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.

Characteristics and Outcomes of COVID-19 Patients Supported by Venoarterial or Veno-Arterial-Venous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation.

OBJECTIVES: Cardiac injury has been reported in up to 20%-to-30% of patients with COVID-19, and severe disease can lead to cardiopulmonary failure. The role of mechanical circulatory support in these patients remains undetermined. The authors here aimed to determine the characteristics and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 requiring venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO) or veno-arterial-venous (VAV) ECMO support. DESIGN AND SETTING: A multicenter, retrospective case series. PARTICIPANTS: The cohort consisted of adult patients (18 years of age and older) with confirmed COVID-19 requiring VA ECMO or VAV ECMO support in the period from March 1, 2020, to April 30, 2021. Outcomes were recorded until July 31, 2021. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: To show factors related to death during hospitalization, patients were grouped as survivors and nonsurvivors. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate 90-day in-hospital mortality. Overall, 37 patients from 12 centers comprised the study cohort. The median patient age was 44 years old (interquartile range [IQR], 35-52), and 12 (32%) were female patients. The duration of ECMO support ranged from 2-to-132 days. At the end of the follow-up period, 13 patients (35%) were discharged or transferred alive, and 24 patients (65%) died during the hospitalization. The cumulative in-hospital mortality at 90 days was 64% (95% confidence interval: 47-81). During the time from intubation to VA ECMO or VAV ECMO initiation (1 day [IQR 0-7.5] v 6 days [IQR 2.5-14], p = 0.0383), body mass index (32 [IQR 26-36] v 37 [IQR 33-40], p = 0.009), and baseline C-reactive protein (7.15 v 38.9 mg/dL, p = 0.009) were higher in those who expired. CONCLUSION: Only one-third of the patients with COVID-19 requiring VA ECMO or VAV ECMO survived to discharge. Close monitoring of at-risk patients with early initiation of ECMO with circulatory support may further improve outcomes.

Rhabdomyolysis in COVID-19 Patients: A Retrospective Observational Study.

Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. Knowledge about the pathophysiology of the disease and its effect on multiple systems is growing. Kidney injury has been a topic of focus, and rhabdomyolysis is suspected to be one of the contributing mechanisms. However, information on rhabdomyolysis in patients affected by COVID-19 is limited. We aim to describe the incidence, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who developed rhabdomyolysis. Materials and methods A retrospective observational cohort consisted of patients who were admitted and had an outcome between March 16 to May 27, 2020, inclusive of those dates at a single center in the Bronx, New York City. All consecutive inpatients with lab-confirmed COVID-19 were identified. Patients with peak total creatine kinase (CK) over 1,000 U/L were reviewed; 140 patients were included in the study. The main outcomes during hospitalization were new-onset renal replacement therapy and in-hospital mortality. Results The median age was 68 years (range: 21-93); 64% were males. The most common comorbidities were hypertension (73%), diabetes mellitus (47%), and chronic kidney disease (24%). Median CK on admission was 1,323 U/L (interquartile range [IQR]: 775 - 2,848). Median CK on discharge among survivors was 852 (IQR: 170 - 1,788). Median creatinine on admission was 1.78 mg/dL (IQR: 1.23 - 3.06). During hospitalization, 49 patients (35%) received invasive mechanical ventilation, 24 patients (17.1%) were treated with renal replacement therapy (RRT), and 66 (47.1%) died. Conclusions Rhabdomyolysis was a common finding among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in our hospital in the Bronx. The incidence of new-onset renal replacement therapy and in-hospital mortality is higher in patients who develop rhabdomyolysis. McMahon score, rather than isolated creatine kinase levels, was a statistically significant predictor of new-onset RRT. Clinicians should maintain a high level of suspicion for rhabdomyolysis in COVID-19 patients throughout their admission and use validated scores like McMahon score to devise their treatment plan accordingly.