Cardiologist-Directed Sedation Management in Patients Undergoing Transvenous Lead Extraction: A Single-Centre Retrospective Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The demand for transvenous lead extraction (TLE) has increased. In line with this, the safety of such procedures has also increased. Traditionally, TLE is performed under resource-intensive general anaesthesia. This study aims to evaluate the safety and outcomes of Cardiologist-lead deep sedation for TLE. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed 328 TLE procedures performed under deep sedation from 2016 to 2019. TLE procedures were performed by experienced electrophysiologists. Sedation was administered by a specifically trained cardiologist (bolus midazolam/fentanyl and propofol infusion). Procedural sedation data including blood pressure, medication administration and sedation time were collected. Complications related to sedation and the operative component of the procedure were analysed retrospectively. RESULTS: The sedation-associated complication rate during TLE was 22.0%. The most common complication (75% of complications) was hypotension requiring noradrenaline, followed by bradycardia requiring atropine (13% of complications). Additionally, the unplanned presence of an anaesthesiologist was needed in one case (0.3%). Deep sedation was achieved with midazolam (mean dose 42.9 ± 26.5 µg/kg), fentanyl (mean dose 0.4 ± 0.6 µg/kg) and propofol (mean dose 3.5 ± 1.2 mg/kg/h). There was no difference in medication dosage between those with a sedation-associated complication and those without. Sedation-associated complications appeared significantly more in patients with reduced LVEF (p = 0.01), renal impairment (p = 0.01) and a higher American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) class (p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Deep sedation for TLE can be safely performed by a specifically trained cardiologist, with a transition to general anaesthesia required in only 0.3% of cases. We continue to recommend the on-call availability of an anaesthesiologist and cardiac surgeon in case of major complications.

A prospective case-control validation of procalcitonin as a biomarker diagnosing pacemaker and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator pocket infection.

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of device infections, especially pocket infections, is challenging and relies primarily on clinical presentation. The prospective DIRT (Device associated Infections Role of new diagnostic Tools) study identified procalcitonin (PCT) as the most promising biomarker among other 14 biomarkers to aid the diagnosis of pocket infection. It also identified an optimized cut-off value of 0.05 ng/ml for a localized generator pocket infection. AIMS: The present study aims to validate the proposed PCT cut-off value of 0.05 ng/ml for the diagnosis of pocket infection in an independent cohort. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled 81 patients with pocket infections and 81 controls matched for age and renal function presenting for elective device exchange or lead revision. Patients with concomitant infectious or inflammatory diseases, end-stage renal failure, current active malignancy, or receiving immunosuppressive therapy were excluded. RESULTS: An elevated PCT over 0.05 ng/ml was found in 68% (n = 55) of pocket infections and 24% (n = 19) of controls, corresponding to a sensitivity of 68% and a specificity of 77% for diagnosing a pocket infection. In receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, PCT showed an area under the curve of 0.75 (95% confidence interval, 0.68-0.83; P < 0.001). Sensitivity remained high with antibiotic pretreatment (65% compared to 69% without pretreatment) and in cases with minimal inflammatory signs (67% compared to 70% with extensive inflammation). CONCLUSION: Our study validates the cut-off value of 0.05 ng/ml PCT for diagnosis of a pocket infection, even in patients pre-treated with antibiotics or with minimal clinical signs of inflammation.

Isn't here just there without a "t" - to what extent can digital Clinical Case Discussions compensate for the absence of face-to-face teaching?

Objective: COVID-19 challenges curriculum managers worldwide to create digital substitutes for classroom teaching. Case-based teaching formats under expert supervision can be used as a substitute for practical bedside teaching, where the focus is on teaching clinical reasoning skills. Methods: For medical students of LMU and TU Munich, the interactive, case-based, and supervised teaching format of Clinical Case Discussion (CCD) was digitised and implemented as dCCD in their respective curricula. Case discussions were realised as videoconferences, led by a student moderator, and took place under the supervision of a board-certified clinician. To prevent passive participation, additional cognitive activations were implemented. Acceptance, usability, and subjective learning outcomes were assessed in dCCDs by means of a special evaluation concept. Results: With regard to acceptance, students were of the opinion that they had learned effectively by participating in dCCDs (M=4.31; SD=1.37). The majority of students also stated that they would recommend the course to others (M=4.23; SD=1.62). The technical implementation of the teaching format was judged positively overall, but findings for usability were heterogeneous. Students rated their clinical reasoning skills at the end of the dCCDs (M=4.43; SD=0.66) as being significantly higher than at the beginning (M=4.33; SD=0.69), with low effect size, t(181)=-2.352, p=.020, d=0.15. Conclusion: Our evaluation data shows that the dCCD format is well-accepted by students as a substitute for face-to-face teaching. In the next step, we plan to examine the extent to which participation in dCCDs leads to an increase in objectively measured clinical reasoning skills, analogous to a face-to-face CCD with on-site attendance.