	1.0
Pacemaker, n (%)	24 (17.8)	9 (17.3)	15 (18.1)	1.0
ICD, n (%)	111 (83)	43 (82.7)	68 (81.9)
Number of leads implanted
One, n (%)	26 (19.3)	12 (23.1)	14 (16.9)	0.505
Two, n (%)	50 (37.0)	18 (34.6)	32 (38.6)	0.645
Three, n (%)	45 (33.3)	17 (32.7)	28 (33.7)	0.900
Submuscular pocket, n (%)	5 (3.7)	2 (3.8)	3 (3.6)	1.0
Venous route other than subclavian
Axillary, n (%)	12 (8.9)	4 (7.7)	8 (9.6)	0.767
Cephalic, n (%)	7 (5.2)	3 (5.8)	4 (4.8)	1.0

DAPT dual antiplatelet therapy, ICD implantable cardioverter defibrillator, INR international normalized ratio
^aThe median INR level of patients with warfarin continuation strategy

ISSN: 1471-2261