Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Analyzing the impact of preoperative interrogation of cardiac implantable electronic devices.
Navas-Blanco, Jose R; Williams, Derrick V; Modak, Raj K.
Affiliation
  • Navas-Blanco JR; Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative Medicine and Pain Management, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Jackson Memorial Hospital, Miami, FL, United States.
  • Williams DV; Department of Anesthesia, Pain Management and Perioperative Medicine, Divisions of Cardiothoracic Anesthesia, Detroit, Michigan, United States.
  • Modak RK; Department of Anesthesia, Pain Management and Perioperative Medicine, Divisions of Cardiothoracic Anesthesia; Critical Care Anesthesiology, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, Michigan, United States.
Ann Card Anaesth ; 24(4): 447-451, 2021.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34747752
Background: Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) are becoming more common for the management of underlying of cardiac dysrhythmias, and more patients with these devices are presenting for cardiac and noncardiac procedures. Methods: We performed a retrospective, cohort, single-center study at a tertiary teaching medical center, gathering 151 patients with CIED undergoing elective and emergent surgeries for the time period between November 2013 and December 2016. We aimed to determine whether patients with CIED had the device interrogated before surgery as recommended by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS)/American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) consensus, whether this lack of compliance led to delay in the holding area before surgery and determine the presence of intra- or postoperative cardiac events in these patients. Results: A total of 76% of patients had interrogation of the device before surgery. Emergent cases were not interrogated as much as elective cases preoperatively (43% vs. 18%, respectively; P < 0.05). In total, 6% of cases had a CIED-related average holding area delay time of 54 minutes. Patients without preoperative device interrogation had more perioperative cardiac events than those who had the device checked (25% vs. 8%, respectively; odds ratio [OR] 0.26; 95% CI, 0.09-0.7, P < 0.013). Conclusions: Our findings suggest that preoperative interrogation of the device plays a significant role to minimize the incidence of perioperative cardiac adverse events. Institutional providers show a lack of compliance with HRS/ASA recommendations for preoperative CIED management. Further research is required to determine if improved compliance to recommendations will lead to enhanced outcomes.
Subject(s)
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Defibrillators, Implantable Type of study: Etiology_studies / Incidence_studies / Observational_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limits: Humans Language: En Journal: Ann Card Anaesth Year: 2021 Document type: Article Affiliation country: United States Country of publication: India

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Defibrillators, Implantable Type of study: Etiology_studies / Incidence_studies / Observational_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limits: Humans Language: En Journal: Ann Card Anaesth Year: 2021 Document type: Article Affiliation country: United States Country of publication: India