Electromagnetic interference on cardiac pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators during endoscopy as reported to the US Federal Drug Administration

Periprocedural Management and Multidisciplinary Care Pathways for Patients With Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

The rapid technological advancements in cardiac implantable electronic devices such as pacemakers, implantable cardioverter defibrillators, and loop recorders, coupled with a rise in the number of patients with these devices, necessitate an updated clinical framework for periprocedural management. The introduction of leadless pacemakers, subcutaneous and extravascular defibrillators, and novel device communication protocols underscores the imperative for clinical updates. This scientific statement provides an inclusive framework for the periprocedural management of patients with these devices, encompassing the planning phase, procedure, and subsequent care coordinated with the primary device managing clinic. Expert contributions from anesthesiologists, cardiac electrophysiologists, and cardiac nurses are consolidated to appraise current evidence, offer patient and health system management strategies, and highlight key areas for future research. The statement, pertinent to a wide range of health care professionals, underscores the importance of quality care pathways for patient safety, optimal device function, and minimization of hemodynamic disturbances or arrhythmias during procedures. Our primary objective is to deliver quality care to the expanding patient cohort with cardiac implanted electronic devices, offering direction in the era of evolving technologies and laying a foundation for sustained education and practice enhancement.

Assessing the Reproducibility of Research Based on the Food and Drug Administration Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience Data

OBJECTIVE

This article aims to assess the reproducibility of Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) data-driven studies by analyzing the data queries used in their research processes.

METHODS

Studies using MAUDE data were sourced from PubMed by searching for "MAUDE" or "Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience" in titles or abstracts. We manually chose articles with executable queries. The reproducibility of each query was assessed by replicating it in the MAUDE Application Programming Interface. The reproducibility of a query is determined by a reproducibility coefficient that ranges from 0.95 to 1.05. This coefficient is calculated by comparing the number of medical device reports (MDRs) returned by the reproduced queries to the number of reported MDRs in the original studies. We also computed the reproducibility ratio, which is the fraction of reproducible queries in subgroups divided by the query complexity, the device category, and the presence of a data processing flow.

RESULTS

As of August 8, 2022, we identified 523 articles from which 336 contained queries, and 60 of these were executable. Among these, 14 queries were reproducible. Queries using a single field like product code, product class, or brand name showed higher reproducibility (50%, 33.3%, 31.3%) compared with other fields (8.3%, P = 0.037). Single-category device queries exhibited a higher reproducibility ratio than multicategory ones, but without statistical significance (27.1% versus 8.3%, P = 0.321). Studies including a data processing flow had a higher reproducibility ratio than those without, although this difference was not statistically significant (42.9% versus 17.4%, P = 0.107).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate that the reproducibility of queries in MAUDE data-driven studies is limited. Enhancing this requires the development of more effective MAUDE data query strategies and improved application programming interfaces.

Sedation reversal trends at outpatient ambulatory endoscopic center vs in-hospital ambulatory procedure center using a triage protocol

BACKGROUND

Routine outpatient endoscopy is performed across a variety of outpatient settings. A known risk of performing endoscopy under moderate sedation is the potential for over-sedation, requiring the use of reversal agents. More needs to be reported on rates of reversal across different outpatient settings. Our academic tertiary care center utilizes a triage tool that directs higher-risk patients to the in-hospital ambulatory procedure center (APC) for their procedure. Here, we report data on outpatient sedation reversal rates for endoscopy performed at an in-hospital APC vs at a free-standing ambulatory endoscopy digestive health center (AEC-DHC) following risk stratification with a triage tool.

AIM

To observe the effect of risk stratification using a triage tool on patient outcomes, primarily sedation reversal events.

METHODS

We observed all outpatient endoscopy procedures performed at AEC-DHC and APC from April 2013 to September 2019. Procedures were stratified to their respective sites using a triage tool. We evaluated each procedure for which sedation reversal with flumazenil and naloxone was recorded. Demographics and characteristics recorded include patient age, gender, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, procedure type, and reason for sedation reversal.

RESULTS

There were 97366 endoscopic procedures performed at AEC-DHC and 22494 at the APC during the study period. Of these, 17 patients at AEC-DHC and 9 at the APC underwent sedation reversals (0.017% vs 0.04%; P = 0.06). Demographics recorded for those requiring reversal at AEC-DHC vs APC included mean age (53.5 ± 21 vs 60.4 ± 17.42 years; P = 0.23), ASA class (1.66 ± 0.48 vs 2.22 ± 0.83; P = 0.20), BMI (27.7 ± 6.7 kg/m2 vs 23.7 ± 4.03 kg/m2; P = 0.06), and female gender (64.7% vs 22%; P = 0.04). The mean doses of sedative agents and reversal drugs used at AEC-DHC vs APC were midazolam (5.9 ± 1.7 mg vs 8.9 ± 3.5 mg; P = 0.01), fentanyl (147.1 ± 49.9 μg vs 188.9 ± 74.1 μg; P = 0.10), flumazenil (0.3 ± 0.18 μg vs 0.17 ± 0.17 μg; P = 0.13) and naloxone (0.32 ± 0.10 mg vs 0.28 ± 0.12 mg; P = 0.35). Procedures at AEC-DHC requiring sedation reversal included colonoscopies (n = 6), esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) (n = 9) and EGD/colonoscopies (n = 2), whereas APC procedures included EGDs (n = 2), EGD with gastrostomy tube placement (n = 1), endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (n = 2) and endoscopic ultrasound's (n = 4). The indications for sedation reversal at AEC-DHC included hypoxia (n = 13; 76%), excessive somnolence (n = 3; 18%), and hypotension (n = 1; 6%), whereas, at APC, these included hypoxia (n = 7; 78%) and hypotension (n = 2; 22%). No sedation-related deaths or long-term post-sedation reversal adverse outcomes occurred at either site.

CONCLUSION

Our study highlights the effectiveness of a triage tool used at our tertiary care hospital for risk stratification in minimizing sedation reversal events during outpatient endoscopy procedures. Using a triage tool for risk stratification, low rates of sedation reversal can be achieved in the ambulatory settings for EGD and colonoscopy.

The perioperative management of small animals with previously implanted pacemakers undergoing anaesthesia

OBJECTIVE

There is little information in the veterinary literature about the perioperative management of small animal patients with previously implanted pacemakers undergoing elective or emergency non-cardiac procedures. The purpose of this article is to review the current literature with regard to human patients, with previously implanted pacemakers, undergoing general anaesthesia. Using this and the current information on pacemakers and anaesthesia in dogs and cats, we provide recommendations for small animal patients in this situation.

DATABASES USED

Google Scholar, PubMed and CAB Abstracts using and interlinking and narrowing the search terms: "dog", "cat", "small animals", "anaesthesia", "pacemaker", "perioperative", "transvenous pacing", "temporary pacing". Scientific reports and human and small animal studies from the reference lists of the retrieved papers were reviewed. In addition, related human and veterinary cardiology and anaesthesia textbooks were also included to create a narrative review of the subject.

CONCLUSIONS

The best perioperative care for these animals comes from a multidisciplinary approach involving the anaesthetist, cardiologist, surgeon and intensive care unit team. When such an approach is not feasible, the anaesthetist should be familiar with pacemaker technology and how to avoid perioperative complications such as electromagnetic interference, lead damage and reprogramming of the device. The preanaesthetic assessment should be thorough. Information regarding the indication for pacemaker placement, complications during the procedure, location, type and programming of the pacemaker should be readily available. The anaesthetic management of these veterinary patients aims to preserve cardiovascular function while avoiding hypotension, and backup pacing should be available during the perioperative period. Further prospective studies are needed to describe the best perioperative care in small animals with a previously implanted pacemaker.