Post-operative pain following cardiac implantable electronic device implantation: insights from the BRUISE CONTROL trials

Intraoperative ultrasound-guided pectoral nerve blocks for cardiac implantable device procedures

BACKGROUND

Pectoral nerve (PECs) blocks are established regional anesthesia techniques that can provide analgesia to the anterior chest wall. Although commonly performed preoperatively by anesthesiologists, the feasibility of electrophysiologist-performed PECs blocks from within cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) pockets at the time of implantation has not been established. The objective of this study is to assess the feasibility of routine PECs blocks performed by the electrophysiologist from within the exposed device pocket at the time of CIED procedures.

METHODS

Patients undergoing CIED procedures underwent a PECs I block (15 cc of 1% lidocaine/0.25% bupivacaine) injected between the pectoralis major and minor muscles guided by ultrasound placed in the device pocket, or PECs II block, which included a second injection (15 cc) between pectoralis minor and serratus anterior muscles. Postoperatively, pain was assessed on a numeric scale (0-10) at 1, 2, 4, and 24 h, and 2 weeks after the procedure.

RESULTS

Among 20 patients (age 65 ± 16 years, 70% male, 55% with history of chronic pain), PECs I (75%) and PECs II (25%) blocks were performed. The procedures were de novo implantation (n = 17) or device revision (n = 3). The average pain score in the first 4 h was 0.4 ± 0.8 and 0.3 ± 0.6 at 24 h after the procedure. During the 24-h postoperative period, 4 patients received opioids. Two patients were discharged with opioids for pain unrelated to the procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoperative PECs blocks can be feasibly performed from within an exposed pocket at the time of CIED procedures with minimal postoperative pain.

Efficacy and safety of supraclavicular and pectoralis nerve blocks as primary peri-procedural analgesia for cardiac electronic device implantation: A pilot study

BACKGROUND

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are routinely implanted using intravenous drugs for sedation. However, some patients are poor candidates for intravenous sedation.

OBJECTIVE

We present a case series demonstrating the safety and efficacy of a novel, ultrasound-guided nerve block technique that allows for pre-pectoral CIED implantation. The targets are the supraclavicular nerve (SCN) and pectoral nerve (PECS1).

METHODS

We enrolled 20 patients who were planned for new CIED implantation. Following US-localization of the SCN and PECS1, local anesthetic (LA) was instilled at least 30-60 min pre-procedure. Successful nerve block was determined if < 5 mL of intraprocedural LA was used, along with lack of sensation with skin and deep tissue pinprick. Optional sedation was offered to patients' pre-procedure if discomfort was reported.

RESULTS

Seventeen patients (85%) had a successful periprocedural nerve block, with only three patients exceeding 5 mL of LA. SCN and PECS1 success occurred in 19 (95%) and 18 (90%) patients, respectively. The overall success of nerve block by fulfilling all the criteria was demonstrated in 17 out of 20 patients (85%). Patients who reported no pain (VAS score = 0) were distributed as follows: 13 patients (65%) in the immediate post-procedure interval, 18 patients (90%) at the 1 h post-implant interval, and 14 patients (70%) at the 24 h post- implant interval. The median cumulative VAS score was 0 (IQR = 0 - 1). There were no reported significant adverse effects.

CONCLUSION

SCN and PECS1 nerve blocks are safe and effective for patients undergoing CIED implantation to minimize or eliminate the use of intravenous sedation.

Adverse clinical events during the first 24 h of bedrest following cardiac electronic device implantation: a prospective observational study

AIMS

To describe the incidence and impact of adverse clinical events (ACEs) during first 24 h of bedrest of patients after cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We conducted a prospective observational study of patients aged over 18 years undergoing elective placement of permanent bicameral pacemaker (PM), cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) PM, CRT defibrillator, or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. Patients were maintained on bedrest post-operatively for 24 h and delirium, post-operative urinary retention, severe post-operative pain, pressure ulcer, and sleep disturbance were recorded using standardized assessments. Of 90 patients, 66 (73.3%) were male and average age was 76 ± 10 years. The median time to first mobilization was 23 (21-24) h. The adverse clinical events occurred in 48/90, with severe pain (38/90), sleep disturbance (12/90), delirium (9/90), and urinary retention requiring urinary catheterization (8/90) most frequent. Patients receiving implantable cardioverter-defibrillator or CRT defibrillator experienced ACEs significantly more frequently than those receiving PM. Adverse clinical event was associated with prolonged hospital stay [odds ratio (OR) 2.5; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.16-6.17]. Patients with delirium were more dependent for daily living activities on admission (OR 8.0; 95% CI 1.55-41.3).

CONCLUSION

Adverse clinical events frequently occur post-insertion of a CIED and impact patient clinical course and experience. The progressive increase in ageing and frailty of CIED implant candidates requires special nursing attention to improve patients' satisfaction and to prevent increased healthcare resource use.

Risk factors for hematoma in patients undergoing cardiac device procedures: A WRAP-IT trial analysis

Background

Implant site hematoma is a known complication of cardiac device procedures and can lead to major consequences.

Objectives

To evaluate risk factors for hematoma and further understand the relationship between anticoagulant (AC), antiplatelet (AP) use, and hematoma development.

Methods

We included 6800 patients from the WRAP-IT trial. To assess baseline and procedural characteristics associated with hematoma within the first 30 days postprocedure, a stepwise Cox regression model was implemented with minimal Akaike information criterion. Cox regressions were also used to evaluate AC/AP use and hematoma risk.

Results

The overall rate of hematoma was 2.2%. The model identified 11 baseline and procedural characteristics associated with hematoma risk. AC use (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.44, P < .001), lower body mass index (HR: 1.06, P < .001), and history of valve surgery (HR: 2.11, P < .001) were associated with the highest risk. AP use, male sex, history of coronary artery disease, existing pocket, history of nonischemic cardiomyopathy, number of previous cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) procedures, procedure time, and lead revision were associated with moderate risk. Antithrombotic use was high overall (86%) and AC+AP use was highly predictive of hematoma risk. Regardless of AC status, AP use was associated with an almost doubling of risk vs no AP (HR = 1.85, P = .0006) in the general cohort. Interruption of AC was associated with the lowest hematoma risk (HR = 2.35) while heparin bridging (HR = 4.98) and AP use vs no AP use (HR = 1.85) was associated with the highest hematoma risk.

Conclusion

The results of this analysis highlight risk factors associated with the development of hematoma in patients undergoing CIED procedures and can inform antithrombotic management.

The Practice of Deep Sedation in Electrophysiology and Cardiac Pacing Laboratories: Results of an Italian Survey Promoted by the AIAC (Italian Association of Arrhythmology and Cardiac Pacing)

The aim of this survey, which was open to all Italian cardiologists involved in arrhythmia, was to assess common practice regarding sedation and analgesia in interventional electrophysiology procedures in Italy. The survey consisted of 28 questions regarding the approach to sedation used for elective direct-current cardioversion (DCC), subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) implantation, atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation, ventricular tachycardia (VT) ablation, and transvenous lead extraction procedures. A total of 105 cardiologists from 92 Italian centres took part in the survey. The rate of centres where DCC, S-ICD implantation, AF ablation, VT ablation and lead extraction procedures were performed without anaesthesiologic assistance was 60.9%, 23.6%, 51.2%, 37.3%, and 66.7%, respectively. When these procedures were performed without anaesthesiologic assistance, the drugs (in addition to local anaesthetics) commonly administered were benzodiazepines (from 64.3% to 79.6%), opioids (from 74.4% to 88.1%), and general anaesthetics (from 7.1% to 30.4%). Twenty-three (21.9%) of the 105 cardiologists declared that they routinely administered propofol, without the supervision of an anaesthesiologist, in at least one of the above-mentioned procedures. In current Italian clinical practice, there is a lack of uniformity in the sedation/analgesia approach used in interventional electrophysiology procedures.

Leadless pacemaker versus transvenous single-chamber pacemaker therapy: peri-procedural aspects, utilization of medical resources and patient acceptance

BACKGROUND

Leadless pacemaker (L-PM) have been developed in order to overcome the lead- and pocket-related complications associated with transvenous pacemaker (T-PM). The impact of L-PM implantation on the utilization of medical resources, patient comfort and therapy acceptance could differ from that of T-PM.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Prospective, single-center study enrolling 243 consecutive patients undergoing PM implantation. Propensity matching for baseline characteristics yielded 77 matched pairs. Procedural data, patient acceptance (assessed by Florida Patient Acceptance Survey, FPAS) and quality of life (QoL) (assessed at the baseline, 1 week, 3 and 6 months) were compared between the two groups (L-PM and T-PM).

RESULTS

The implantation procedure was longer in L-PM than T-PM patients (42.2±16.3 vs. 28.9±11.9 minutes; p<0.001). L-PM was associated with lower intra- and post-operative pain intensity (all p<0.05), shorter hospitalization (3.2±0.5 vs. 3.5±1.1 days; p=0.034), greater patient acceptance (FPAS score: 58.7±7.1 vs. 40.5±4.1; p<0.001), and better QoL on both physical and mental health scales (all p<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Although L-PM implantation takes longer than T-PM, it is better tolerated and accepted by patients and is associated with a better QoL.