Implantation of subcutaneous defibrillator is feasible and safe with monitored anesthesia care

Fifteen years of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy: Where do we stand, and what will the future hold?

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) has emerged as a feasible alternative to the transvenous ICD in the treatment of ventricular tachyarrhythmias in patients without indications for pacing or cardiac resynchronization therapy. Since its introduction, numerous innovations have been made and clinical experience has been gained, leading to its adoption in current practice and preference in certain populations. Moreover, emerging technologies like the extravascular ICD and the combination of the S-ICD with the leadless pacemaker offer new possibilities for the future. These advancements underscore the evolving role of the S-ICD in management of ventricular tachyarrhythmias. This review outlines implantation considerations, patient selection, and troubleshooting advancements in the last 15 years and provides insights into future perspectives.

Postoperative intravenous patient-controlled analgesia improves pain management after subcutaneous implantable defibrillator implantation

Objective

Postoperative pain is a major issue with subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators (S-ICD). In 2020, we introduced intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA) in addition to the conventional, request-based analgesia for postoperative pain control in S-ICD. To determine the effect and safety, we quantitatively assessed the effect of IV-PCA after S-ICD surgery over conventional methods.

Methods

During the study period, a total of 113 consecutive patients (age, 50.1 ± 15.5 years: males, 101) underwent a de novo S-ICD implantation under general anesthesia. While the postoperative pain was addressed with either request-based analgesia (by nonsteroid anti-inflammatory drugs, N = 68, dubbed as "PCA absent") or fentanyl-based IV-PCA in addition to the standard care (N = 45, dubbed as "PCA present"). The degree of postoperative pain from immediately after surgery to 1 week were retrospectively investigated by the numerical rating scale (NRS) divided into four groups at rest and during activity (0: no pain, 1-3: mild pain, 4-6: moderate pain, 7-10: severe pain).

Results

Although IV-PCA was removed on Day 1, it was associated with continued better pain control compared to PCA absent group. At rest, the proportion of patients expressing pain (mild or more) was significantly lower in the PCA present group from Day 0 to Day 4. In contrast to at rest, a better pain control continued through the entire study period of 7 days. No serious adverse events were observed. A few patients experienced nausea in both groups and the inter-group difference was not found significant.

Conclusion

IV-PCA suppresses postoperative pain in S-ICD without major safety concerns.

Tumescent local anesthesia versus general anesthesia for subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation: A cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

General anesthesia (GA) is the standard anesthetic approach for subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) implantation. Nonetheless, GA is expensive and can be associated with adverse events. Tumescent local anesthesia (TLA) has been shown to reduce in-room and procedural times and to decrease post-procedural pain, all of which could result in a reduction in procedure-related costs.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to compare the cost-effectiveness of GA and TLA in patients undergoing S-ICD implantation.

METHODS

The present study is a prospective, nonrandomized, controlled study of patients who underwent S-ICD implantation between 2019 and 2022. Patients were allocated to either the TLA or the GA group. We performed a cost analysis for each intervention. As an effectiveness measure, the 0-10 point Numeric Pain Rating Scale at 1, 12, and 24 hours post-implantation was analyzed and compared between the groups. A score of 0 was considered no pain; 1-5, mild pain; 6-7, moderate pain; and 8-10, severe pain. Cost-effectiveness was calculated using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.

RESULTS

Seventy patients underwent successful S-ICD implantation. The total cost of the electrophysiology laboratory was higher in the GA group than in the TLA group (median ± interquartile range US$55,824 ± US$29,411 vs US$37,222 ± US$24,293; P < .001), with a net saving of $20,821 when compared with GA for each S-ICD implantation. There was a significant decrease in post-procedural pain scores in the TLA group when compared with the GA group (repeated measures analysis of variance, P = .009; median ± interquartile range 0 ± 3 vs 0 ± 5 at 1 hour, P = .058; 3 ± 4 vs 6 ± 8 at 12 hours, P = .030; 0 ± 4 vs 2 ± 6 at 24 hours, P = .040).

CONCLUSION

TLA is a more cost-effective alternative to GA for S-ICD implantation, with both direct and indirect cost reductions. Importantly, these reduced costs are associated with reduced postprocedural pain.

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator: Can it overtake its transvenous counterpart

Over the past decade, the emergence of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) has provided cardiologists with an option to provide both primary or secondary prevention treatment of sudden cardiac death (SCD) without the associated risks that come with the use of intracardiac leads. S-ICD may prove to be a useful option in those who are young, have thromboembolic risk, immunodeficiency states, unfavorable anatomy due to adult congenital heart disease (ACHD). This article reviews the existing literature to determine whether S-ICD can prove to be a safe alternative in comparison to Transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (TV-ICD) and in which patient population should S-ICD be considered over TV-ICD.

Tumescent local anesthesia versus general anesthesia for subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation

BACKGROUND

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) is an effective alternative to transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. General anesthesia (GA) is considered the standard sedation approach because of the pain caused by the manipulation of subcutaneous tissue with S-ICD implantation. However, GA carries several limitations, including additional risk of adverse events, prolonged in-room times, and increased costs.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to define the effectiveness and safety of tumescent local anesthesia (TLA) in comparison to GA in patients undergoing S-ICD implantation.

METHODS

We performed a prospective, nonrandomized, controlled, multicenter study of patients referred for S-ICD implantation between 2019 and 2020. Patients were allocated to either TLA or GA on the basis of patient's preferences and/or anesthesia service availability. TLA was prepared using lidocaine, epinephrine, sodium bicarbonate, and sodium chloride. All patients provided written informed consent, and the institutional review board at each site provided approval for the study.

RESULTS

Sixty patients underwent successful S-ICD implantation from July 2019 to November 2020. Thirty patients (50%) received TLA, and the rest GA. There were no differences between groups with regard to baseline characteristics. In-room and procedural times were significantly shorter with TLA (107.6 minutes vs 186 minutes; P < .0001 and 53.2 minutes vs 153.7 minutes; P < .0001, respectively). Pain was reported less frequently by patients who received TLA. The use of opioids was significantly reduced in patients who received TLA (23% vs 62%; P = .002).

CONCLUSION

TLA is an effective and safe alternative to GA in S-ICD implantation. The use of TLA is associated with shorter in-room and procedural times, less postprocedural pain, and reduced usage of opioids and acetaminophen for analgesia.

Approaches to Minimizing Periprocedural Complications During Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-defibrillator Placement

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) is the latest option among devices clinically available for the prevention of sudden cardiac death, with experience from previous trials and postmarketing studies supporting the feasibility and safety of this kind of system. The extracardiac positioning of the S-ICD obviates the need for transvenous leads, which translates into lower incidence rates of lead-related complications and systemic infections. This review will highlight the results of pertinent studies related to the perioperative management of S-ICDs and review potential approaches to minimizing the risk of complications such as hematoma at the pulse generator location, unsuccessful defibrillation due to suboptimal S-ICD lead and generator positioning, and postoperative pain. An extensive literature search using PubMed was conducted to identify relevant articles.