Key result
Preoperative interrogation of cardiac implantable electronic devices was associated with a significantly lower incidence of perioperative cardiac events compared to no interrogation (7.8% vs 25%; OR 0.26).
Why the study?
Patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices are increasingly presenting for cardiac and noncardiac procedures, prompting evaluation of adherence to Heart Rhythm Society/American Society of Anesthesiologists consensus recommendations for preoperative device interrogation and its impact on holding delays and perioperative cardiac events.
Does preoperative interrogation of CIEDs reduce intra- or postoperative cardiac events in patients undergoing surgery?
Cohort (n=151)
No
Does preoperative interrogation of CIEDs reduce intra- or postoperative cardiac events in patients undergoing surgery?
Odds Ratio: 0.26 (95% CI 0.09–0.7)
Absolute Event Rate: 7.83% vs 25%
p-value: p=0.013
Preoperative interrogation of CIEDs prior to surgery is associated with a significant reduction in perioperative cardiac adverse events, supporting current guideline recommendations.
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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Navas‐Blanco et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in Patients with Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices (CIED) undergoing surgery (n=151). Preoperative device interrogation vs. No preoperative device interrogation was evaluated on Perioperative cardiac events (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.09-0.7, p=0.013). Preoperative interrogation of cardiac implantable electronic devices was associated with a significantly lower incidence of perioperative cardiac events compared to no interrogation (7.8% vs 25%; OR 0.26).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: