Predictors of intraoperative electrosurgery-induced implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) detection

2024 AHA/ACC/ACS/ASNC/HRS/SCA/SCCT/SCMR/SVM Guideline for Perioperative Cardiovascular Management for Noncardiac Surgery: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2024 AHA/ACC/ACS/ASNC/HRS/SCA/SCCT/SCMR/SVM Guideline for Perioperative Cardiovascular Management for Noncardiac Surgery" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the perioperative cardiovascular evaluation and management of adult patients undergoing noncardiac surgery.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from August 2022 to March 2023 to identify clinical studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (through PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline.

STRUCTURE

Recommendations from the "2014 ACC/AHA Guideline on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation and Management of Patients Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery" have been updated with new evidence consolidated to guide clinicians; clinicians should be advised this guideline supersedes the previously published 2014 guideline. In addition, evidence-based management strategies, including pharmacological therapies, perioperative monitoring, and devices, for cardiovascular disease and associated medical conditions, have been developed.

2024 AHA/ACC/ACS/ASNC/HRS/SCA/SCCT/SCMR/SVM Guideline for Perioperative Cardiovascular Management for Noncardiac Surgery: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2024 AHA/ACC/ACS/ASNC/HRS/SCA/SCCT/SCMR/SVM Guideline for Perioperative Cardiovascular Management for Noncardiac Surgery" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the perioperative cardiovascular evaluation and management of adult patients undergoing noncardiac surgery.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from August 2022 to March 2023 to identify clinical studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (through PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline.

STRUCTURE

Recommendations from the "2014 ACC/AHA Guideline on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation and Management of Patients Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery" have been updated with new evidence consolidated to guide clinicians; clinicians should be advised this guideline supersedes the previously published 2014 guideline. In addition, evidence-based management strategies, including pharmacological therapies, perioperative monitoring, and devices, for cardiovascular disease and associated medical conditions, have been developed.

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.

Monopolar Electrosurgery With Cochlear Implants

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate safety of monopolar electrosurgery (MES) in patients with cochlear implants (CIs) by reporting outcomes of a series of patients who underwent MES after CI.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective case series.

SETTING

Tertiary referral center.

PATIENTS

Patients with indwelling CI subsequently undergoing surgery with operative note specifically detailing MES use.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Adverse outcomes in post-operative audiology/otolaryngology documentation; speech recognition scores.

RESULTS

Thirty-five patients (10 with bilateral CI) experienced 63 unique MES exposure events, 85.7% below and 14.3% above the clavicle. No adverse events or decreased performance due to MES use were reported for any patient. Pre- and immediate postoperative speech recognition scores were not significantly different for patients using either consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC; n = 23, 68%-66%, p = 0.80) or AzBio (n = 15, 82%-88%, p = 0.60). For individual CNC performance, 21 (91%) patients demonstrated stability, 1 improved >15%, and 1 declined >15%, although this patient had become a non-user due to magnet issues and, after resolution of these issues, exceeded baseline pre-operative score. For individual AzBio performance, 12 (80%) patients demonstrated stability, 3 improved >15%, and none declined >15%.

CONCLUSIONS

No adverse events resulted from MES use in CI patients. Given the increased prevalence and expansion of indications for CIs, and widespread utility of MES, we suggest clarification and improved guidance from device manufacturers regarding safety and use of MES for patients with these devices. We hope that data regarding electrosurgery exposure events will better inform clinician decision-making with regards to relative benefits and risks for MES use for CI patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4 Laryngoscope, 133:933-937, 2023.

Inadvertent Intraoperative Defibrillation Secondary to Electrocautery Grounding Pad Placement

Intraoperative defibrillation secondary to the usage of electrocautery in a patient with a cardiovascular implantable electronic device is a rare occurrence, and below-the-umbilicus electrocautery use causing inadvertent defibrillation is a near-zero risk. Defibrillation secondary to electrodispersive pad (EDP) radiofrequency dispersion has only ever been theorized. In this report, we describe the case of a 67-year-old male with an automatic implantable cardioverter defibrillator (AICD) undergoing a robotic-assisted left anterior total hip arthroplasty for left hip osteoarthritis who experienced inadvertent intraoperative defibrillation concurrent with electrocautery usage. The defibrillations ceased following contralateral EDP repositioning and application of a donut magnet overlying the patient's AICD.

Pro-Con Debate: Are Patients With a Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Device Suitable to Receive Care in a Free-Standing Ambulatory Surgery Center?

Migration of surgical and other procedures that require anesthesia care from a hospital to a free-standing ambulatory surgery center (ASC) continues to grow. Patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) might benefit from receiving their care in a free-standing ASC setting. However, these patients have cardiovascular comorbidities that can elevate the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events. CIEDs are also complex devices and perioperative management varies between devices marketed by various manufacturers and require consultation and ancillary services, which may not be available in a free-standing ASC. Thus, perioperative care of these patients can be challenging. Therefore, the suitability of this patient population in a free-standing ASC remains highly controversial. Although applicable advisories exist, considerable discussion continues with surgeons and other proceduralists about the concerns of anesthesiologists. In this Pro-Con commentary article, we discuss the arguments for and against scheduling a patient with a CIED in a free-standing ASC.

Perioperative Management of Patients with Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices and Utility of Magnet Application

With the demographic evolution of the population, patients undergoing surgery today are older and have an increasing number of sometimes complex comorbidities. Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) are also getting more and more complex with very sophisticated programming algorithms. It may be generally assumed that magnet application reverts pacing to an asynchronous mode in pacemakers and disables tachycardia detection/therapy in internal cardioverter-defibrillators. However, depending on device type, manufacturer and model, the response to magnet application may differ substantially. For these reasons, perioperative management of CIED patients is getting more and more challenging. With this review article we provide an overview of optimal perioperative management of CIED patients with a detailed description of CIED response to magnet application depending on manufacturer and device-type, which may help in providing a safe perioperative management plan for the CIED patient.

Implementation of a Postoperative Electronic Health Record Alert for Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Patients

PURPOSE

Approximately 2% of surgical patients have an existing cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED). Perioperative device reprogramming requires postoperative care to ensure that device settings are restored. Electronic health record (EHR) alerts have been shown to improve communication between providers and decrease time to necessary interventions in other areas of medicine. The aim of this quality improvement project was to create an EHR alert for postoperative CIED patients who require device reprogramming to help clinicians track, remember, and document the timely and safe restoration of device settings.

DESIGN

This project used a pre-post observational design.

METHODS

This project was conducted at a major academic medical center using a pre-post observational design. To prevent anesthesia providers from closing an encounter in the EHR before postoperative restoration of device settings, an alert was developed and embedded within the intraoperative EHR to track preoperative device reprogramming, and alert anesthesia providers to perform and document postoperative restoration of safe settings.

FINDINGS

The postimplementation group (n = 272) had fewer unknown or undocumented preoperative CIED interventions (12.9% vs 30.9%), a 7.3% shorter device suspension time (median = 165 minutes vs 178 minutes), 6.8% improvement in documentation of postoperative re-enabling of device therapies (78.8% vs 72.0%), and a 72.48% decrease in length of stay (median = 625 hours vs 172 hours) when compared with the preimplementation group (n = 132).

CONCLUSION

Electronic prompts effectively captured patients who received preoperative CIED reprogramming and provided a process for reprogramming devices to safe settings, both significant steps in preventing negative patient outcomes associated with undocumented CIED interventions. Perioperative CIED documentation improved, and length of stay decreased after project implementation.

Inappropriate Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Therapy With the Use of an Underbody Electrosurgery Dispersive Electrode

Perioperative management of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators is an important part of anesthetic care. Society recommendations and expert consensus statements exist to aid clinicians, and they have identified the umbilicus as an important landmark in decision-making. Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator antitachycardia therapy may not need to be deactivated for infraumbilical surgery because electromagnetic interference is unlikely to occur. The authors present two cases in which inappropriate antitachycardia therapy occurred intraoperatively with use of an underbody dispersive electrode, even though both surgeries were infraumbilical. The authors also present two cadaver models to demonstrate how monopolar electrosurgery below the umbilicus is sensed using both traditional and underbody dispersive electrosurgical return electrodes.

[Cardiac implantable electronic devices : Electromagnetic interference from electrocauterization, lithotripsy and physiotherapy]

The management of patients with a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) poses a particular challenge in the peri-interventional and perioperative medical environment due to the many forms of possible electromagnetic interference. Although the devices encountered nowadays are of increasing complexity, the vast majority of procedures can be safely performed in patients. The existing position statements and recommendations, however, have a low level of evidence and are often contradictory. In the context of intraoperative electrocauterization, one of the most important sources of electromagnetic interference in the medical environment, recent studies have suggested an increasingly pragmatically perioperative CIED management, which is not represented in the existing recommendations. This article gives an example of these newer findings and reports the currently used and appropriately adapted perioperative CIED management protocol. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy was thought to cause severe interference in CIED patients based on older studies and in vitro experiments. Although electromagnetic interference is possible, clinical observations with modern devices show that the procedure can generally be safely applied in CIED patients. Physiotherapy often utilizes a variety of electromechanical devices, which can be a relevant source of electromagnetic interference. Although some of these therapies can be safely used, coordination with the responsible CIED unit is recommended.

Electromagnetic Interference with Protocolized Electrosurgery Dispersive Electrode Positioning in Patients with Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators

Editor’s Perspective

What We Already Know about This Topic

What This Article Tells Us That Is New

Background

The goal of this study was to determine the occurrence of intraoperative electromagnetic interference from monopolar electrosurgery in patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator undergoing surgery. A protocolized approach was used to position the dispersive electrode.

Methods

This was a prospective cohort study including 144 patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators undergoing surgery between May 2012 and September 2016 at an academic medical center. The primary objectives were to determine the occurrences of electromagnetic interference and clinically meaningful electromagnetic interference (interference that would have resulted in delivery of inappropriate antitachycardia therapy had the antitachycardia therapy not been programmed off) in noncardiac surgeries above the umbilicus, noncardiac surgeries at or below the umbilicus, and cardiac surgeries with the use of an underbody dispersive electrode.

Results

The risks of electromagnetic interference and clinically meaningful electromagnetic interference were 14 of 70 (20%) and 5 of 70 (7%) in above-the-umbilicus surgery, 1 of 40 (2.5%) and 0 of 40 (0%) in below-the-umbilicus surgery, and 23 of 34 (68%) and 10 of 34 (29%) in cardiac surgery. Had conservative programming strategies intended to reduce the risk of inappropriate antitachycardia therapy been employed, the occurrence of clinically meaningful electromagnetic interference would have been 2 of 70 (2.9%) in above-the-umbilicus surgery and 3 of 34 (8.8%) in cardiac surgery.

Conclusions

Despite protocolized dispersive electrode positioning, the risks of electromagnetic interference and clinically meaningful electromagnetic interference with surgery above the umbilicus were high, supporting published recommendations to suspend antitachycardia therapy whenever monopolar electrosurgery is used above the umbilicus. For surgery below the umbilicus, these risks were negligible, implying that suspending antitachycardia therapy is likely unnecessary in these patients. For cardiac surgery, the risks of electromagnetic interference and clinically meaningful electromagnetic interference with an underbody dispersive electrode were high. Conservative programming strategies would not have eliminated the risk of clinically meaningful electromagnetic interference in either noncardiac surgery above the umbilicus or cardiac surgery.

Appropriate Classification and Filtering of Electromagnetic Interference by the S-ICD Sensing Algorithm During Surgery

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) is a new device used for the prevention of sudden cardiac death. Best practices in the perioperative management of the S-ICD are not established; therefore, clinicians typically deactivate the device during surgery, with reinterrogation and activation postoperatively. This could put the patient at risk for being discharged with the device "off." We present two cases where electromagnetic interference was appropriately detected by the S-ICD and filtered. These cases present an important clinical finding that could lead to less deactivation of devices during surgery. Further research will be required to define which surgical procedures require magnet, reprogramming, or no changes.