Comparison of perioperative strategies in ICD patients: The perioperative ICD management study (PIM study)

Inactivation of spinal cord stimulator implanted pulse generators after elective surgery: an under-recognized problem

STUDY DESIGN

We retrospectively analyzed a database of implanted pulse generators (IPGs) for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) implanted by a single surgeon (NDT). We additionally report a series of five illustrative patient cases.

OBJECTIVES

The electronics of SCS IPGs are susceptible to damage when implanted patients undergo surgery. Some SCSs have a dedicated surgery mode, while others recommend turning the SCS off to protect it from damage. IPG inactivation may require resetting or replacement surgery. We aimed to explore the prevalence of this real-world problem which has not been studied.

SETTING

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

METHODS

Using a single surgeon SCS database, we identified cases of IPG inactivation after a non-SCS surgery and analyzed the management. We then reviewed the charts of five illustrative cases.

RESULTS

Among 490 SCS IPG implantations between 2016-2022, 15 (3%) of the 490 patients' IPGs became inactivated after another non-SCS surgery. 12 (80%) required surgical IPG replacement, while 3 (20%) were able to have their IPG function restored non-operatively. In cases analyzed thus far, surgery mode was often not activated prior to surgery.

CONCLUSION

SCS IPG inactivation by surgery is not a rare problem and is presumably engendered by monopolar electrocautery. Premature IPG replacement surgery carries risks and reduces the cost-effectiveness of SCS. Awareness of this problem may prompt more preventative measures to be taken by surgeons, patients, and caretakers, and encourage technological advances to render IPGs less vulnerable to surgical tools. Further research is needed to determine what quality improvement measures could prevent electrical damage to IPGs.

Pro-Con Debate: Are Patients With a Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Device Suitable to Receive Care in a Free-Standing Ambulatory Surgery Center?

Migration of surgical and other procedures that require anesthesia care from a hospital to a free-standing ambulatory surgery center (ASC) continues to grow. Patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) might benefit from receiving their care in a free-standing ASC setting. However, these patients have cardiovascular comorbidities that can elevate the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events. CIEDs are also complex devices and perioperative management varies between devices marketed by various manufacturers and require consultation and ancillary services, which may not be available in a free-standing ASC. Thus, perioperative care of these patients can be challenging. Therefore, the suitability of this patient population in a free-standing ASC remains highly controversial. Although applicable advisories exist, considerable discussion continues with surgeons and other proceduralists about the concerns of anesthesiologists. In this Pro-Con commentary article, we discuss the arguments for and against scheduling a patient with a CIED in a free-standing ASC.

Perioperative Management of Patients with Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices and Utility of Magnet Application

With the demographic evolution of the population, patients undergoing surgery today are older and have an increasing number of sometimes complex comorbidities. Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) are also getting more and more complex with very sophisticated programming algorithms. It may be generally assumed that magnet application reverts pacing to an asynchronous mode in pacemakers and disables tachycardia detection/therapy in internal cardioverter-defibrillators. However, depending on device type, manufacturer and model, the response to magnet application may differ substantially. For these reasons, perioperative management of CIED patients is getting more and more challenging. With this review article we provide an overview of optimal perioperative management of CIED patients with a detailed description of CIED response to magnet application depending on manufacturer and device-type, which may help in providing a safe perioperative management plan for the CIED patient.

Perioperative Sensor and Algorithm Programming in Patients with Implanted ICDs and Pacemakers for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

Background: ICDs and pacemakers for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) are complex devices with different sensors and automatic algorithms implanted in patients with advanced cardiac diseases. Data on the perioperative management and outcome of CRT carriers undergoing surgery unrelated to the device are scarce. Methods: Data from 198 CRT device carriers (100 with active rate responsive sensor) were evaluated regarding perioperative adverse (device-related) events (A(D)E) and lead parameter changes. Results: Thirty-nine adverse observations were documented in 180 patients during preoperative interrogation, which were most often related to the left-ventricular lead and requiring intervention/reprogramming in 22 cases (12%). Anesthesia-related events occurred in 69 patients. There was no ADE for non-cardiac surgery and in pacemaker-dependent patients not programmed to an asynchronous pacing mode. Post-operative device interrogation showed significant lead parameter changes in 64/179 patients (36%) requiring reprogramming in 29 cases (16%). Conclusion: The left-ventricular pacing lead represents the most vulnerable system component. Comprehensive pre and post-interventional device interrogation is mandatory to ensure proper system function. The type of ICD function suspension has no impact on each patient’s outcome. Precautionary activity sensor deactivation is not required for non-cardiac interventions. Routine prophylactic device reprogramming to asynchronous pacing appears inessential. Most of the CRT pacemakers do not require surgery-related reprogramming.

Implementation of a Postoperative Electronic Health Record Alert for Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Patients

PURPOSE

Approximately 2% of surgical patients have an existing cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED). Perioperative device reprogramming requires postoperative care to ensure that device settings are restored. Electronic health record (EHR) alerts have been shown to improve communication between providers and decrease time to necessary interventions in other areas of medicine. The aim of this quality improvement project was to create an EHR alert for postoperative CIED patients who require device reprogramming to help clinicians track, remember, and document the timely and safe restoration of device settings.

DESIGN

This project used a pre-post observational design.

METHODS

This project was conducted at a major academic medical center using a pre-post observational design. To prevent anesthesia providers from closing an encounter in the EHR before postoperative restoration of device settings, an alert was developed and embedded within the intraoperative EHR to track preoperative device reprogramming, and alert anesthesia providers to perform and document postoperative restoration of safe settings.

FINDINGS

The postimplementation group (n = 272) had fewer unknown or undocumented preoperative CIED interventions (12.9% vs 30.9%), a 7.3% shorter device suspension time (median = 165 minutes vs 178 minutes), 6.8% improvement in documentation of postoperative re-enabling of device therapies (78.8% vs 72.0%), and a 72.48% decrease in length of stay (median = 625 hours vs 172 hours) when compared with the preimplementation group (n = 132).

CONCLUSION

Electronic prompts effectively captured patients who received preoperative CIED reprogramming and provided a process for reprogramming devices to safe settings, both significant steps in preventing negative patient outcomes associated with undocumented CIED interventions. Perioperative CIED documentation improved, and length of stay decreased after project implementation.

[Cardiac implantable electronic devices : Electromagnetic interference from electrocauterization, lithotripsy and physiotherapy]

The management of patients with a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) poses a particular challenge in the peri-interventional and perioperative medical environment due to the many forms of possible electromagnetic interference. Although the devices encountered nowadays are of increasing complexity, the vast majority of procedures can be safely performed in patients. The existing position statements and recommendations, however, have a low level of evidence and are often contradictory. In the context of intraoperative electrocauterization, one of the most important sources of electromagnetic interference in the medical environment, recent studies have suggested an increasingly pragmatically perioperative CIED management, which is not represented in the existing recommendations. This article gives an example of these newer findings and reports the currently used and appropriately adapted perioperative CIED management protocol. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy was thought to cause severe interference in CIED patients based on older studies and in vitro experiments. Although electromagnetic interference is possible, clinical observations with modern devices show that the procedure can generally be safely applied in CIED patients. Physiotherapy often utilizes a variety of electromechanical devices, which can be a relevant source of electromagnetic interference. Although some of these therapies can be safely used, coordination with the responsible CIED unit is recommended.