Use of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Following Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Placement.

Ashur C, Qin L, Minges KE, Freeman JV, Al-Khatib SM, Bradley SM, Ho PM, Tzou WS, Varosy PD, Hess PL, Sandhu A. Use of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Following Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Placement. Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE. 2025 Aug 1; 48(8):859-869, DOI: 10.1111/pace.70016.

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Small studies have described the safety of uninterrupted direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) use in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients undergoing elective, cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) placement. Real-world practice patterns and associated outcomes remain poorly defined. OBJECTIVE: Describe DOAC usage trends following uncomplicated, outpatient CIED placement in AF patients and evaluate clinical outcomes based on DOAC status at discharge. METHODS: Using data from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry, AF patients with CHADS-VASc  =  2 undergoing uncomplicated, outpatient CIED placement from April 2016 to December 2019 were stratified by DOAC prescription at discharge. Short and longer-term temporal trends and post-discharge outcomes were assessed using Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) claims. RESULTS: Among 59,169 AF patients with elevated thromboembolic eligible for DOAC therapy who underwent elective, new CIED implant or generator replacement, 32,025 (54.1%) were discharged on a DOAC. Annual rates of DOAC use at discharge increased from 47.0% in 2016 to 62.5% in 2019 (p  <  0.0001). Overall, patients discharged on DOAC had higher adjusted rates of pocket hematoma (0.51% vs. 0.33%, p  =  0.0007) and lower rates of stroke (2.9% vs. 3.2%, p  =  0.05) at 30-days but no significant differences in device infection or need for revision at 30-days or 1-year. Those undergoing new CIED implant had higher rates of pocket hematoma at 30-days (0.53% vs. 0.36%, p  =  0.02) and need for device revision at 1-year (1.6% vs. 1.3%, p  =  0.04). CONCLUSION: In AF patients undergoing CIED implantation, about half were discharged on DOACs, with increasing rates of DOAC resumption immediately following post-CIED implantation over the study period. Those discharged on DOACs had modestly higher rates of pocket hematoma or need for device revision but similar risk of device infection.