Time to diagnosis of acute complications after cardiovascular implantable electronic device insertion and optimal timing of discharge within the first 24 hours

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.

How does a CIED presence influence chances and safety of haemodialysis access? Conclusions from over 3000 thoracic venografies

Patients requiring temporal or permanent catheter or arterio-venous fistula (AVF) for haemodialysis may be in challenging situation, if they are cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIED) carriers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The authors analysed preoperative venogrphies of 3100 patients referred for transvenous lead extraction for a possible chance of safe haemodialysis catheter (HC) implantation or proper AVF function.

RESULTS

A chance of safe catheter implantation parallel to existing leads reaches 68.8% ipsilaterally to CIED. Contraindications for implantation have been found in less than 2% of cases contralaterally. Ipsilaterally proper AVF function chance has been found in 50.3% of the cases and almost 98% contralaterally. A bilateral chest electrodes location require the special attention. Abandoned lead, lead burden, bilateral leads, additional lead implantation or abandonment, and implant duration may have a significant influence on HC insertion or proper function of arteriovenous fistula.

CONCLUSION

(1) Obstruction of prominent thoracic veins is a frequent finding in CIED carriers and may impede or disable implantation haemodialysis accesses. (2) Implantation of temporary or permanent HC may be questionable ipsilaterally to the CIED in 31.2% and contralaterally in 2.0% of patients. Proper function of AVF is uncertain in 49.7% ipsilaterally and 2.1% contralaterally to CIED. (3) Pacing history and leads dwell time influence chances of success haemodialysis access even on the free-from CIED chest side. (4) Proper venous flow evaluation seems to be valuable in CIED carriers before an attempt of haemodialysis access formation, even contralaterally.