Search

The remedē System (ZOLL Medical, Minnetonka, MN; Fig 1), which was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in October of 2017, is a transvenous device that stimulates the phrenic nerve for the treatment of central sleep apnea, which is often associated with heart failure and atrial fibrillation. Given the similarity in implantation procedure to pacemakers and implantable cardioverter/defibrillators, the remedē System implantation often occurs in the electrophysiology laboratory. Despite the transvenous nature and close proximity to cardiac structures on radiographic imaging, the remedē System does not have any cardiac pacing function/antiarrhythmia therapies, and it is important for an anesthesiologist to be able to recognize and manage such a device if they were to come across one preoperatively., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest Michael K Essandoh is a consultant for Boston Scientific and S4 Medical. Ralph S Augostini is a consultant for Medtronic and Respicardia, Inc (now part of ZOLL Medical)., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest Michael K Essandoh is a consultant for Boston Scientific and S4 Medical.

There has been a recent shift in bradycardia pacing and defibrillation therapy to leadless pacemakers and extrathoracic cardioverter-defibrillator technology due to complications associated with transvenous devices. These innovations have implications for anesthesia care, as these novel devices have design and functionality features different from transvenous devices. Current perioperative guidelines do not address management of leadless pacemakers and the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, although implantation rates are increasing globally. This article addresses the features and capabilities of nontransvenous cardiac implantable electronic devices, such as the Micra and the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, and provides guidance for perioperative management., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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.)

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., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors agree with and are responsible for the information presented within the manuscript. The University of California San Diego, Harvard Medical School, and the Ohio State University provided funding for this project. The authors have no conflicts on interest to report., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

This article is the second 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 second article focuses on cardiac sympathetic denervation, the management of patients with atrial fibrillation, cerebral oximetry for catheter ablation procedures, advancements in leadless pacemaker and subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator technology, and the emergence of pulsed field ablation for pulmonary vein isolation., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Purpose: To assess the feasibility and safety of same-day discharge after S-ICD implantation by implementing a specific analgesia protocol and phone follow-up., Methods: Consecutive patients presenting for outpatient S-ICD implantation were enrolled between 1/1/2018 and 4/30/2019. An analgesia protocol included pre-operative acetaminophen and oxycodone, intraoperative local bupivacaine, and limited use of oxycodone-acetaminophen at discharge. The primary outcome was successful same-day discharge. Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) on postoperative day (POD) 1, 3, 14, and 30 and any unplanned health care visits during the 1-month follow-up period were assessed., Results: Out of 53 potentially eligible S-ICD patients, 49 patients (92.5%) were enrolled and successfully discharged on the same day. Mean age of these 49 patients was 47 ± 14 years. There were no acute procedural complications. Severe pain (NPRS ≥ 8) on POD 0, 1, and 3 was present in 14.3%, 14.3%, and 8.2% of patients, respectively. The total in-hospital stay was 534 ± 80 min. Four unplanned visits (8%) due to cardiac or device-related issues occurred during 1-month follow-up, including 2 patients with heart failure exacerbation, one patient with an incisional infection, and one patient with inappropriate shocks., Conclusions: With the appropriate institutional protocol including specific analgesics and phone follow-up, same-day discharge after outpatient S-ICD implantation is feasible and appears safe for most patients.. Device-related pain can be severe in the first 3 days post-implantation and can be successfully treated with limited supply of narcotic medications.

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., (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.)

With the advent of "wireless" endocardial pacing, the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator, and leadless pacemakers comes an added layer of complexity to the perioperative management of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIED). Since no formal recommendations currently exist for these new CIED technologies, preoperative identification of these devices, understanding their functionality, and developing an individualized perioperative management plan are imperative for the anesthesiologist. The following review is intended to provide the background information required to devise a successful perioperative management strategy for newer CIEDs., (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.)

Background: The perioperative anticoagulation management during subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) implantation is still evolving., Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess whether it is safe to perform S-ICD implantation with uninterrupted warfarin., Methods: This is a single-center retrospective review of patients undergoing S-ICD implantation between October 1, 2012 and June 30, 2017. One hundred thirty-seven patients underwent successful S-ICD implantation during the study period. The most common indication for implantation was primary prevention of sudden cardiac death. In 24 (17.5%) patients, warfarin was continued without any interruption (warfarin group). In 113 (82.5%) patients, no warfarin was used in the perioperative period (nonwarfarin group). The incidence of clinically significant lateral pocket hematoma was compared in the 2 groups., Results: The mean international normalized ratio was 1.83 ± 0.47 in the warfarin group and 1.09 ± 0.18 in the nonwarfarin group. A total of 8 patients developed a hematoma at the lateral pocket. No patient developed a hematoma at the parasternal pockets. Six patients (25%) in the warfarin group and 2 (1.5%) in the nonwarfarin group developed a significant lateral pocket hematoma (P = .001). The mean length of stay was longer in the warfarin group (1.23 ± 0.46 days) than in the nonwarfarin group (1.02 ± 0.18 days) (P = .0008). An international normalized ratio of >1.8 predicted the risk of hematoma. The concomitant use of dual antiplatelet therapy did not increase the risk of hematoma. None of the patients with a hematoma developed infection or required hematoma evacuation., Conclusion: Uninterrupted warfarin in the perioperative period during S-ICD implantation is associated with an increased risk of significant lateral pocket hematoma that results in prolonged hospital stay., (Copyright © 2017 Heart Rhythm Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: During early experience with subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (S-ICD), several patients had inappropriate shocks from T-wave oversensing (TWOS) during exercise. This prompted some operators to perform routine treadmill exercise tests after implantation of S-ICD to screen for TWOS. Meanwhile, improvements have been made in the detection algorithms by the manufacturer., Objective: To assess whether routine treadmill exercise post S-ICD implantation is warranted., Methods: Patients undergoing S-ICD implantation from October 2012 to December 2016 who were able to complete a treadmill exercise were included in the study. The amplitude of R and T waves as assessed by the device programmer at rest and peak exercise was calculated and incidence of TWOS recorded., Results: Eighty-seven patients with complete treadmill exercise test data were included in the final analysis. The majority of the patients received S-ICD for primary prevention. Nine percent of the included patients had hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy. During treadmill exercise, there was significant increase in the heart rate from rest (77 ± 14 beats per minute) to peak exercise (133 ± 14 beats per minute; P < .0001). There was no significant difference between R-wave amplitude at rest (2 ± 0.77 mV) and peak exercise (1.88 ± 0.94 mV; P = .36). Similarly, there was no significant difference between T-wave amplitude at rest (0.27 ± 0.19 mV) and peak exercise (0.33 ± 0.23 mV; P = .06). The incidence of TWOS during exercise was zero., Conclusions: With current screening and detection algorithms for S-ICD, routine treadmill exercise does not result in additional discrimination of patients susceptible to TWOS., (Copyright © 2017 Heart Rhythm Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: To date, general anesthesia has been suggested as the preferred approach for implantation of a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD). The purpose of this study was to assess the use of monitored anesthesia care (MAC) for S-ICD implantation. The goals were to assess adequate sedation and analgesia (efficacy endpoints) and major perioperative airway or hemodynamic compromise (safety endpoints). The authors hypothesized that MAC may provide adequate sedation and analgesia and no major perioperative airway or hemodynamic compromise during S-ICD implantation and multiple defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing., Methods: Prospectively collected data of patients who underwent S-ICD implantation with MAC from 2015 to 2016 were analyzed retrospectively. The efficacy endpoints were the provision of an optimal depth of sedation and analgesia to facilitate S-ICD implantation without intra-procedure patient discomfort or awareness, and the absence of "severe" pain at the lead tunneling and the generator insertion sites post-procedure. The safety endpoints included: (1) periprocedural hypotension, as defined by a mean arterial pressure (MAP)<60 mmHg refractory to conventional pharmacotherapy, (2) heart rate (HR)<45 bpm requiring pharmacologic support, and (3) sedation-induced airway compromise requiring endotracheal intubation., Measurements: MAP and HR were recorded during S-ICD implantation and DFT testing. The maximum and minimum infusion rates of propofol, supplemental sedatives, and analgesics, and doses of vasopressor and/or inotropic agents administered intra-procedurally were recorded. Post-procedure pain scores also were noted., Results: Ten patients underwent S-ICD implantation with MAC (mean age, 56 years; 50% men; mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 39%). Implantation of the S-ICD system using MAC was successful in all patients without any major adverse events. The mean baseline MAP was 92.8 mmHg, and the mean end-procedure MAP was 88 mmHg (p = 0.26). When compared to baseline and end-procedure, the mean lowest intra-procedure MAP was significantly lower (67.4 mmHg; p = 0.0001). The mean baseline HR was 65.7 bpm, and the mean end-procedure HR was 70.1 bpm (p = 0.28). When compared to baseline and end-procedure, the mean lowest intra-procedure HR was significantly lower (55.8 bpm; p<0.001). MAC was not associated with airway compromise in any patient, and post-procedure pain was rated as no greater than "mild"., Conclusions: Among a heterogeneous patient population undergoing S-ICD implantation and DFT testing, the use of MAC is efficacious, feasible, and safe., (Copyright © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)