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

被引:9
|
作者
Neubauer, Horst [1 ]
Wellmann, Malte [1 ]
Herzog-Niescery, Jennifer [2 ]
Wutzler, Alexander [1 ]
Weber, Thomas Peter [2 ]
Muegge, Andreas [1 ]
Vogelsang, Heike [2 ]
机构
[1] Ruhr Univ Bochum, St Josef Hosp, Cardiovasc Ctr, Gudrunstr 56, D-44791 Bochum, Germany
[2] Ruhr Univ Bochum, St Josef Hosp, Dept Anaesthesiol & Intens Care Med, Bochum, Germany
来源
关键词
cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED); electrocautery; electromagnetic interference (EMI); implanted cardioverter defibrillator (ICD); magnet application; perioperative management; IMPLANTABLE ELECTRONIC DEVICES; CARDIOVERTER-DEFIBRILLATORS; MAGNET APPLICATION; PACEMAKERS;
D O I
10.1111/pace.13514
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background The prevalence of patients with implanted cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) and the frequency of surgery on these patients are steadily on the rise. Guidelines recommend preoperative ICD reprogramming, although this is sometimes difficult in clinical practice. Placing a magnet on the ICD is a practical alternative and even no inactivation is possible in selected cases. Methods Results In this prospective observational study, we compared different perioperative ICD management strategies depending on the location of the surgery and the type of electrocautery used. Patients undergoing surgery above the umbilicus with monopolar electrocautery had their ICD therapy inactivated by reprogramming. When surgery below the navel or surgery above the navel with bipolar electrocautery was completed, ICD inactivation was performed using a magnet. No inactivation was performed on patients undergoing lower extremity surgery with bipolar electrocautery. Only ICD patients who were not pacemaker dependent were enrolled. After surgery, the ICDs were assessed regarding documented arrhythmias and parameters. Out of 101 patients included in this study, the ICD was preoperatively reprogrammed in 42 patients (41.6%), a magnet was used on 45 patients (44.5%), and ICDs were not deactivated at all in 14 patients (13.9%). No intraoperative electromagnetic interference was detected. Postoperative ICD analysis demonstrated no changes of preset parameters. Conclusions All three tested ICD management strategies were proved safe in this study. Keeping the location of surgery and the type of electrocautery in mind, an intraoperative magnet or even no ICD deactivation at all could be feasible alternatives in surgery on patients with ICDs.
引用
收藏
页码:1536 / 1542
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Perioperative management of ICD'S- are we compliant with the guidelines?
    Finnerty, D.
    Sheahan, R.
    Collins, L.
    O'Grady, R.
    O'Connell, H.
    [J]. HEART, 2023, 109 (SUPPL_6) : A56 - A58
  • [2] ICD-ON Registry for Perioperative Management of CIEDs: Most Require No Change
    Gifford, Janet
    Larimer, Karen
    Thomas, Celia
    May, Patricia
    [J]. PACE-PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, 2017, 40 (02): : 128 - 134
  • [3] PERIOPERATIVE MORTALITY OF ICD IMPLANTATION - RELATIONSHIP TO AMIODARONE
    BAHU, M
    KOU, WH
    LEWIS, RRR
    SCHORK, A
    SHYR, Y
    KIRSH, MM
    BRUNSTING, LA
    BOLLING, SF
    MORADY, F
    CALKINS, H
    [J]. CIRCULATION, 1992, 86 (04) : 657 - 657
  • [4] PATIENT SELECTION FOR ICD TREATMENT AND PERIOPERATIVE MORTALITY
    HEMMER, W
    WELZ, A
    WEISMULLER, P
    BEYER, M
    HANNEKUM, A
    [J]. EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL, 1993, 14 : 128 - 133
  • [5] Randomized Controlled Trial of Perioperative ICD Management: Magnet Application versus Reprogramming
    Gifford, Janet
    Larimer, Karen
    Thomas, Celia
    May, Patricia
    Stanhope, Stephen
    Gami, Apoor
    [J]. PACE-PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, 2014, 37 (09): : 1219 - 1224
  • [6] Perioperative hematoma with subcutaneous ICD implantation: Impact of anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapies
    Sheldon, Seth H.
    Cunnane, Ryan
    Lavu, Madhav
    Parikh, Valay
    Atkins, Donita
    Reddy, Yeruva Madhu
    Berenbom, Loren D.
    Emert, Martin P.
    Pimentel, Rhea
    Dendi, Raghuveer
    Lakkireddy, Dhanunjaya R.
    [J]. PACE-PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, 2018, 41 (07): : 799 - 806
  • [7] Perioperative Management Of Patients On Dabigatran - a Prospective Cohort Study
    Schulman, Sam
    Douketis, James
    Barty, Rebecca
    Lee, Agnes Y. Y.
    Carrier, Marc
    Spencer, Fred
    Blostein, Mark D.
    Solymoss, Susan
    Shivakumar, Sudeep
    Wang, Grace
    Heddle, Nancy
    [J]. BLOOD, 2013, 122 (21)
  • [8] Understanding Outcomes with the EMBLEM S-ICD in Primary Prevention Patients with Low EF Study (UNTOUCHED): Clinical characteristics and perioperative results
    Boersma, Lucas V.
    El-Chami, Mikhael F.
    Bongiorni, Maria Grazia
    Burke, Martin C.
    Knops, Reinoud E.
    Aasbo, Johan D.
    Lambiase, Pier D.
    Deharo, Jean Claude
    Russo, Andrea M.
    Dinerman, Jay
    Shaik, Naushad
    Barr, Craig S.
    Carter, Nathan
    Appl, Ursula
    Brisben, Amy J.
    Stein, Kenneth M.
    Gold, Michael R.
    [J]. HEART RHYTHM, 2019, 16 (11) : 1636 - 1644
  • [9] Patient evaluation of ICD recall communication strategies: A vignette study
    Stutts, Lauren A.
    Conti, Jamie B.
    Aranda, Juan M., Jr.
    Miles, William M.
    Burkart, Thomas A.
    Sears, Samuel F.
    [J]. PACE-PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, 2007, 30 (09): : 1105 - 1111
  • [10] Role of ICD in primary prevention patients: Predictive parameters of appropriate ICD procedures (AURA study)
    D'Agostino, C.
    Campanale, G.
    Iuliano, A.
    Gallo, P.
    De Fabrizio, G.
    Palella, M.
    Campanale, E. G.
    Guarini, P.
    Ciardiello, C.
    Stabile, G.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, 2007, 18 : S29 - S29