Skip to main content

Advertisement

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

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

Characteristic All patients (n = 135) Tranexamic acid (n = 52) Control (n = 83) P-value
INR at the day of implanta 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
  1. DAPT dual antiplatelet therapy, ICD implantable cardioverter defibrillator, INR international normalized ratio
  2. aThe median INR level of patients with warfarin continuation strategy