A Training Program for Real-Time Ultrasound-Guided Catheterization of the Subclavian Vein.

PURPOSE: To develop and implement a comprehensive program to train providers to place subclavian central venous catheters (CVCs) using real-time ultrasound guidance. STUDY DESIGN: Simulation-based prospective study at an academic medical center. Of 228 anesthesia providers and intensivists eligible to participate, 106 participants voluntarily enrolled. The training program consisted of a didactic module, hands-on instruction and practice using a CVC simulator and a standardized patient. The success of the program was measured by pre and post knowledge tests and direct observation during the hands-on sessions. RESULTS: Of 106 participants who enrolled, 70 successfully completed the program. Out of 20 possible procedure steps, an average of 17.8 ± 2.9 were correctly performed in the simulated environment. The average time to needle insertion, defined by positive aspiration of stained saline, was 3.35 ± 3.02 min and the average time to wire insertion with ultrasound confirmation was 3.85 ± 3.12 min. CONCLUSIONS: Participants learned how to successfully perform ultrasound-guided catheterization of the subclavian vein. Since ultrasound-guided subclavian CVC placement is a useful clinical skill that many practitioners are unfamiliar with, increasing competence and comfort with this procedure is an important goal. Other centers could consider adopting an approach similar to ours to train their providers to perform this technique.

Electromagnetic Interference With an Underbody Dispersive Electrode in a Patient With an Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery: A Case Report.

During surgery, cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) function may be disrupted by electromagnetic interference (EMI) from monopolar electrosurgery and cause adverse sequelae. Monopolar electrosurgery requires a dispersive electrode. While a conventional electrode is affixed to the patient, use of "underbody" electrodes placed on the operating table is increasing. We present a case in which an underbody electrode was used, and EMI occurred even though the surgical site was inferior to the umbilicus. Since little is known about EMI risk with underbody electrodes, practitioners should be wary of their use in CIED patients undergoing surgery until more information is available.

A Comprehensive Update on Aspirin Management During Noncardiac Surgery.

Aspirin is considered critical lifelong therapy for patients with established cardiovascular (CV) disease (including coronary artery, cerebrovascular, and peripheral arterial diseases) and is consequently one of the most widely used medications worldwide. However, the indications for aspirin use continue to evolve and recent trials question its efficacy for primary prevention. Although one third of patients undergoing noncardiac surgery and at risk for a major adverse CV event receive aspirin perioperatively, uncertainty still exists about how aspirin should be optimally managed in this context, and significant practice variability remains. Recent trials suggest that the risks of continuing aspirin during the perioperative period outweigh the benefits in many cases, but data on patients with high CV risk remain limited. We performed a comprehensive PubMed and Medline literature search using the following keywords: aspirin, aspirin withdrawal, perioperative, coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular disease, peripheral artery disease, and CV disease; we manually reviewed all relevant citations for inclusion. Patients taking aspirin for the primary prevention of CV disease should likely discontinue it during the perioperative period, especially when there is a high risk of bleeding. Patients with established CV disease but without a coronary stent should likely continue aspirin during the perioperative period unless undergoing closed-space surgery. Patients with a history of coronary stenting also likely need aspirin continuation throughout the perioperative period for nonclosed space procedures. Perioperative clinicians need to balance the risks of ceasing aspirin before surgery against its continuation during the perioperative interval using a patient-specific strategy. The guidance on decision-making with regard to perioperative aspirin cessation or continuation using currently available clinical data from studies in high-risk patients along with nonclinical aspirin studies is conflicting and does not enable a simplified or unified answer. However, pertinent guidelines on CV disease management provide a basic framework for aspirin management, and large trial findings provide some insight into the safety of perioperative aspirin cessation in some contexts, although uncertainty on perioperative aspirin still exists. This review provides an evidence-based update on perioperative aspirin management in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery with a focus on recommendations for perioperative clinicians on continuing versus holding aspirin during this context.

Misinterpreting Paced Heart Rhythms: A Case Report.

We describe 2 cases in which failure to properly interpret paced heart rhythms in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) undergoing surgery resulted in adverse consequences including unnecessary invasive procedures, surgical delays, and patient dissatisfaction. Both cases occurred even though experienced clinicians were involved, and all perioperative recommendations were followed. Although it is sometimes argued that anesthesiologists are not directly responsible for CIED management, they are often held accountable when problems arise. These cases reinforce the need for anesthesiologists to not only adhere to all key practice recommendations but to also understand CIED functions and common pitfalls.

Epinephrine-induced electrical storm after aortic surgery.

Electrical storm (ES) is a potentially lethal syndrome defined as three or more sustained episodes of ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation within 24 h. There are multiple inciting factors for ES, one of which involves excess catecholamine (endogenous and exogenous) effects. Exogenous catecholamines used for hemodynamic support can paradoxically engender or exacerbate an underling arrhythmia leading to ES. We report on an 63-year-old man who presented for repair of an ascending aortic dissection. After cardiopulmonary bypass separation assisted with high-dose epinephrine, ES developed requiring over 40 defibrillatory shocks. The epinephrine infusion was held and within 5 min, the ES self-terminated. ES in the context of cardiovascular surgery with the use of epinephrine for hemodynamic support has not be previously reported. Clinicians need to be cognizant of the seemingly paradoxical effect of epinephrine to induce ES. Initial ES treatment involves acute stabilization (treating or removing exacerbating factors (i.e., excess catecholamines)).

Electromagnetic Interference with Protocolized Electrosurgery Dispersive Electrode Positioning in Patients with Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators.

WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW ABOUT THIS TOPIC: Electromagnetic interference from monopolar electrosurgery may disrupt implantable cardioverter defibrillators.Current management recommendations by the American Society of Anesthesiologists and Heart Rhythm Society are based on expert clinical opinion since there is a paucity of data regarding the risk of electromagnetic interference to implantable cardioverter defibrillators during surgery. WHAT THIS ARTICLE TELLS US THAT IS NEW: With protocolized electrosurgery dispersive electrode positioning in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators, the risk of clinically meaningful electromagnetic interference was 7% in above-the-umbilicus noncardiac surgery and 0% in below-the-umbilicus surgery. In cardiac surgery, clinically meaningful electromagnetic interference with use of an underbody dispersive electrode was 29%.Despite protocolized dispersive electrode positioning, the risk of electromagnetic interference in above-the-umbilicus surgery is high, supporting recommendations to suspend antitachycardia therapy when monopolar electrosurgery is used above the umbilicus.With protocolized dispersive electrode positioning, the risk of electromagnetic interference in below-the-umbilicus surgery is negligible, implying that suspending antitachycardia therapy might be unnecessary in these cases.With an underbody dispersive electrode, the risk of electromagnetic interference in cardiac surgery is high. BACKGROUND: The goal of this study was to determine the occurrence of intraoperative electromagnetic interference from monopolar electrosurgery in patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator undergoing surgery. A protocolized approach was used to position the dispersive electrode. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study including 144 patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators undergoing surgery between May 2012 and September 2016 at an academic medical center. The primary objectives were to determine the occurrences of electromagnetic interference and clinically meaningful electromagnetic interference (interference that would have resulted in delivery of inappropriate antitachycardia therapy had the antitachycardia therapy not been programmed off) in noncardiac surgeries above the umbilicus, noncardiac surgeries at or below the umbilicus, and cardiac surgeries with the use of an underbody dispersive electrode. RESULTS: The risks of electromagnetic interference and clinically meaningful electromagnetic interference were 14 of 70 (20%) and 5 of 70 (7%) in above-the-umbilicus surgery, 1 of 40 (2.5%) and 0 of 40 (0%) in below-the-umbilicus surgery, and 23 of 34 (68%) and 10 of 34 (29%) in cardiac surgery. Had conservative programming strategies intended to reduce the risk of inappropriate antitachycardia therapy been employed, the occurrence of clinically meaningful electromagnetic interference would have been 2 of 70 (2.9%) in above-the-umbilicus surgery and 3 of 34 (8.8%) in cardiac surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Despite protocolized dispersive electrode positioning, the risks of electromagnetic interference and clinically meaningful electromagnetic interference with surgery above the umbilicus were high, supporting published recommendations to suspend antitachycardia therapy whenever monopolar electrosurgery is used above the umbilicus. For surgery below the umbilicus, these risks were negligible, implying that suspending antitachycardia therapy is likely unnecessary in these patients. For cardiac surgery, the risks of electromagnetic interference and clinically meaningful electromagnetic interference with an underbody dispersive electrode were high. Conservative programming strategies would not have eliminated the risk of clinically meaningful electromagnetic interference in either noncardiac surgery above the umbilicus or cardiac surgery.

Near-complete aortic mechanical valve dehiscence due to endocarditis reinfection.

Prosthetic valve infective endocarditis (IE) is one of the most serious postimplantation complications. Prosthetic aortic valve IE constitutes 1%-6% of all prosthetic valve IE cases. We present a dramatic echocardiographic case of prosthetic aortic valve IE leading to near-complete valve dehiscence. Echocardiographic evidence of prosthetic aortic valve rocking motion is indicative of significant dehiscence. Aside from IE, other causes and risk factors for prosthetic aortic valve dehiscence include inflammatory and autoimmune vasculitides, concomitant ascending aorta aneurysm, and aortic root calcification.

External Defibrillator Damage Associated With Attempted Synchronized Dual-Dose Cardioversion.

The simultaneous use of 2 external defibrillators to administer either dual or sequential cardioversion or defibrillation for refractory cardiac arrhythmias is increasing in both the out-of-hospital and inhospital settings. Using 2 defibrillators to administer higher energy levels than can be achieved with a single defibrillator is considered off-label and is currently not part of published advanced cardiac life support guidelines. We report the first case in which the use of dual-dose cardioversion was associated with external defibrillator damage. Because defibrillator damage, especially if undetected, jeopardizes patient safety and off-label medical product use may void the manufacturer's warranty, this case should urge users to proceed with caution when contemplating this technique.

Process Improvement Initiative for the Perioperative Management of Patients With a Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Device.

BACKGROUND: Economic, personnel, and procedural challenges often complicate and interfere with efficient and safe perioperative care of patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). In the context of a process improvement initiative, we created and implemented a comprehensive anesthesiologist-run perioperative CIED service to respond to all routine requests for perioperative CIED consultations at a large academic medical center. This study was designed to determine whether this new care model was associated with improved operating room efficiency, reduced institutional cost, and adequate patient safety. METHODS: We included patients with a CIED and a concurrent cohort of patients with the same eligibility criteria but without a CIED who underwent first-case-of-the-day surgery during the periods between February 1, 2008, and August 17, 2010 (preintervention) and between March 4, 2012, and August 1, 2014 (postintervention). The primary end point was delay in first-case-of-the day start time. We used multiple linear regression to compare delays in start times during the preintervention and postintervention periods and to adjust for potential confounders. A patient safety database was queried for CIED-related complications. Cost analysis was based on labor minutes saved and was calculated using nationally published administrative estimates. RESULTS: A total of 18,148 first-case surgical procedures were performed in 15,100 patients (preintervention period-7293 patients and postintervention period-7807 patients). Of those, 151 (2.1%) patients had a CIED in the preintervention period, and 146 (1.9%) had a CIED in the postintervention period. After adjustment for imbalances in baseline characteristics (age, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status, and surgical specialty), the difference in mean first-case start delay between the postintervention and preintervention periods in the cohort of patients with a CIED was -16.7 minutes (95% confidence interval [CI], -26.1 to -7.2). The difference in mean delay between the postintervention and preintervention periods in the cohort without a CIED was -4.7 minutes (95% CI, -5.4 to -3.9). There were 3 CIED-related adverse events during the preintervention period and none during the postintervention period. Based on reduction in first-case start delay, the intervention was associated with cost savings (estimated institutional savings $14,102 annually, or $94.06 per CIED patient), with a return on investment ratio of 2.18 over the course of the postintervention period. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our experience, specially trained anesthesiologists can provide efficient and safe perioperative care for patients with CIEDs. Other centers may consider implementing a similar strategy as our specialty adopts the perioperative surgical home model.

Perioperative aspirin management after POISE-2: some answers, but questions remain.

Aspirin constitutes important uninterrupted lifelong therapy for many patients with cardiovascular (CV) disease or significant (CV) risk factors. However, whether aspirin should be continued or withheld in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery is a common clinical conundrum that balances the potential of aspirin for decreasing thrombotic risk with its possibility for increasing perioperative blood loss. In this focused review, we describe the role of aspirin in treating and preventing cardiovascular disease, summarize the most important literature on the perioperative use of aspirin (including the recently published PeriOperative ISchemic Evaluation [POISE]-2 trial), and offer current recommendations for managing aspirin during the perioperative period. POISE-2 suggests that aspirin administration during the perioperative period does not change the risk of a cardiovascular event and may result in increased bleeding. However, these findings are tempered by a number of methodological issues related to the study. On the basis of currently available literature, including POISE-2, aspirin should not be administered to patients undergoing surgery unless there is a definitive guideline-based primary or secondary prevention indication. Aside from closed-space procedures, intramedullary spine surgery, or possibly prostate surgery, moderate-risk patients taking lifelong aspirin for a guideline-based primary or secondary indication may warrant continuation of their aspirin throughout the perioperative period.