An update on the management of implanted cardiac devices during electrosurgical procedures

Understanding the Principles of Electrosurgery for Endoscopic Surgery and Third Space Endoscopy

Electrosurgery is the application of high-frequency electrical alternating current to biologic tissue to cut, coagulate, desiccate, and/or fulgurate. Electrosurgery is commonly used in gastrointestinal endoscopy, with applications including biliary sphincterotomy, polypectomy, hemostasis, the ablation of lesions, and endoscopic surgery. Understanding electrosurgical principles is important in endoscopic surgery to achieve the desired therapeutic effect, optimize procedural outcomes, and minimize risks or adverse events. This article describes fundamental principles that apply to electrosurgical units, operator technique, and practical considerations for achieving desired tissue effects in endoscopic surgery; and provides practical guidance and safety considerations when using electrosurgical units in endoscopic surgery.

Endo-anesthesia: a primer

Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy has witnessed a Cambrian explosion of techniques, indications, and expanding target populations. GI endoscopy encompasses traditional domains that include preventive measures, palliation, as alternative therapies in patients with prohibitive risks of more invasive procedures, and indicated primary treatments. But, it has expanded to include therapeutic and diagnostic interventional endosonography, luminal endoscopic resection, third space endotherapy, endohepatology, and endobariatrics. The lines between surgery and endoscopy are blurred on many occasions within this paradigm. Moreover, patients with high degrees of co-morbidity and complex physiology require more nuanced peri-endoscopic management. The rising demand for endoscopy services has resulted in the development of endoscopy referral centers that offer these invasive procedures as directly booked referrals for regional and rural patients. This further necessitates specialized programs to ensure appropriate evaluation, risk stratification, and optimization for safe sedation and general anesthesia if needed. This landscape is conducive to the organic evolution of endo-anesthesia to meet the needs of these focused and evolving practices. In this primer, we delineate important aspects of endo-anesthesia care and provide relevant clinical and logistical considerations pertaining to the breadth of procedures.

Nonoperating Room Anesthesia: Anesthesia in the Gastrointestinal Suite

Exponential growth in endoscopy suite procedures due to technological advances requires teamwork between anesthesiologists, endoscopists, nursing teams, and technical and support staff. The current standard of care for moderate sedation includes a combination of anxiolytic drugs and analgesic drugs and sometimes are not adequate to ensure patient safety, efficiency, and comfort. The use of anesthesia services can improve safety, recovery, turnovers, and efficiency. The article discusses comprehensive preoperative evaluation, optimization of comorbidities, and intraoperative airway management strategies to deliver safe and efficient anesthesia, given the need to share the airway and allow the use of carbon dioxide in the gastrointestinal suite.

Outcomes in Patients with Left Ventricular Assist Devices, Pacemakers, and Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators Undergoing Single Balloon Enteroscopy

OBJECTIVES

Obscure overt gastrointestinal bleeding can be challenging to evaluate in patients with electronic cardiac devices such as continuous flow left ventricular assist devices (LVADs), pacemakers (PPMs), and implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). Limited data exist on the utility and safety of single balloon enteroscopy (SBE) in patients with cardiac devices. We aimed to evaluate the safety, efficacy, diagnostic, and therapeutic outcomes of the aforementioned devices in patients undergoing SBE.

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed using the medical records of 57 patients undergoing SBE at our institution from 2010 to 2014. Patients were divided into two groups: those with cardiac devices and those without. Data on comorbidities, complications, findings, diagnostic, and therapeutic yield were compared. t Test and logistic regression assessed the association between dependent and independent variables. For continuous data, the results were summarized as mean difference and standard deviation. For dichotomous data, the results were summarized as odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

The overall age in patients with cardiac devices was 67.89 ± 6.96 versus 66.03 ± 11.95 years in the control. The cardiac device group was composed of 42.1% women; the control comprised 21.1% women. There were 19 patients with cardiac devices; 8 (LVAD + ICD), 1 (LVAD + PPM + ICD), 2 (PPM + ICD), 6 (PPM), 2 (ICD); 38 patients were in the control group. Patients with cardiac devices were hospitalized more often than patients without devices; this finding was not statistically significant (odds ratio 1.826, 95% confidence interval 0.544-6.128, P = 0.389). Procedure times were longer in the cardiac device group, 65.16 ± 49.92 minutes, when compared with the control, 57.40 ± 20.42, but it also did not reach statistical significance (mean difference 7.758, 95% confidence interval -11.360 to 26.876, P = 0.049). There was no statistically significant difference in major or minor events between patients with cardiac devices and the control group. Diagnostic and therapeutic yield and rebleeding rates were similar across both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients in the cardiac device group did not appear to be at any more significant risk than those without cardiac devices. Furthermore, diagnostic and therapeutic yield and rebleeding rates appear to be similar across both groups. Clinicians may perform SBE in these patients safely and effectively, with good overall outcomes.

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator management: an update

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is the cornerstone of primary and secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death. In 35 years of technologic improvement and clinical trials, there has been a continuous increase in implantation rate. Purpose of this review is to point out and discuss every aspect related to actual ICD management, investigating implantation procedure and predischarge care, office and remote monitoring follow-up, diagnostic evaluations, management of patients with suspected therapies or malfunctions, heart failure, surgery, radiotherapy and endoscopic procedures. Also, ICD backface such as infections and other complications will be discussed. Finally, we will focus on interesting future perspectives for this setting of patients.

Endoscopic Electrosurgery in Patients with Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) undergoing endoscopic electrosurgery (EE) are at a risk of electromagnetic interference (EMI). We aimed to analyze the effects of EE in CIED patients.

METHODS

Patients with CIED who underwent EE procedures such as snare polypectomy, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) were retrospectively analyzed. Postprocedural symptoms as well as demographic and outpatient follow-up data were reviewed through medical records. Electrical data, including preprocedural and postprocedural arrhythmia records, were reviewed through pacemaker interrogation, 24-hour Holter monitoring, or electrocardiogram.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine procedures in 49 patients were analyzed. Fifty procedures were performed in 43 patients with a pacemaker, and nine were performed in six patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. There were one gastric and 44 colon snare polypectomies, five gastric and one colon ESDs, and eight ERCPs with EST. Fifty-five cases of electrical follow-up were noted, with two postprocedural changes not caused by EE. Thirty-one pacemaker interrogations had procedure recordings, with two cases of asymptomatic tachycardia. All patients were asymptomatic with no adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study reports no adverse events from EE in patients with CIED, suggesting that this procedure is safe. However, because of the possibility of EMI, recommendations on EE should be followed.

Electrosurgery in the Gastrointestinal Suite: Knowledge Is Power

Electrosurgery allows both cutting and coagulation of tissue and is an essential tool for therapeutic endoscopy. Electrosurgery is also the most commonly used and misunderstood technology by all surgical and medical disciplines. In other words, everyone uses it, but few understand it! The aims of this article are to (1) present a useful review of the fundamentals of electrosurgery technology; (2) relate the fundamentals to commonly performed flexible endoscopy procedures; and (3) provide a review of the safe application of grounding pads, careful management of accessories, and special patient safety considerations.

The heterogeneity of clinical practice patterns among an international cohort of pulmonary arterial hypertension experts

The extent to which pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) experts share common practice patterns that are in alignment with published expert consensus recommendations is unknown. Our objective was to characterize the clinical management strategies used by an international cohort of self-identified PAH experts. A 32-item questionnaire composed mainly of rank order or Likert scale questions was distributed via the Internet (August 5, 2013, through January 20, 2014) to four international pulmonary vascular disease organizations. The survey respondents (N = 105) were field experts reporting 11.6 ± 8.7 years of PAH experience. Likert scale responses (1 = disagree, 7 = agree) were 3.0-5.0, indicating a disparity in opinions, for 78% of questions. Respondent (dis)agreement scores were 4.4 ± 2.2 for use of expert recommendations to determine catheterization timing in PAH. For PAH patients without cardiogenic shock or known vasoreactivity status, the most and least preferred first-line therapies (1 = most preferred, 5 = least preferred) were phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (PDE-Vi) and subcutaneous prostacyclin analogues, respectively (1.4 ± 0.8 vs. 4.0 ± 1.1; P < 0.05). Compared with US-practicing clinicians (N = 46), non-US-practicing clinicians (N = 57) favored collaboration between cardiology and pulmonary medicine for clinical decision making (1 = disagree, 7 = agree; 3.1 ± 2.2 vs. 4.8 ± 2.2; P < 0.0001) and PDE-Vi (6.5% vs. 22.4%) as first-line therapy for PAH patients with cardiogenic shock but were less likely to perform vasoreactivity testing in patients with lung disease-induced pulmonary hypertension (4.3 ± 2.1 vs. 2.2 ± 1.6; P < 0.0001). In conclusion, practice patterns among PAH experts diverge from consensus recommendations and differ by practice location, suggesting that opportunity may exist to improve care quality for this highly morbid cardiopulmonary disease.