Assessment of shoulder pain and shoulder disability in patients with implantable cardioverter–defibrillator

Optimizing Recovery: A Systematic Scoping Review of Upper Extremity Exercise Immediately after Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Implantation

INTRODUCTION

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs), including pacemakers, defibrillators, and resynchronization devices, significantly enhance patient outcomes, reduce sudden cardiac death, and improve health-related quality of life. CIED implantation is associated to persistent shoulder dysfunction in a considerable number of patients one-year post-implantation. This may result in disability, diminished quality of life, work absenteeism, and negative psychological effects. Restoring upper extremity function after CIED implantation should be a standard of cardiovascular care. Our systematic scoping review aimed to summarize available evidence, addressing vital questions about safety, effectiveness, exercise type, and time of exercise initiation immediately after CIED implantation.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive literature search in 5 electronic databases for original research in English, and a manual search on the references of included studies. We used Rayyan web application for study selection, and PRISMA-ScR to conduct and report the review. We assessed methodological quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool and Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklists.

RESULTS

This review included 6 studies that used upper extremity pendular, range of motion, stretching and strengthening exercises. Initiation time varied from the first postoperative day to the second postoperative week. All studies showed significant association between active upper extremity exercise and reduced dysfunction and disability after CIED implantation. There were no significant differences in complication rates between control and experimental groups.

CONCLUSION

A limited number of low-to-average quality studies suggest active upper extremity exercise immediately after CIED implantation is safe, effective at reducing dysfunction, and improves quality of life. Higher-quality studies are needed to validate these findings.

Cardiac implantable electronic devices in female patients: Esthetic, breast implant, and anatomic considerations

INTRODUCTION

The implantation of a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) can have esthetic and psychological consequences on patients. We explore a heart team model for care coordination and discuss esthetic approaches for improved cosmetic outcomes in patients undergoing (CIED)-related procedures or de novo implantation.

METHODS

Patients undergoing CIED surgery for approved indications between June 2015 and June 2022 were identified. Patients were included when surgical care was provided by a collaborative relationship between the primary electrophysiologist and the plastic surgeon. Patient demographics, details of the surgical procedure, information on breast implants, complications, and outcomes related to cosmesis were recorded.

RESULTS

Twenty-two female patients were included in this study. The mean age was 50.2 ± 18.2 years. The mean follow-up duration was 2.2 ± 5.5 months. The top two indications for the procedure included CIED generator change (n = 9, 41%) and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation (n = 7, 32%). The most common reasons for involving plastic surgery in the procedure included surgery near breast implants (n = 10, 45%) and device displacement or discomfort (n = 8, 36%). CIED pocket position was prepectoral in 10 cases (45%), subpectoral in 11 patients (50%), and intramuscular in one patient (4.5%). The majority of the patients (20, 91%) had cosmetically acceptable results postprocedure. One patient (4.5%) had breast asymmetry on the CIED side, and another continued to have skin erosion over the CIED and leads.

CONCLUSION

A heart team approach incorporating the expertize of cardiac electrophysiology and plastic surgery is essential for providing optimal care for patients with breast implants and patients requesting esthetic appeal.

Upper extremity dysfunctions in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices: a systematic review

Background/Aims

The prevalence of cardiac implantable electronic devices has risen considerably during recent years. This has revolutionised the treatment of cardiac arrhythmias, which in turn reduced the incidence of sudden cardiac death. There are several complications associated with cardiac implantable electronic device implantation. Upper extremity dysfunction is one of the complications associated with this procedure and it should be addressed, since it can affect activities of daily living. This systematic review analysed the prevailing evidence pertaining to the common upper extremity dysfunctions associated with receiving a cardiac implantable electronic device.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE (through Cochrane) and Google Scholar for original research published in the English language. The Rayyan QCRI web application was used for study selection and the decision-making process. PRISMA guidelines were used to conduct and report this review. The methodological quality of the included studies was appraised using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale and Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tool for analytic cross-sectional studies and case reports.

Results

This systematic review included eight studies with a total of 696 participants. The most common upper extremity dysfunctions associated with receiving a cardiac implantable electronic device were pain and limitation of shoulder range of motion. Limitation of range of motion could be persisted even in the long term after having a cardiac implantable electronic device implanted.

Conclusions

Contributing factors of upper extremity dysfunctions included size of the device, pectoral site of implantation and upper extremity immobilisation practices. Upper extremity dysfunction is an overlooked complication, as it received a relatively low priority, although it may negatively impact quality of life.

Pacemaker Pocket Stabilization Utilizing a Novel Envelope and a Three-Point Anchoring Technique

A 65-year-old man presented with chronic pain due to frequent movement of a dual chamber pacemaker (PPM) within the device pocket despite being secured to the underlying muscle. Due to chronic pain and possible indolent infection, the PPM was removed and a new device was implanted on the contralateral side via a persistent left superior vena cava. To prevent device movement, it was placed within a CanGaroo® envelope (Aziyo Biologics Inc., Silver Spring, MD, USA), which was secured to the underlying muscle with a silk suture along three of its corners. The envelope, which becomes incorporated into the surrounding tissue forming a vascularized tissue pocket, should further reinforce device stability over time. The patient’s left-sided symptoms abated immediately and he remains free of symptoms on the right side over a six-week follow-up period.

Comparison of pectoral Nerve (PECS1) block with combined PECS1 and transversus thoracis muscle (TTM) block in patients undergoing cardiac implantable electronic device insertion - A pilot study

Background

Pectoral nerve (PECS1) block has been used for patients undergoing cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) insertions, however, PECS1 block alone may lead to inadequate analgesia during tunneling and pocket creation because of the highly innervated chest wall. Transversus thoracis muscle plane (TTM) block targeting the anterior branches of T2-T6 intercostal nerves can be effectively used in combination with PECS1 for patients undergoing CIED insertion. The present study hypothesized that combined PECS1 and TTM blocks would provide effective analgesia for patients undergoing CIED insertion compared to PECS1 block alone.

Materials and Methods

Thirty adult patients between the age group of 18-85 years undergoing CIED insertion were enrolled in the study. A prospective, randomized, comparative, pilot study was conducted. A total of 30 patients were enrolled, who were randomized to either Group P: PECS1 block (n = 15) or Group PT: PECS1 and TTM blocks (n = 15). The intraoperative requirement of midazolam and local anesthetic and level of sedation by Ramsay sedation score were noted. The pain was assessed by visual analog scale (VAS) at rest and during a cough or deep breathing at 0 h, 3 h, 6 h, 12 h, and 24 h after the procedure.

Results

VAS scores at rest were significantly lower in group PT at 0, 3, 6, and 12 h postprocedure, and during cough at 0, 6, and 12 h after the procedure (P < 0.05). At 24 h, VAS scores were comparable between both groups. Intraoperative midazolam consumption was higher in group P compared to group PT (P= 0.002). Fourteen patients in group P received local anesthetic supplementation in comparison to only one patient in group PT (P = 0.0001). Thirteen patients in group P received the first rescue analgesia in comparison to three patients in group PT (P = 0.0003).

Conclusion

Combined PECS1 and TTM blocks provide superior analgesia, reduced net consumption of local anesthetic, sedative agents, and rescue analgesics compared to PECS1 block alone in patients undergoing CIED insertion.

Lead extraction for reduction of chronic pain related to cardiovascular implantable electronic device

AIMS

Chronic pain at the cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) generator or lead insertion site that is not otherwise manageable carries a IIA indication for extraction. However, limited data exist evaluating causes of pain and outcomes of extraction in eliminating pain. A multi-centre retrospective observational study was conducted to evaluate outcomes of patients undergoing device extraction for treatment of chronic device pain.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Twenty-seven out of 2188 lead extraction candidates (1.3%) met the chronic pain IIA indication for extraction [50 ± 16 years; 14 (51%) women]. Onset, severity, triggers, and pain management were measured before and after extraction. Device type, procedure done (with/without reimplantation), and positive tissue cultures were noted. Pain was reported as constant (n = 14; 50%), intermittent (n = 13; 46%), and movement-triggered (n = 14; 50%). Average severity of pain was seven out of 10 (10 being the worst). Post-extraction, 18 (66%) received freedom from pain, including all patients with poorly formed pockets (n = 2) and subclinical infections (n = 2). Of the 18, 11 underwent reimplantation (61%) without recurrent pain. Nine still had pain (44 ± 17 years; seven women) after extraction. Eight of the nine underwent reimplantation, three on the contralateral chest wall and five ipsilaterally. Pain severity decreased (n = 5), increased (n = 1), or was unchanged (n = 3).

CONCLUSION

Chronic pain at the CIED generator site can present as chronic or movement-triggered pain, and can be due to subclinical infection or a poorly formed device pocket. Extraction relieved constant and intermittent pain in two-thirds of patients. Extraction appears less successful in eliminating pain in women who undergo subsequent reimplantation.

The effect on upper extremity functions of cardiac electronic device placement on the dominant hand side

BACKGROUND

Although cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation is considered to be minor surgery, almost 60% of the patients suffer from shoulder-related problems a short time after the procedure. The purpose of this study was to determine the possible effects of the preference of the dominant side for CIED implantation on the ipsilateral superior extremity functions.

METHODS

The study included a total of 107 patients who had been living with a CIED for >6 months. Patients were separated into two groups according to the dominant hand and side of the CIED. The ipsilateral dominant-hand group comprised those with a CIED on the same side as the dominant hand and the contralateral dominant-hand group included patients with the CIED placed on the contralateral side to the dominant hand. Visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score, quick disability of the arm shoulder and hand questionnaire (QuickDASH) and maximum isometric grip strength tests were used to evaluate the upper extremity disabilities.

RESULTS

No significant difference was determined between the groups in respect of VAS pain scores (P = 0.10), QuickDASH scores (P = 0.21), and limitations of the shoulder joint range of motion (P = 0.192). The maximum isometric grip strength was significantly different in the right hands between two groups (34 [16-95]-40 [24-85]) (P = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

The present study shows that the joint range of motion limitation, pain, and disability of the upper extremity were no different in the affected arm compared to the healthy contralateral side with respect to the placement of the CIED on the dominant or non-dominant side.

The effects of gender on electrical therapies for the heart: procedural considerations, results and complications: A report from the XII Congress of the Italian Association on Arrhythmology and Cardiostimulation (AIAC)

Use of cardiac implantable devices and catheter ablation is steadily increasing in Western countries following the positive results of clinical trials. Despite the advances in scientific knowledge, tools development, and techniques improvement we still have some grey area in the field of electrical therapies for the heart. In particular, several reports highlighted differences both in medical behaviour and procedural outcomes between female and male candidates. Women are referred later for catheter ablation of supraventricular arrhythmias, especially atrial fibrillation, leading to suboptimal results. On the opposite females present greater response to cardiac resynchronization, while the benefit of implantable defibrillator in primary prevention seems to be less pronounced. Differences on aetiology, clinical profile, and development of myocardial scarring are the more plausible causes. This review will discuss all these aspects together with gender-related differences in terms of acute/late complications. We will also provide useful hints on plausible mechanisms and practical procedural aspects.