Key result
Location-based perioperative CIED protocol avoids inappropriate therapies and resets, sparing ~69% from device changes.
Why the study?
Does a location-based perioperative management protocol safely guide the need for reprogramming or magnet application in patients with CIEDs undergoing electrosurgery?
Observational (n=331)
Yes
Does a location-based perioperative management protocol safely guide the need for reprogramming or magnet application in patients with CIEDs undergoing electrosurgery?
A standardized protocol based on surgical location and device type allows for safe perioperative management of CIEDs, with the majority of patients requiring no device reprogramming or magnet application.
May support fewer CIED interventions in electrosurgery; leaves open randomized confirmation before practice change.
BACKGROUND: There is significant variability in the perioperative management of patients with cardiac implanted electronic devices (CIEDs) undergoing procedures requiring electrosurgery. METHODS: We performed a multicenter registry from February 2014 to August 2015 at three suburban Chicago hospitals. Patients with transvenous CIEDs undergoing procedures requiring electrosurgery were assigned to one of three groups: (1) reprogram, (2) magnet, or (3) no change. Subjects with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) or those pacemaker dependent having surgical procedures within 6 inches of their CIED were assigned to the reprogram group, whereby ICD therapies were programmed off with asynchronous pacing if pacemaker dependent. Subjects with ICDs ≥ 6 inches from their surgical site but above the iliac crest were assigned to the magnet group. All others were in the no change group. We evaluated electromagnetic interference (EMI) and postoperative device reset based on surgical location. RESULTS: All patients (n = 331) had pectoral CIEDs with mean age 73 years, 65% male, ejection fraction 56% for pacemaker subjects, 35% for ICD subjects with 22% pacemaker dependent. Assignments were n = 52 (16%) reprogram group, n = 51 (15%) magnet group, and n = 228 (69%) no change. There was EMI in 45% of thoracic cases, 35% of head/neck, 15% of upper extremity, and 3% of abdominal cases above iliac crest. There was no EMI in procedures below the iliac crest. There were no inappropriate therapies or device reset. CONCLUSION: Results of the ICD-ON protocol demonstrate safe and efficient management of patients with CIEDs based on electrosurgery location, with 69% requiring no reprogramming or magnet application.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gifford et al. (2016) conducted an observational in Patients with transvenous CIEDs undergoing procedures requiring electrosurgery (n=331). Location-based perioperative CIED management protocol (ICD-ON) was evaluated on Electromagnetic interference (EMI) and postoperative device reset. A location-based perioperative management protocol for patients with CIEDs undergoing electrosurgery resulted in no inappropriate therapies or device resets, with 69% requiring no device changes.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: