Safety and cost-effectiveness of same day permanent pacemaker implantation

Outcomes of an expedited same-day discharge protocol following cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation

BACKGROUND

With increasing constraints on healthcare resources, greater attention is being focused on improved resource utilization. Prior studies have demonstrated safety of same-day discharge following CIED implantation but are limited by vague protocols with long observation periods. In this study, we evaluate the safety of an expedited 2 hour same-day discharge protocol following CIED implantation.

METHODS

Patients undergoing CIED implantation at three centers between 2015 and 2021 were included. Procedural, demographic, and adverse event data were abstracted from the electronic health record. Patients were divided into same-day discharge (SDD) and delayed discharge (DD) cohorts. The primary outcome was complications including lead malfunction requiring revision, pneumothorax, hemothorax, lead dislodgement, lead perforation with tamponade, and mortality within 30 days of procedure. Outcomes were compared between the two cohorts using the χ2 test.

RESULTS

A total of 4543 CIED implantation procedures were included with 1557 patients (34%) in the SDD cohort. SDD patients were comparatively younger, were more likely to be male, and had fewer comorbidities than DD patients. Among SDD patients, the mean time to post-operative chest X-ray was 2.6 h. SDD had lower rates of complications (1.3% vs 2.1%, p = 0.0487) and acute care utilization post-discharge (9.6% vs 14.0%, p < 0.0001). There was no difference in the 90-day infection rate between the cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

An expedited 2 hour same-day discharge protocol is safe and effective with low rates of complications, infection, and post-operative acute care utilization.

Same-Day Discharge After Left Bundle Area Pacing

BACKGROUND

Left bundle area pacing (LBAP) has emerged as an area that appears to be an attractive alternative to other forms of physiological pacing owing to its ease and favorable pacing parameters. Same-day discharge after conventional pacemakers, implantable cardioverter defibrillators, and more recently leadless pacemakers have become routine, especially after the COVID-19 pandemic. With the advent of LBAP, the safety and feasibility of same-day discharge remain unclear.

METHODS

This is a retrospective, observational case series of consecutive, sequential patients undergoing LBAP at Baystate Medical Center, an academic teaching hospital. We included all patients who underwent LBAP and were discharged on the same day of procedure completion. Safety parameters included any procedure-related complications including pneumothorax, cardiac tamponade, septal perforation, and lead dislodgement. Pacemaker parameters included pacing threshold, R-wave amplitude, and lead impedance pre-discharge the following day of implantation and up to 6 months of follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 11 patients were included in our analysis, the average age was 70.3 ± 6.74 years. The most common indication for pacemaker insertion was AV block (73%). No complications were seen in any of the patients. The average time between the procedure and discharge was 5.6 hours. Pacemaker and lead parameters were stable after 6 months of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

In this case series, we find that same-day discharge after LBAP for any indication is a safe and feasible option. As this mode of pacing becomes increasingly more common, larger prospective studies evaluating the safety and feasibility of early discharge after LBAP will be needed.

Determinants and prognostic value of in-hospital infection in patients waiting for permanent pacemaker implantation

BACKGROUND

In-hospital delays in permanent cardiac pacemaker (PPM) implantation are common and may result in in-hospital infection among patients waiting for PPM implantation (pre-PPM-HI). This study investigated the predictors and prognostic impact of these events.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 905 consecutive patients (68.2 ± 16.0 years; 54% males) who underwent PPM implantation. Clinical characteristics, pre-PPM-HI and 30-day mortality were recorded and a risk score for pre-PPM-HI was generated using multivariable logistic regression coefficients.

RESULTS

Eigthy-nine patients (10% of the sample) developed pre-PPM-HI. Multivariable logistic regression analysis identified urinary catheter use, complete atrioventricular block, implantation of temporary pacemaker and diabetes mellitus as independent predictors of pre-PPM-HI. The generated score (range 0-10.1) played a better role in predicting pre-PPM-HI than individual factors, yielding an area under the curve [95%CI] of 0.754 [0.705-0.803]. Patients with score ≥ 7.5 had 18-fold greater risk of developing pre-PPM-HI than those with score < 2.5. Furthermore, multivariable Cox-regression analysis showed that patients who developed pre-PPM-HI had greater 30-day mortality after PPM implantation (hazard ratio [95%CI] = 2.90 [1.18-7.16], p = 0.021) compared with their counterparts.

CONCLUSIONS

This study reveals that pre-PPM-HI is an independent predictor of early mortality after PPM implantation. In addition, a clinical score developed from simple clinical variables accurately identified patients at high risk of pre-PPM-HI. In scenarios where delays in PPM implantation are unavoidable, such as reference hospitals with high demand, the use of this tool can potentially help in the hierarchy of patients and in the reduction of this adverse event.

Different venous approaches for implantation of cardiac electronic devices. A network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Many of the complications arising from cardiac device implantation are associated to the venous access used for lead placement. Previous analyses reported that cephalic vein cutdown (CVC) is safer but less effective than subclavian vein puncture (SVP). However, comparisons between these techniques and axillary vein puncture (AVP) -guided either by ultrasound or fluoroscopy- are lacking. Thus, we aimed to compare safety and efficacy of these approaches.

METHODS

We searched for articles assessing at least two different approaches regarding the incidence of pneumothorax and/ or lead failure (LF). When available, bleeding and infectious complications as well as procedural success were analyzed. A frequentist random effects network meta-analysis model was adopted.

RESULTS

36 studies were analyzed. Most articles assessed SVP versus CVC. Compared to SVP, both CVC and AVP were associated with reduced odds of pneumothorax (OR: 0.193, 95%CI: 0.136-0.275 and OR: 0.128, 95%CI: 0.050- 0.329; respectively) and LF (OR: 0.63, 95%CI: 0.406-0.976 and OR: 0.425, 95%CI: 0.286-0.632; respectively). No significant differences between AVP and CVC were demonstrated. Limited data suggest no major impact of different approaches on infectious and bleeding complications. Initial CVC approach required significantly more often an alternate/ additional venous access for lead placement, compared to both AVP and SVP. No differences between these two were identified.

CONCLUSION

Both AVP and CVC seem to decrease incident pneumothorax and LF, compared to SVP. Initial AVP approach seems to decrease the need of alternate venous access, compared to CVC. These results suggest that AVP should be further clinically tested. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Same-day discharge after implantation of cardiac implantable electronic devices: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Due to an increasing need for cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) placement, the cost of healthcare has been rising including the cost of hospital stay after the procedure. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the safety and feasibility of same-day discharge (SDD) after cardiac device implantations.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, and Embase databases from inception to March 2021 to identify studies that compared clinical outcomes between SDD group and hospital overnight stay (HO) group after cardiac device implantations. Outcomes included complications after the procedure, mortality, and re-hospitalization. Data from each study were combined using the random-effects model to calculate pooled odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Eight studies (one randomized control trial, three prospective cohort and four retrospective cohort studies) with a total of 61,602 patients (4153 in SDD group and 57,449 in HO group) were included. SDD was not associated with more procedure-related complications. The rates of wound problems (0.94% vs 1.84%, pooled OR = 0.86, 95%CI: 0.2-3.68, p = .834), pneumothorax (1.15% vs 0.73%, pooled OR = 1.36, 95%CI: 0.26-7.12, p = .718), hematoma (0.59% vs 2.32%, pooled OR = 0.35, 95%CI:0.01-9.85, p = .534), lead/device dislodgement (4% vs 2.48%, pooled OR = 1.71, 95%CI: 0.64-4.54, p = .281), readmission rate (17.6% vs 17.5%, pooled OR = 0.95, 95%CI: 0.74-1.21, p = .667), and mortality rate (1.66% vs 1.44%, pooled OR = 0.77, 95%CI: 0.58-1.01, p = .059) were similar between in SDD and HO groups respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis suggested that SDD after cardiac device implantations might be a safe and feasible alternative to HO without differences in procedure-related complications, readmission rates, or mortality rates.

A survey on patient preferences towards CIED implantation

Background

Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation is increasingly performed worldwide with improving safety. Outpatient CIED implantation has similar complication rates compared to those implants which are hospitalized. Here, we analyze patient preferences on discharge timing after CIED implantation.

Objective

To identify and understand the factors contributing to patient preferences towards same-day or next-day discharge after CIED implantation.

Methods

One hundred and two patients undergoing new CIED implants were included in the study at two separate hospitals in CT (CT group) and FL (FL group) from 2018-2019. A 7-question survey was administered to the patients after the procedure. Survey responses and demographic data were statistically analyzed.

Results

Seventy-four percent of CT group and 58% of the FL group responded with a 10 score (0-10) that they were ready to be discharged home the same day (p=0.09). Both groups reported a low number of patients feeling safer by having a remote monitor provided at the time of discharge (44% CT group, 28% FL group; p=0.123). The mean distance of patients living from the hospital in CT group (21.6 miles) was significantly lower than that for the FL group (35.5 miles); p=0.01. Hypertension (86% vs 52%; p=0.0002) and Diabetes mellitus (44% vs 21%; p=0.013) were more prevalent in the FL group compared to the CT group.

Conclusion

Despite the influence of local practices, the majority of patients preferred same-day discharge after CIED implantation. Improved patient education regarding the ability of remote monitors to provide real-time response to acute events is needed.

Clinical Outcomes of Various Management Strategies for Symptomatic Bradycardia

OBJECTIVE

To determine clinical outcomes of various management strategies for reversible and irreversible causes of symptomatic bradycardia in the inpatient setting.

DESIGN

Retrospective observational study.

SETTING

Emergency room and inpatient.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients presenting to the emergency department with symptomatic bradycardia.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed electronic health records of 518 patients from two Mayo Clinic campuses (Rochester and Phoenix) who presented to the emergency department with symptomatic bradycardia (heart rate ≤50 beats/minute) from January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2015. Sinus bradycardia was excluded. The following management strategies were compared: observation, non-invasive management (medications with/without transcutaneous pacing), early permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation (≤2 days), and delayed PPM implantation (≥3 days). Study endpoints included length of stay and adverse events related to bradycardia (syncope, central line-associated bloodstream infections, cardiac arrest, and in-hospital mortality). Patients who received a PPM were further stratified by weekend hospital admission.

RESULTS

Heart block occurred in 200 (38.6%) patients, and atrial arrhythmias with slow ventricular response occurred in 239 (46.1%) patients. Reversible causes of bradycardia included medication toxicity in 22 (4.2%) patients and hyperkalemia in 44 (8.5%) patients. Adverse events were similar in patients who underwent early compared to delayed PPM implantation (6.6% vs 12.5%, P=.20), whereas adverse events were higher in patients who received temporary transvenous pacing (19.1% vs 3.4%, P<.001). Weekend admissions were associated with increased temporary transvenous pacing, prolonged median time to PPM implantation by 1 day, and prolonged median length of stay by 2 days.

CONCLUSIONS

Delayed PPM implantation was not associated with an increase in adverse events. Weekend PPM implantation should be considered to reduce temporary transvenous pacing and shorten length of stay.

Need for pacemaker implantation in patients with normal QRS duration immediately after transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Aims

We sought to assess the need for permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) in patients with QRS <120 ms in electrocardiogram (ECG) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI).

Methods and results

We retrospectively analysed 1139 consecutive patients who underwent transfemoral TAVI between 2008 and 2016, receiving different valve types. All patients were surveyed by continuous ECG monitoring for 48 h, 12-lead ECGs starting immediately after procedure, as well as 24-h Holter recording the day before discharge. Indication for PPI was at the discretion of the attending physician. Among 760 patients with QRS <120 ms prior to the TAVI procedure, 400 patients showed QRS <120 ms immediately after procedure, whereas 360 patients had QRS ≥120 ms. In the group with QRS <120 ms, PPI was performed in 34 patients [8.5%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 5.6–11.2%] during the first week. Eight of the PPIs in the group with QRS <120 ms (2%; CI 0.8–3.5%) fulfilled Class I indications for PPI after TAVI, whereas 26 PPIs had different indications [left bundle branch block, sick sinus, low-grade atrioventricular (AV) block]. Complete AV block developed in three patients of the group of QRS <120 ms (0.75%; CI 0.0–1.7%), which in all cases occurred after the 48 h-surveillance period. During 1-year follow-up, 11 PPIs were performed (2.8%; CI 1.2–4.5%), thereof three PPI for Class I indications including one complete AV block.

Conclusion

In patients with QRS duration <120 ms immediately after TAVI, the risk for complete AV block was low during the first week after TAVI and 1-year follow-up.

The Safety and Feasibility of Same-Day Discharge After Implantation of MICRA Transcatheter Leadless Pacemaker System

Background

Data suggests that same day discharge after implantation of trans-venous pacemakers is safe and feasible. We sought to determine whether same day discharge was feasible and safe following implantation of Medtronic MICRA leadless pacemakers.

Methods

We retrospectively identified all patients undergoing MICRA placement at our institution between April 2014 to August 2018 (n=167). Patients were stratified into two groups: those discharged on the same day as their procedure (SD, n=25), and those observed for at least one night in the hospital (HD, n=142). The primary endpoint included a composite of major complications including: access site complications, new pericardial effusion, device dislodgement, and need for device revision up to approximately 45 days of follow up.

Results

SD and HD had similar age (75±13 vs. 75±13 years, p=0.923), prevalence of male sex (49 vs. 44%, p=0.669), and frequency of high-grade heart block as an indication for pacing (38 vs. 32%, p=0.596). There were more Caucasians in the SD group (72 vs. 66%, p=0.038). The rate of the composite endpoint was statistically non-significantly higher in the HD group (3.5% vs. 0.0%, p=1.00). The rates of each individual components comprising the composite endpoint were similar between groups.

Conclusions

Our data suggest that in appropriately selected patients, same day discharge can occur safely following Micra leadless pacemaker implantation.

Day case complex devices: the state of the UK

Objective

Complex cardiac devices including implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) and cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) devices can safely be implanted as a day case procedure as opposed to overnight stay. We assess how common day case complex device therapy is and the cost implications of more widespread adoption across the UK.

Methods

A freedom of information request was sent to all centres performing complex cardiac devices across the UK to assess the adoption of this technique. Cost implications were assessed using Department of Health National Schedule of Reference Costs 2016-2017.

Results

100 UK centres were surveyed, 80% replied. Eighty per cent of UK centres already implant complex cardiac devices as a day case to some extent. 64.06% of centres have a protocol for this. 12.82% of centres do <25% of complex devices as a day case. 15.38% do 25%-50% as day case. 17.95% do 50%-75% as day case and 33.33% do >75% as day case. There was no relationship between centre volume and the proportion of devices done as a day case as opposed to overnight stay. The cost saving of performing a complex device as a day case as opposed to overnight stay was £412 per ICD, £525 per CRT-pacemaker and £2169 per CRT-defibrillator.

Conclusions

Day case complex devices are already widespread across the UK, however, there is scope for increase. An increase in proportion of day case devices could translate to £5 583 265 in savings annually for the National Health Service if all centres performed 75% of devices as a day case.

Day-case device implantation-A prospective single-center experience including patient satisfaction data

PURPOSE

Many centers perform day-case cardiac rhythm management (CRM) device implantation. However, there is a paucity of prospective data concerning this approach. We performed a prospective single-center study of day-case device implantation, including data on patient satisfaction.

METHODS

All patients scheduled for a new elective device were considered for a day-case procedure. Exclusion criteria were living alone or without a suitable carer, advancing age/frailty, a metallic valve, and persistent complete heart block. Following discharge, patients were reviewed in device clinic at 6 weeks with an anonymized questionnaire.

RESULTS

During the study period (May 2014-August 2016), 797 new CRM devices were implanted. Of these, 232 were elective and included in the analysis; 101 were planned to be day-case and 131 scheduled for overnight stay. Of the 101 day-case patients, 52 had a pacemaker, 28 an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD), 16 a cardiac resynchronization therapy pacemaker/defibrillator, and five a subcutaneous-ICD. Complications were similar in the day-case (n  =  12, 12%) and overnight stay (n  =  15, 11%) groups (P  =  0.92). In the day-case group, 93 (92%) patients went home the same day. An estimated 111 overnight bed days were saved, translating to a cost saving of £61,912 (euro 70,767, $79,211). Note that 99% (n  =  100) of patients returned the questionnaire. Patient satisfaction was universally high. The majority (n  =  98, 98%) felt ready to go home on discharge; only a minority (n  =  5, 5%) would have preferred an overnight stay.

CONCLUSIONS

A significant proportion of elective new CRM device implants can be performed as day-case procedures. With appropriate selection patient acceptability of same-day discharge is high.

Long-term outcomes after event-free cardioverter defibrillator implantation: comparison between patients discharged within 24 h and routinely hospitalized patients in the German DEVICE registry

Aims

To analyse the long-term safety of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) in patients discharged within 24 h or after 2- 5-day hospitalization, respectively, after complication-free implantation, in circumstances of actual care.

Methods and results

Patients in the multicentre, nationwide German DEVICE registry were contacted 12-15 months after their first ICD implantation or device replacement. Data were collected on complications, potential arrhythmic events, syncope, resuscitation, ablation procedures, cardiac events, hospitalizations, heart failure status, change of medication, and quality of life. Of 2356 patients from 43 centres, 527 patients were discharged within 24 h and 1829 were hospitalized routinely for >24 h after complication-free implantations. The disease profiles and rates of co-morbidities were similar at baseline for both cohorts. During between 384 and 543 days of follow-up, there were no significant differences between the groups in terms of complications, hospitalizations, or quality of life. One-year rates of death were 4.5% in patients discharged early compared with 7.2% in hospitalized patients (hazard ratio 0.65; 95% confidence interval 0.42-1.02; P = 0.052). Rates of major adverse cardiovascular events or defibrillator events were not higher in patients discharged after 24 h. In both groups, a high rate of patients declared that they would opt for the procedure again in the same situation.

Conclusion

Data from a large-scale registry reflecting current day-to-day practice in Germany suggest that most patients can be discharged safely within 24 h of successful ICD implantation if there are no procedure-related events. Follow-up data up to 1.5 years after implantation did not raise long-term safety concerns.

Insertion of miniaturized cardiac monitors outside the catheter operating room: experience and practical advice

Minor surgical procedures are increasingly being performed as outpatient procedures in settings outside hospital operating rooms (ORs). In electrophysiology, the recent miniaturization of insertable cardiac monitors (ICMs) has enabled the routine insertion of the device as a minimally invasive procedure without the need of a catheter OR. However, a shift to office-based environments for minor surgical procedures is associated with some concerns, particularly with respect to patient- and procedure-related safety in the new setting. In the present document, the authors provide practical advice on facilities, practices, and adaptations necessary when performing ICM insertions in office settings, based on available recommendations as well as their own experience with the use of the novel Reveal LINQ ICM. The main differences from in-hospital implant settings are simplified requirements of room, equipment, and insertion procedures, while ensuring and maintaining an adequate, sterile environment. Patient selection is important: certain groups of patients are recommended to be treated in the catheter OR (e.g. those at increased risk for bleeding or very frail elderly individuals). Insertion in alternative positions, as is sometimes performed for cosmetic reasons, should be referred to dedicated hospitals. Quality assurance and internal quality control are critical in the new procedural landscape, and it is important not to trivialize minor surgical procedures. Operators' sharing of experiences and lessons learned, e.g. in the form of registries, should be encouraged.

Dual-chamber pacemakers for treating symptomatic bradycardia due to sick sinus syndrome without atrioventricular block: a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Bradycardia [resting heart rate below 60 beats per minute (b.p.m.)] can be caused by conditions affecting the natural pacemakers of the heart, such as sick sinus syndrome (SSS) and atrioventricular (AV) blocks. People suffering from bradycardia may present with palpitations, exercise intolerance and fainting. The only effective treatment for patients suffering from symptomatic bradycardia is implantation of a permanent pacemaker.

OBJECTIVE

To appraise the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of dual-chamber pacemakers compared with single-chamber atrial pacemakers for treating symptomatic bradycardia in people with SSS and no evidence of AV block.

DATA SOURCES

All databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Health Technology Assessment database, NHS Economic Evaluations Database) were searched from inception to June 2014.

METHODS

A systematic review of the clinical and economic literature was carried out in accordance with the general principles published by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating dual-chamber and single-chamber atrial pacemakers and economic evaluations were included. Pairwise meta-analysis was carried out. A de novo economic model was developed.

RESULTS

Of 493 references, six RCTs were included in the review. The results were predominantly influenced by the largest trial DANPACE. Dual-chamber pacing was associated with a statistically significant reduction in reoperation [odds ratio (OR) 0.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 0.63] compared with single-chamber atrial pacing. The difference is primarily because of the development of AV block requiring upgrade to a dual-chamber device. The risk of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation was also reduced with dual-chamber pacing compared with single-chamber atrial pacing (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.96). No statistically significant difference was found between the pacing modes for mortality, heart failure, stroke, chronic atrial fibrillation or quality of life. However, the risk of developing heart failure may vary with age and device. The de novo economic model shows that dual-chamber pacemakers are more expensive and more effective than single-chamber atrial devices, resulting in a base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £6506. The ICER remains below £20,000 in probabilistic sensitivity analysis, structural sensitivity analysis and most scenario analyses and one-way sensitivity analyses. The risk of heart failure may have an impact on the decision to use dual-chamber or single-chamber atrial pacemakers. Results from an analysis based on age (> 75 years or ≤ 75 years) and risk of heart failure indicate that dual-chamber pacemakers dominate single-chamber atrial pacemakers (i.e. are less expensive and more effective) in older patients, whereas dual-chamber pacemakers are dominated by (i.e. more expensive and less effective) single-chamber atrial pacemakers in younger patients. However, these results are based on a subgroup analysis and should be treated with caution.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with SSS without evidence of impaired AV conduction, dual-chamber pacemakers appear to be cost-effective compared with single-chamber atrial pacemakers. The risk of developing a complete AV block and the lack of tools to identify patients at high risk of developing the condition argue for the implantation of a dual-chamber pacemaker programmed to minimise unnecessary ventricular pacing. However, considerations have to be made around the risk of developing heart failure, which may depend on age and device.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013006708.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Safety and Cost-Effectiveness of Same-Day Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy and Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Implantation

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation improve morbidity and mortality in selected patients. Many centers still admit patients overnight. We evaluated the safety, feasibility, and cost savings of same-day CRT/ICD device implantation by performing a retrospective study of all consecutive elective CRT/ICD implants at a tertiary center from January 2009 to April 2013. All emergency and/or inpatient cases were excluded. Data were collected on baseline demographics, implantation indication, procedure details, complications (categorized as immediate [≤24 hours], short term [24 hours to 6 weeks], medium term [6 weeks to 4 months], and long term [>4 months]), and mortality (30 day and 1 year). Comparisons were made between those having planned same-day versus overnight stay procedures. A cost analysis was performed to evaluate cost savings of the same-day policy. A total of 491 devices were implanted during this period: 267 were elective (54 planned overnight, 213 planned same-day) of which 229 were CRT pacemakers or CRT defibrillators and 38 ICDs. There were 26 total overall complications (9.7%) with no significant differences between planned same-day versus planned overnight stay cohorts (9.4% vs 11.1%, p = 0.8) and specifically no differences in immediate, short-, medium-, and long-term complications at follow-up. The 30-day and 1-year mortality rates did not differ between the two groups. An overnight stay at our hospital costs $450 (£300); our cost saving during this period was $91,800 (£61,200). Same-day CRT/ICD implantation is safe, feasible, and associated with significant cost savings. It provides significant advantages for patients and health care providers, especially given the current financial climate.

Reversibility of High-Grade Atrioventricular Block with Revascularization in Coronary Artery Disease without Infarction: A Literature Review

Complete atrioventricular (AV) block is known to be reversible in some cases of acute inferior wall myocardial infarction (MI). The reversibility of high-grade AV block in non-MI coronary artery disease (CAD), however, is rarely described in the literature. Herein we perform a literature review to assess what is known about the reversibility of high-grade AV block after right coronary artery revascularization in CAD patients who present without an acute MI. To illustrate this phenomenon we describe a case of 2 : 1 AV block associated with unstable angina, in which revascularization resulted in immediate and durable restoration of 1 : 1 AV conduction, thereby obviating the need for permanent pacemaker implantation. The literature review suggests two possible explanations: a vagally mediated response or a mechanism dependent on conduction system ischemia. Due to the limited understanding of AV block reversibility following revascularization in non-acute MI presentations, it remains difficult to reliably predict which patients presenting with high-grade AV block in the absence of MI may have the potential to avoid permanent pacemaker implantation via coronary revascularization. We thus offer this review as a potential starting point for the approach to such patients.

Safety of Outpatient Implantation of the Implantable Cardioverter-defibrillator

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Strategies are needed to reduce health care costs and improve patient care. The objective of our study was to analyze the safety of outpatient implantation of cardioverter-defibrillators.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted in 401 consecutive patients who received an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator between 2007 and 2012. The rate of intervention-related complications was compared between 232 patients (58%) whose implantation was performed in the outpatient setting and 169 patients (42%) whose intervention was performed in the inpatient setting.

RESULTS

The mean age (standard deviation) of the patients was 62 (14) years; 336 (84%) were male. Outpatients had lower left ventricular ejection fraction and a higher percentage had an indication for primary prevention of sudden death, compared to inpatients. Only 21 outpatients (9%) required subsequent hospitalization. The rate of complications until the third month postimplantation was similar for outpatients (6.0%) and inpatients (5.3%); P = .763. In multivariate analysis, only previous anticoagulant therapy was related to the presence of complications (odds ratio = 3.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-7.4; P < .01), mainly due to an increased rate of pocket hematomas. Each outpatient implantation saved approximately €735.

CONCLUSIONS

Outpatient implantation of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators is safe and reduces costs. Close observation is recommended for patients receiving chronic anticoagulation therapy due to an increased risk of complications.