Key result
Tailored perioperative ICD management shows no intraoperative electromagnetic interference or postoperative parameter changes.
Why the study?
The prevalence of ICD patients undergoing surgery is rising and guidelines recommend preoperative ICD reprogramming, but practical alternatives are needed.
Are tailored perioperative ICD management strategies using a magnet or no deactivation safe alternatives to reprogramming in non-pacemaker dependent patients?
Observational (n=101)
Are tailored perioperative ICD management strategies using a magnet or no deactivation safe alternatives to reprogramming in non-pacemaker dependent patients?
Absolute Event Rate: 0% vs 0%
Using a magnet or no ICD deactivation are safe and feasible alternatives to preoperative reprogramming for non-pacemaker dependent ICD patients undergoing specific types of surgery.
BACKGROUND: The prevalence of patients with implanted cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) and the frequency of surgery on these patients are steadily on the rise. Guidelines recommend preoperative ICD reprogramming, although this is sometimes difficult in clinical practice. Placing a magnet on the ICD is a practical alternative and even no inactivation is possible in selected cases. METHODS: In this prospective observational study, we compared different perioperative ICD management strategies depending on the location of the surgery and the type of electrocautery used. Patients undergoing surgery above the umbilicus with monopolar electrocautery had their ICD therapy inactivated by reprogramming. When surgery below the navel or surgery above the navel with bipolar electrocautery was completed, ICD inactivation was performed using a magnet. No inactivation was performed on patients undergoing lower extremity surgery with bipolar electrocautery. Only ICD patients who were not pacemaker dependent were enrolled. After surgery, the ICDs were assessed regarding documented arrhythmias and parameters. RESULTS: Out of 101 patients included in this study, the ICD was preoperatively reprogrammed in 42 patients (41.6%), a magnet was used on 45 patients (44.5%), and ICDs were not deactivated at all in 14 patients (13.9%). No intraoperative electromagnetic interference was detected. Postoperative ICD analysis demonstrated no changes of preset parameters. CONCLUSIONS: All three tested ICD management strategies were proved safe in this study. Keeping the location of surgery and the type of electrocautery in mind, an intraoperative magnet or even no ICD deactivation at all could be feasible alternatives in surgery on patients with ICDs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Neubauer et al. (2018) conducted an observational in Patients with implanted cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) undergoing surgery (n=101). Perioperative ICD management strategies (reprogramming, magnet use, or no deactivation) vs. Compared against each other based on surgery location and electrocautery type was evaluated on Intraoperative electromagnetic interference and postoperative changes of preset parameters. Perioperative ICD management using reprogramming, a magnet, or no deactivation resulted in no intraoperative electromagnetic interference or postoperative parameter changes across 101 patients.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: