McGuire JA, Hayanga JWA, Thibault D, Zukowski A, Grose B, Woods K, Schwartzman D, Hayanga HK. Anesthetic Choice for Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Device Placement and Lead Removal: A National Anesthesia Clinical Outcomes Registry Analysis.
J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2023;
37:2461-2469. [PMID:
37714760 DOI:
10.1053/j.jvca.2023.07.026]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/15/2023] [Revised: 07/01/2023] [Accepted: 07/19/2023] [Indexed: 09/17/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE
The authors evaluated the anesthetic approach for cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) placement and transvenous lead removal, hypothesizing that monitored anesthesia care is used more frequently than general anesthesia.
DESIGN
A retrospective study.
SETTING
National Anesthesia Clinical Outcomes Registry data.
PARTICIPANTS
Adult patients who underwent CIED (permanent cardiac pacemaker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator [ICD]) placement or transvenous lead removal between 2010 and 2021.
INTERVENTIONS
None.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS
Covariates were selected a priori within multivariate models to assess predictors of anesthetic type. A total of 87,530 patients underwent pacemaker placement, 76,140 had ICD placement, 2,568 had pacemaker transvenous lead removal, and 4,861 had ICD transvenous lead extraction; 51.2%, 45.64%, 16.82%, and 45.64% received monitored anesthesia care, respectively. A 2%, 1% (both p < 0.0001), and 2% (p = 0.0003) increase in monitored anesthesia care occurred for each 1-year increase in age for pacemaker placement, ICD placement, and pacemaker transvenous lead removal, respectively. American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status ≤III for pacemaker placement, ASA ≥IV for ICD placement, and ASA ≤III for pacemaker transvenous lead removal were 7% (p = 0.0013), 5% (p = 0.0144), and 27% (p = 0.0247) more likely to receive monitored anesthesia care, respectively. Patients treated in the Northeast were more likely to receive monitored anesthesia care than in the West for all groups analyzed (p < 0.0024). Male patients were 24% less likely to receive monitored anesthesia care for pacemaker transvenous lead removal (p = 0.0378). For every additional 10 pacemaker or ICD lead removals performed in a year, a 2% decrease in monitored anesthesia care was evident (p = 0.0271, p < 0.0001, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS
General anesthesia still has a strong presence in the anesthetic management of both CIED placement and transvenous lead removal. Anesthetic choice, however, varies with patient demographics, hospital characteristics, and geographic region.
Collapse