Search

The Impella 5.5 left ventricular assist device (LVAD) is typically placed in a hybrid operating room with fluoroscopic and echocardiographic guidance under general anesthesia. In this case report, we describe a patient with severe cardiopulmonary failure necessitating an Impella 5.5 as a bridge to heart/lung transplant. Here, we describe the successful placement of the Impella 5.5 with sedation and local anesthesia in order to avoid general anesthesia and the sequelae of positive pressure ventilation in a fragile patient. Impella placement was confirmed with transesophageal echocardiography. This case report demonstrates a novel strategy for placing the Impella 5.5 and, more importantly, opens the possibility to future prospective studies of this technique., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

This article is the third in an annual series for the Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia. The authors thank the Editor-in-Chief Dr. Kaplan, the Associate Editor-in-Chief Dr. Augoustides, and the editorial board for the opportunity to continue this series; namely, the highlights of the year that pertain to electrophysiology in relation to cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia. This third article focuses on the convergent procedure, His-bundle pacing, a comparison of subcutaneous and transvenous defibrillator therapies, the 2020 practice advisory update for the perioperative management of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices, and a technology update regarding the Micra AV (Medtronic, Moundsview, MN), the EMPOWER leadless pacemaker (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA), WiSE-CRT (EBR Systems, Sunnyvale, CA), the Extravascular Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator (Medtronic, Moundsview, MN), and the BAROSTIM NEO (CVRx Inc, Minneapolis, MN)., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: The perioperative anesthesia care during subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) implantation is still evolving., Objective: To assess the feasibility and safety of S-ICD implantation with monitored anesthesia care (MAC) versus general anesthesia (GA) in a tertiary care center., Methods: This is a single-center retrospective study of patients undergoing S-ICD implantation between October 2012 and May 2019. Patients were categorized into MAC and GA group based on the mode of anesthesia. Procedural success without escalation to GA was the primary endpoint of the study, whereas intraprocedural hemodynamics, need of pharmacological support for hypotension and bradycardia, length of the procedure, stay in the post-anesthesia care unit, and postoperative pain were assessed as secondary endpoints., Results: The study comprises 287 patients with MAC in 111 and GA in 176 patients. Compared to MAC, patients in GA group were younger and had a higher body mass index. All patients had successful S-ICD implantation. Only one patient (0.9%) in the MAC group was converted to GA. Despite a similar baseline heart rate (HR) and mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) in both groups, patients with GA had significantly lower HR and MAP during the procedure and more frequently required pharmacological hemodynamic support. Length of the procedure, stay in the postanesthesia care unit, and postoperative pain was similar in both groups., Conclusion: This retrospective experience suggests that implantation of S-ICD is feasible and safe with MAC. Use of GA is associated with more frequent administration of hemodynamic drugs during S-ICD implantation., (© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

This article is the first in an annual series for the Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia. The authors thank the editor-in-chief, Dr. Kaplan, the associate editor-in-chief, Dr. Augoustides, and the editorial board for the opportunity to start this series, namely the research highlights of the year that pertain to electrophysiology in relation to cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia. This first article focuses on esophageal thermal injury during radiofrequency ablation, perioperative management of patients presenting for ablation procedures, left atrial appendage occlusion devices, and, finally, heart failure diagnostic devices., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background and Objective: Worldwide adoption of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) for preventing sudden cardiac death continues to increase, as longer-term evidence demonstrating the safety and efficacy of the S-ICD expands. As a relatively new technology, comprehensive anesthesia guidance for the management of patients undergoing S-ICD placement is lacking. This article presents advantages and disadvantages of different periprocedural sedation and anesthesia options for S-ICD implants including general anesthesia, monitored anesthesia care, regional anesthesia, and nonanesthesia personnel administered sedation and analgesia., Methods: Guidance, for approaches to anesthesia care during S-ICD implantation, is presented based upon literature review and consensus of a panel of high-volume S-ICD implanters, a regional anesthesiologist, and a cardiothoracic anesthesiologist with significant S-ICD experience. The panel developed suggested actions for perioperative sedation, anesthesia, surgical practices, and a decision algorithm for S-ICD implantation., Conclusions: While S-ICD implantation currently requires higher sedation than transvenous ICD systems, the panel consensus is that general anesthesia is not required or is obligatory for the majority of patients for the experienced S-ICD implanter. The focus of the implanting physician and the anesthesia services should be to maximize patient comfort and take into consideration patient-specific comorbidities, with a low threshold to consult the anesthesiology team., (© 2018 The Authors. Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Cardiac myxomas account for 50% of all benign primary cardiac tumors. Rarely, these tumors occur in the right atrium (RA; 10% to 20%), with a stalk frequently attached to the interatrial septum. Right atrial myxomas can lead to RA enlargement, arrhythmias, functional tricuspid stenosis, right heart failure, and catastophic pulmonary embolization resulting in sudden cardiac death. Anesthetic management of patients with RA myxomas can be complicated by the mass effect of the myxoma, preload limitations, and the potential for cardiovascular collapse. Multimodal cardiac imaging inclusive of echocardiography, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging helps with the diagnosis, preoperative optimization, and formulation of anesthetic and surgical plans. We present a case report highlighting the importance of multimodal imaging, adequate preoperative patient optimization, and the anesthetic considerations in the successful management of a patient with a giant 8.3 × 4.7 cm RA myxoma., (© The Author(s) 2015.)

Temporary epicardial pacing frequently is employed after cardiac surgery, and can have a significant impact on a patient's hemodynamics, arrhythmias, and valvulopathies. Given that anesthesiologists often are involved intimately in the initial programming and subsequent management of epicardial pacing in the operating room and intensive care unit, it is important for practitioners to have a detailed understanding of the modes, modifiable intervals, and potential complications that can occur after cardiac surgery. Because this topic has not been reviewed recently in anesthesia literature, the authors attempted to review relevant epicardial pacemaker specifics, discuss modes and parameters that apply to the perioperative period, present an algorithm for mode selection, describe the potential effects of epicardial pacing on valvulopathies and hemodynamics, and, finally, discuss some postoperative considerations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This is the final review article in a 4-part series focusing on the perioperative management of the 4 major companies' cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) in the United States. This article presents information pertinent to the perioperative management of Medtronic (Minneapolis, MN) transvenous CIEDs, including responses to magnet application, interpretation of interrogation reports, and basic programming (eg, mode, rate, rate modulation, and tachyarrhythmia therapies). Information regarding the Medtronic Micra (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN) has been published previously. In addition, it contains an introduction to the concept of magnetic resonance (MR) conditional devices and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Biotronik cardiovascular implantable electronic devices, specifically Biotronik pacemakers, contain unique features that are relevant to perioperative management. For example, Biotronik pacemakers have a programmable response to magnet application, a default magnet response that does not result in sustained asynchronous pacing, and a unique method of rate adaptation (eg, closed loop stimulation). This review article focuses on these unique features; the interpretation of Biotronik interrogation reports; and the basic programming (eg, mode, rate, rate adaptation, tachyarrhythmia therapies) relevant to the perioperative management of Biotronik cardiovascular implantable electronic devices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Feelings of trepidation or uncertainty regarding cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) in the perioperative period can often be mitigated by a thorough knowledge of societal recommendations, recommended management options, and familiarity with CIEDs. Given that effective interpretation of an interrogation report is vital to determining perioperative management options and applying societal recommendations, the creation and interpretation of St. Jude CIED interrogation reports are discussed. In an effort to increase the familiarity with St. Jude transvenous CIEDs amongst anesthesiologists, basic programming of a St. Jude pacemaker and implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) also are described. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The recently approved subcutaneous implantable cardioverter/defibrillator (S-ICD) uses a single extrathoracic subcutaneous lead to treat life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias, such as ventricular tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation. This is different from conventional transvenous ICDs, which are typically implanted under sedation. Currently, there are no reports regarding the anesthetic management of patients undergoing S-ICD implantation.Study Objectives: This study describes the anesthetic management and outcomes in patients undergoing S-ICD implantation and defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing.Methods: The study population consists of 73 patients who underwent S-ICD implantation. General anesthesia (n = 69, 95%) or conscious/deep sedation (n = 4, 5%) was used for device implantation.Measurements: Systolic blood pressure (SBP) and heart rate were recorded periprocedurally for S-ICD implantation and DFTs. Major adverse events were SBP <90 mm Hg refractory to vasopressor agents, significant bradycardia (heart rate <45 beats per minute) requiring pharmacologic intervention and, "severe" pain at the lead tunneling site and the S-ICD generator insertion site based on patient perception.Interventions: Of the 73 patients, 39 had SBP <90 mm Hg (53%), and intermittent boluses of vasopressors and inotropes were administered with recovery of SBP. In 2 patients, SBP did not respond, and the patients required vasopressor infusion in the intensive care unit.Main Results: Although the S-ICD procedure involved extensive tunneling and a mean of 2.5 ± 1.7 DFTs per patient, refractory hypotension was a major adverse event in only 2 patients. The mean baseline SBP was 132.5 ± 22.0 mm Hg, and the mean minimum SBP during the procedure was 97.3 ± 9.2 mm Hg (P < .01). There was also a mean 13-beats per minute decrease in heart rate (P < .01), but no pharmacologic intervention was required. Eight patients developed "severe" pain at the lead tunneling and generator insertion sites and were adequately managed with intravenous morphine.Conclusions: Among a heterogeneous population, anesthesiologists can safely manage patients undergoing S-ICD implantation and repeated DFTs without wide swings in SBP and with minimal intermittent pharmacologic support. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]