Key result
PEAK PlasmaBlade demonstrates feasibility in CIED procedures with a ~4% perioperative complication rate.
Why the study?
Limited data exist on the use of the PEAK PlasmaBlade™ instead of conventional electrocautery in cardiac implantable electronic device procedures beyond generator replacements.
Is the use of the PEAK PlasmaBlade™ safe and feasible in patients undergoing CIED procedures?
Observational (n=282)
No
Is the use of the PEAK PlasmaBlade™ safe and feasible in patients undergoing CIED procedures?
The use of the PEAK PlasmaBlade™ in CIED procedures is feasible and associated with a moderate rate of perioperative complications, supporting its safety profile.
PlasmaBlade appears feasible for CIED procedures with low lead damage; leaves open whether it reduces complications versus electrocautery.
BACKGROUND: The pulsed electron avalanche knife (PEAK) PlasmaBlade™ is an innovative electrosurgical device that uses a novel technology to cut tissues. It has been proven to be safe and feasible in ear, nose, and throat surgery, but there are only limited data concerning the use of PlasmaBlade™ instead of conventional electrocautery in cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) procedures except for generator replacements. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, single-center study with patients undergoing CIED surgery at our center between December 2015 and March 2017 and evaluate the feasibility and the clinical outcome of the PlasmaBlade™. RESULTS: 282 patients (mean age 70.7 ± 12.9 years; 65.6% male) were included, of which 119 (42.2%) underwent pacemaker implantation, 95 (33.7%) implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation, and 68 (24.1%) received a generator replacement. At the time of the procedure, 55 patients (19.5%) were on dual antiplatelet therapy, and 109 (38.7%) patients were on oral anticoagulation (30.5% vitamin K antagonists, 8.2% novel oral anticoagulants). The overall perioperative complication rate was 3.9%. Device-pocket hematoma occurred in 9 patients (3.2%) requiring further surgery. No lead damage was seen within a follow-up of 6 months. One patient presented with device-pocket infection 2.9 months after implantation of a cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator requiring CIED system extraction. CONCLUSIONS: Replacing conventional electrocautery by PlasmaBlade™ for CIED procedures is feasible with a moderate rate of perioperative complications compared to the literature. Studies comparing the PlasmaBlade™ with conventional electrocautery are necessary to investigate whether PlasmaBlade™ offers an additional benefit over conventional electrocautery.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kaya et al. (2017) conducted an observational in Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) surgery (n=282). PEAK PlasmaBlade™ was evaluated on Overall perioperative complication rate. The use of the PEAK PlasmaBlade in cardiac implantable electronic device procedures was feasible, with an overall perioperative complication rate of 3.9% and no lead damage observed over 6 months.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: