Tumescent local anesthesia versus general anesthesia for subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: General anesthesia (GA) is the standard anesthetic approach for subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) implantation. Nonetheless, GA is expensive and can be associated with adverse events. Tumescent local anesthesia (TLA) has been shown to reduce in-room and procedural times and to decrease post-procedural pain, all of which could result in a reduction in procedure-related costs. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to compare the cost-effectiveness of GA and TLA in patients undergoing S-ICD implantation. METHODS: The present study is a prospective, nonrandomized, controlled study of patients who underwent S-ICD implantation between 2019 and 2022. Patients were allocated to either the TLA or the GA group. We performed a cost analysis for each intervention. As an effectiveness measure, the 0-10 point Numeric Pain Rating Scale at 1, 12, and 24 hours post-implantation was analyzed and compared between the groups. A score of 0 was considered no pain; 1-5, mild pain; 6-7, moderate pain; and 8-10, severe pain. Cost-effectiveness was calculated using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. RESULTS: Seventy patients underwent successful S-ICD implantation. The total cost of the electrophysiology laboratory was higher in the GA group than in the TLA group (median ± interquartile range US$55,824 ± US$29,411 vs US$37,222 ± US$24,293; P < .001), with a net saving of $20,821 when compared with GA for each S-ICD implantation. There was a significant decrease in post-procedural pain scores in the TLA group when compared with the GA group (repeated measures analysis of variance, P = .009; median ± interquartile range 0 ± 3 vs 0 ± 5 at 1 hour, P = .058; 3 ± 4 vs 6 ± 8 at 12 hours, P = .030; 0 ± 4 vs 2 ± 6 at 24 hours, P = .040). CONCLUSION: TLA is a more cost-effective alternative to GA for S-ICD implantation, with both direct and indirect cost reductions. Importantly, these reduced costs are associated with reduced postprocedural pain.

Tumescent local anesthesia versus general anesthesia for subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation.

BACKGROUND: Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) is an effective alternative to transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. General anesthesia (GA) is considered the standard sedation approach because of the pain caused by the manipulation of subcutaneous tissue with S-ICD implantation. However, GA carries several limitations, including additional risk of adverse events, prolonged in-room times, and increased costs. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to define the effectiveness and safety of tumescent local anesthesia (TLA) in comparison to GA in patients undergoing S-ICD implantation. METHODS: We performed a prospective, nonrandomized, controlled, multicenter study of patients referred for S-ICD implantation between 2019 and 2020. Patients were allocated to either TLA or GA on the basis of patient's preferences and/or anesthesia service availability. TLA was prepared using lidocaine, epinephrine, sodium bicarbonate, and sodium chloride. All patients provided written informed consent, and the institutional review board at each site provided approval for the study. RESULTS: Sixty patients underwent successful S-ICD implantation from July 2019 to November 2020. Thirty patients (50%) received TLA, and the rest GA. There were no differences between groups with regard to baseline characteristics. In-room and procedural times were significantly shorter with TLA (107.6 minutes vs 186 minutes; P < .0001 and 53.2 minutes vs 153.7 minutes; P < .0001, respectively). Pain was reported less frequently by patients who received TLA. The use of opioids was significantly reduced in patients who received TLA (23% vs 62%; P = .002). CONCLUSION: TLA is an effective and safe alternative to GA in S-ICD implantation. The use of TLA is associated with shorter in-room and procedural times, less postprocedural pain, and reduced usage of opioids and acetaminophen for analgesia.