RESUMO
AIMS: Implantation of an implantable cardiac monitor (ICM) is a simple procedure, but adds significant and increasing workload to the arrhythmia service. In 2020, we established a nurse-led ICM implantation service. We aimed to analyze patient satisfaction, adverse events during implant and ICM re-interventions with nurse-led ICM implantation (N-Implant) compared to physician-led ICM implantation (P-Implant). METHOD AND RESULTS: From January 2020 to December 2021 we included all consecutive patients implanted with an ICM in a prospective registry. We collected data on patient characteristics, implant procedure and follow-up. Patients were interviewed by phone four weeks after ICM implantation.Of 321 patients implanted with an ICM (median age 67 years; 33% women), 189 (59%) were N-Implants. More N-Implants were performed in the outpatient clinic compared to P-Implants (95% vs. 8%; p<0.001). Two N-Implant patients experienced vaso-vagal reaction during implantation (1%), whereas no adverse events occurred during P-Implant (p=0.51). 297 patients (93%) completed the questionnaire. Duration of pain was shorter and wound closure after 2 weeks better following N-Implant (p=0.019 and p=0.018). A minor bruise or swelling at the implant site was reported more frequently after N-Implant (p=0.003 and p=0.041). Patient satisfaction was excellent with both N-Implant and P-Implant (99% and 97%; p=0.16). After a median follow-up of 242 days (range 7-725 days), five ICMs (2%) were explanted prematurely, without differences among groups. Reasons for premature explants were local discomfort (n=2), infection, MRI and ICM malfunction. CONCLUSION: Nurse-led ICM implantation has excellent patient satisfaction without compromising safety. N-Implant both expands nursing competencies and reduces physician workload.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Operator-directed nurse-administered (ODNA) sedation with propofol (PRO) is the preferred sedation technique for catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) in many centers. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate whether dexmedetomidine (DEX), an α2-adrenergic receptor agonist, is superior to propofol. METHODS: We randomized 160 consecutive patients undergoing first AF ablation to ODNA sedation by DEX (DEX group) vs PRO (PRO group), according to a standardized protocol. Patients were unaware of treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was a composite of inefficient sedation, termination/change of sedation protocol or procedure abortion, hypercapnia (transcutaneous CO2 >55 mm Hg), hypoxemia (SpO2 <90%) or intubation, prolonged hypotension (systolic blood pressure <80 mm Hg), and sustained bradycardia necessitating cardiac pacing. Secondary endpoints were the components of the primary endpoint and patient satisfaction with procedural sedation, as assessed by a standardized questionnaire given the day after ablation. RESULTS: The primary endpoint occurred in 15 DEX group and 25 PRO group patients (19% vs 31%; P = .068). Hypercapnia was significantly more frequent in PRO group patients (29% vs 10%; P = .003). There was no significant difference for the other components of the primary endpoint, and no procedure was aborted. Patient satisfaction was significantly better among PRO group patients (visual analogue scale 0-100; median 100 in PRO group vs median 93 in DEX group; P <.001). CONCLUSION: Efficacy of ODNA sedation with DEX was not different from that with PRO. Hypercapnia occurs less frequently with DEX, but patient satisfaction is better with PRO sedation. In selected patients, DEX may be used as an alternative to PRO for ODNA sedation during AF ablation.