Key result
Same-day discharge for isolated generator replacement shows similar 1-year infection rates to standard admission.
Why the study?
Evidence regarding the safety and patient acceptability of same-day discharge after cardiac implantable electronic device generator replacement remains limited.
Does a day-surgery pathway with same-day discharge improve patient acceptability without increasing device-related infections in adults undergoing isolated cardiac device generator replacement?
Observational (n=416)
Yes
Does a day-surgery pathway with same-day discharge improve patient acceptability without increasing device-related infections in adults undergoing isolated cardiac device generator replacement?
Absolute Event Rate: 1.9% vs 2.5%
p-value: p=0.743
Same-day discharge after isolated cardiac device generator replacement is safe, highly preferred by patients, and potentially cost-saving compared to standard admission.
Supports same-day discharge after generator replacement in selected patients; leaves open need for prospective trials before routine practice change.
Background Same‐day discharge after cardiac implantable electronic device generator replacement may reduce hospital resource use, but evidence regarding its safety and patient acceptability remains limited. We evaluated the feasibility, safety, and patient‐reported acceptability of a day‐surgery pathway for isolated generator replacement. Methods We conducted a multicenter retrospective observational study of consecutive adults undergoing isolated cardiac implantable electronic device generator replacement between February 2017 and October 2024. Procedures requiring lead revision, upgrade, extraction, or repositioning were excluded. Patients were managed either through a day‐surgery pathway with same‐day discharge or through an ordinary‐setting pathway. The primary endpoint was device‐related infection within 365 days. Secondary outcomes included pocket hematoma, patient preference, and recalled preprocedural anxiety assessed using the Amsterdam Preoperative Anxiety and Information Scale (APAIS) and the Anaesthesia and Surgery‐dependent Preoperative Anxiety (ASPA) scale, administered during follow‐up after the procedure. A hypothetical projection of bed‐day cost savings was also performed. Results A total of 416 procedures were analyzed: 216 in the day‐surgery group and 200 in the ordinary‐setting group. Within 365 days, device‐related infection occurred in 4 patients in the day‐surgery group and 5 in the ordinary‐setting group (1.9% vs. 2.5%; p = 0.743). One pocket hematoma occurred in the day‐surgery group and was managed conservatively without subsequent infection. Preference for day surgery was reported by 93.8% of evaluable patients in the day‐surgery group and 76.0% in the ordinary‐setting group (p < 0.001). Recalled preprocedural APAIS and ASPA scores were significantly lower in the day‐surgery group. Using published Italian hospital micro‐costing data as an illustrative benchmark, the 216 day‐surgery procedures corresponded to a hypothetical reduction in hospital resource consumption of approximately €159,808. Conclusions Same‐day discharge after isolated generator replacement was feasible and well accepted and was not associated with a detectable increase in device‐related infection within 365 days. Recalled preprocedural anxiety scores were lower among patients managed through the day‐surgery pathway, although these assessments were obtained retrospectively during follow‐up. Same‐day discharge may represent a resource‐saving organizational pathway for selected patients, but its economic impact requires assessment in a formal health‐economic analysis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cocchiara et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Isolated cardiac implantable electronic device generator replacement (n=416). Day-surgery pathway with same-day discharge vs. Ordinary-setting pathway was evaluated on Device-related infection within 365 days (p=0.743). A day-surgery pathway with same-day discharge for isolated generator replacement had similar rates of device-related infection at 365 days compared to an ordinary setting (1.9% vs. 2.5%; p=0.743).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: