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

Table 5 Procedure related characteristics according to pocket hematoma

Characteristics	PH positive group (n = 26)	PH negative group (n = 109)	P-value
INR at the day of implant^a	2.1 (2.0–2.5)	2.0 (1.9–2.5)	0.122
Generator exchange and/or pocket revision, n (%)	3 (11.5)	11 (10.1)	1.0
New implantation, n (%)	19 (73.1)	82 (75.2)	1.0
Upgrade and/or lead revision, n (%)	4 (15.4)	16 (14.7)	1.0
Pacemaker, n (%)	1 (3.8)	23 (21.1)	0.045
ICD, n (%)	25 (96.2)	86 (78.9)
Number of leads implanted
One, n (%)	2 (7.7)	24 (22.0)	0.165
Two, n (%)	8 (30.8)	42 (38.5)	0.610
Three, n (%)	13 (50.0)	32 (29.4)	0.076
Submuscular pocket, n (%)	1 (3.8)	4 (3.7)	1.0
Venous route other than subclavian
Axillary, n (%)	3 (11.5)	9 (8.3)	0.700
Cephalic, n (%)	2 (7.7)	5 (4.6)	0.620
Local tranexamic acid use	4 (15.4)	48 (44.0)	0.013

DAPT dual antiplatelet therapy, ICD implantable cardioverter defibrillator, INR international normalized ratio, PH Pocket hematoma. ^a The median INR level of patients with warfarin continuation strategy

ISSN: 1471-2261