Anesthesia for subcutaneous implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator implantation: Perspectives from the clinical experience of a U.S. panel of physicians

Management of anesthesia for procedures in the cardiac electrophysiology laboratory

The complexity of cardiac electrophysiology procedures has increased significantly during the past 3 decades. Anesthesia requirements of these procedures can differ on the basis of patient- and procedure-specific factors. This manuscript outlines various anesthesia strategies for cardiac implantable electronic devices and electrophysiology procedures, including preprocedural, procedural, and postprocedural management. A team-based approach with collaboration between cardiac electrophysiologists and anesthesiologists is required with careful preprocedural and intraprocedural planning. Given the recent advances in electrophysiology, there is a need for specialized cardiac electrophysiology anesthesia care to improve the efficacy and safety of the procedures.

Serratus anterior plane block and postoperative pain control in obese patients undergoing S-ICD implantation: A case series and literature analysis

We report five case series of obese patients with severe left ventricular ejection fraction impairment undergoing Serratus Anterior Plane Block during S-ICD Implantation. This anesthesia approach has a reduced impact on the patient's hemodynamics and adequately manages postprocedural pain.

Abstract

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) procedures are frequently performed under analgosedation or general anesthesia, leading to prolonged postoperative hospital stays and increased costs. This anesthetic technique may also have a greater hemodynamic impact, particularly in obese and cardiac patients. However, an alternative anesthetic technique can be employed: ultrasound-guided serratus anterior plane block (US-SAPB). We analyzed the anesthetic clinical course in 5 patients, 3 males and 2 females, who were obese (BMI ≥ 30) and underwent S-ICD implantation for primary prevention using a two-incision intermuscular technique and ultrasound-guided serratus anterior plane block. All patients had a left ventricular ejection fraction less than or equal to 35%. It significantly facilitated pain control during the procedure and, especially, in the postoperative phase. However, the data available in the literature are mostly derived from case reports and small comparative studies. Therefore, further studies with a larger sample size and direct comparison with general anesthesia or deep sedation are needed.

Anesthetic Choice for Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Device Placement and Lead Removal: A National Anesthesia Clinical Outcomes Registry Analysis

OBJECTIVE

The authors evaluated the anesthetic approach for cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) placement and transvenous lead removal, hypothesizing that monitored anesthesia care is used more frequently than general anesthesia.

DESIGN

A retrospective study.

SETTING

National Anesthesia Clinical Outcomes Registry data.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult patients who underwent CIED (permanent cardiac pacemaker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator [ICD]) placement or transvenous lead removal between 2010 and 2021.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Covariates were selected a priori within multivariate models to assess predictors of anesthetic type. A total of 87,530 patients underwent pacemaker placement, 76,140 had ICD placement, 2,568 had pacemaker transvenous lead removal, and 4,861 had ICD transvenous lead extraction; 51.2%, 45.64%, 16.82%, and 45.64% received monitored anesthesia care, respectively. A 2%, 1% (both p < 0.0001), and 2% (p = 0.0003) increase in monitored anesthesia care occurred for each 1-year increase in age for pacemaker placement, ICD placement, and pacemaker transvenous lead removal, respectively. American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status ≤III for pacemaker placement, ASA ≥IV for ICD placement, and ASA ≤III for pacemaker transvenous lead removal were 7% (p = 0.0013), 5% (p = 0.0144), and 27% (p = 0.0247) more likely to receive monitored anesthesia care, respectively. Patients treated in the Northeast were more likely to receive monitored anesthesia care than in the West for all groups analyzed (p < 0.0024). Male patients were 24% less likely to receive monitored anesthesia care for pacemaker transvenous lead removal (p = 0.0378). For every additional 10 pacemaker or ICD lead removals performed in a year, a 2% decrease in monitored anesthesia care was evident (p = 0.0271, p < 0.0001, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

General anesthesia still has a strong presence in the anesthetic management of both CIED placement and transvenous lead removal. Anesthetic choice, however, varies with patient demographics, hospital characteristics, and geographic region.

Anesthetic Considerations in the Electrophysiology Laboratory: A Comprehensive Review

Catheter ablation procedures for arrhythmias or implantation and/or extraction of cardiac pacemakers can present many clinical challenges. It is imperative that there is clear communication and understanding between the anesthesiologist and electrophysiologist during the perioperative period regarding the mode of ventilation, hemodynamic considerations, and various procedural complications. This article provides a comprehensive narrative review of the anesthetic techniques and considerations for catheter ablation procedures, ventilatory modes using techniques such as high-frequency jet ventilation, and strategies such as esophageal deviation and luminal temperature monitoring to decrease the risk of esophageal injury during catheter ablation. Various hemodynamic considerations, such as the intraprocedural triaging of cardiac tamponade and fluid administration during catheter ablation, also are discussed. Finally, this review briefly highlights the early research findings on pulse-field ablation, a new and evolving ablation modality.

Tumescent local anesthesia versus general anesthesia for subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation: A cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

General anesthesia (GA) is the standard anesthetic approach for subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) implantation. Nonetheless, GA is expensive and can be associated with adverse events. Tumescent local anesthesia (TLA) has been shown to reduce in-room and procedural times and to decrease post-procedural pain, all of which could result in a reduction in procedure-related costs.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to compare the cost-effectiveness of GA and TLA in patients undergoing S-ICD implantation.

METHODS

The present study is a prospective, nonrandomized, controlled study of patients who underwent S-ICD implantation between 2019 and 2022. Patients were allocated to either the TLA or the GA group. We performed a cost analysis for each intervention. As an effectiveness measure, the 0-10 point Numeric Pain Rating Scale at 1, 12, and 24 hours post-implantation was analyzed and compared between the groups. A score of 0 was considered no pain; 1-5, mild pain; 6-7, moderate pain; and 8-10, severe pain. Cost-effectiveness was calculated using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.

RESULTS

Seventy patients underwent successful S-ICD implantation. The total cost of the electrophysiology laboratory was higher in the GA group than in the TLA group (median ± interquartile range US$55,824 ± US$29,411 vs US$37,222 ± US$24,293; P < .001), with a net saving of $20,821 when compared with GA for each S-ICD implantation. There was a significant decrease in post-procedural pain scores in the TLA group when compared with the GA group (repeated measures analysis of variance, P = .009; median ± interquartile range 0 ± 3 vs 0 ± 5 at 1 hour, P = .058; 3 ± 4 vs 6 ± 8 at 12 hours, P = .030; 0 ± 4 vs 2 ± 6 at 24 hours, P = .040).

CONCLUSION

TLA is a more cost-effective alternative to GA for S-ICD implantation, with both direct and indirect cost reductions. Importantly, these reduced costs are associated with reduced postprocedural pain.

Perioperative Safety and Early Patient and Device Outcomes Among Subcutaneous Versus Transvenous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Implantations : A Randomized, Multicenter Trial

BACKGROUND

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) improve survival in patients at risk for cardiac arrest, but are associated with intravascular lead-related complications. The subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD), with no intravascular components, was developed to minimize lead-related complications.

OBJECTIVE

To assess key ICD performance measures related to delivery of ICD therapy, including inappropriate ICD shocks (delivered in absence of life-threatening arrhythmia) and failed ICD shocks (which did not terminate ventricular arrhythmia).

DESIGN

Randomized, multicenter trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02881255).

SETTING

The ATLAS trial.

PATIENTS

544 eligible patients (141 female) with a primary or secondary prevention indication for an ICD who were younger than age 60 years, had a cardiogenetic phenotype, or had prespecified risk factors for lead complications were electrocardiographically screened and 503 randomly assigned to S-ICD (251 patients) or transvenous ICD (TV-ICD) (252 patients). Mean follow-up was 2.5 years (SD, 1.1). Mean age was 49.0 years (SD, 11.5).

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was perioperative major lead-related complications.

RESULTS

There was a statistically significant reduction in perioperative, lead-related complications, which occurred in 1 patient (0.4%) with an S-ICD and in 12 patients (4.8%) with TV-ICD (-4.4%; 95% CI, -6.9 to -1.9; P = 0.001). There was a trend for more inappropriate shocks with the S-ICD (hazard ratio [HR], 2.37; 95% CI, 0.98 to 5.77), but no increase in failed appropriate ICD shocks (HR, 0.61 (0.15 to 2.57). Patients in the S-ICD group had more ICD site pain, measured on a 10-point numeric rating scale, on the day of implant (4.2 ± 2.8 vs. 2.9 ± 2.2; P < 0.001) and 1 month later (1.3 ± 1.8 vs. 0.9 ± 1.5; P = 0.035).

LIMITATION

At present, the ATLAS trial is underpowered to detect differences in clinical shock outcomes; however, extended follow-up is ongoing.

CONCLUSION

The S-ICD reduces perioperative, lead-related complications without significantly compromising the effectiveness of ICD shocks, but with more early postoperative pain and a trend for more inappropriate shocks.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Boston Scientific.

Process Mapping Strategies to Prevent Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Infections

BACKGROUND

Infection remains a major complication of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and can lead to significant morbidity and mortality. Implantable devices that avoid transvenous leads, such as the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD), can reduce the risk of serious infection-related complications, such as bloodstream infection and infective endocarditis. While the 2017 AHA/ACC/HRS guidelines include recommendations for S-ICD use for patients at high risk of infection, currently, there are no clinical trial data that address best practices for the prevention of S-ICD infections. Therefore, an expert panel was convened to develop consensus on these topics.

METHODS

An expert process mapping methodology was used to achieve consensus on the appropriate steps to minimize or prevent S-ICD infections. Two face-to-face meetings of high-volume S-ICD implanters and an infectious diseases specialist, with expertise on cardiovascular implantable electronic device infections, were conducted to develop consensus on useful strategies pre-, peri-, and post-implant to reduce S-ICD infection risk.

RESULTS

Expert panel consensus of recommended steps for patient preparation, S-ICD implantation, and post-operative management were developed to provide guidance in individual patient management.

CONCLUSION

Achieving expert panel consensus by process mapping methodology for S-ICD infection prevention was attainable, and the results should be helpful to clinicians in adopting interventions to minimize risks of S-ICD infection. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Chest Wall Nerve Blocks for Cardiothoracic, Breast Surgery, and Rib-Related Pain

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Perioperative analgesia in patients undergoing chest wall procedures such as cardiothoracic and breast surgeries or analgesia for rib fracture trauma can be challenging due to several factors: the procedures are more invasive, the chest wall innervation is complex, and the patient population may have multiple comorbidities increasing their susceptibility to the well-defined pain and opioid-related side effects. These procedures also carry a higher risk of persistent pain after surgery and chronic opioid use making the analgesia goals even more important.

RECENT FINDINGS

With advances in ultrasonography and clinical research, regional anesthesia techniques have been improving and newer ones with more applications have emerged over the last decade. Currently in cardiothoracic procedures, para-neuraxial and chest wall blocks have been utilized with success to supplement or substitute systemic analgesia, traditionally relying on opioids or thoracic epidural analgesia. In breast surgeries, paravertebral blocks, serratus anterior plane blocks, and pectoral nerve blocks have been shown to be effective in providing pain control, while minimizing opioid use and related side effects. Rib fracture regional analgesia options have also expanded and continue to improve.  Advances in regional anesthesia have tremendously improved multimodal analgesia and contributed to enhanced recovery after surgery protocols. This review provides the latest summary on the use and efficacy of chest wall blocks in cardiothoracic and breast surgery, as well as rib fracture-related pain and persistent postsurgical pain.

Use of Serratus Anterior Plane and Transversus Thoracis Plane Blocks for Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator (S-ICD) Implantation Decreases Intraoperative Opioid Requirements

OBJECTIVES

The present study investigated whether regional anesthetic techniques, especially truncal blocks, can provide adjunct anesthesia without the additional risk of general anesthesia and neuraxial techniques for subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) implantation.

DESIGN

Single-center, prospective, randomized study.

SETTING

Holding area and operating room at a single-center tertiary care hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

The study comprised 22 American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status 3 or 4 patients with severe cardiac disease undergoing S-ICD implantation.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients received either a combination of serratus anterior plane block and transversus thoracis plane block or surgical infiltration of local anesthetics.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Perioperative analgesic medication in the fascial plane block group versus the surgical wound infiltration group, visual analog pain scale score (0-10), intraoperative vital signs, total procedure time, and length of stay in the intensive care unit were measured. Total intraoperative fentanyl requirements (µg) were significantly less in the truncal block group versus the surgical infiltration group (45 [25-50] v 90 [50-100]; p = 0.026), and no patients had any adverse sequelae related to the study. Median intraoperative propofol use in the surgical infiltration group was 66.48 (47.30-73.73) µg/kg/min, and 65.95 (51.86-104.86) µg/kg/min for the truncal block group. This difference between the groups was not statistically significant (p = 0.293).

CONCLUSIONS

The performance of both the serratus anterior plane block and transversus thoracis plane blocks for S-ICD implantation are appropriate and may have the benefit of decreasing intraoperative opioid requirements.

The Subcutaneous ICD: A Review of the UNTOUCHED and PRAETORIAN Trials

The ICD is an important part of the treatment and prevention of sudden cardiac death in many high-risk populations. Traditional transvenous ICDs (TV-ICDs) are associated with certain short- and long- term risks. The subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) was developed in order to avoid these risks and complications. However, this system is associated with its own set of limitations and complications. First, patient selection is important, as S-ICDs do not provide pacing therapy currently. Second, pre-procedural screening is important to minimise T wave and myopotential oversensing. Finally, until recently, the S-ICD was primarily used in younger patients with fewer co-morbidities and less structural heart disease, limiting the general applicability of the device. S-ICDs achieve excellent rates of arrhythmia conversion and have demonstrated noninferiority to TV-ICDs in terms of complication rates in real-world studies. The objective of this review is to discuss the latest literature, including the UNTOUCHED and PRAETORIAN trials, and to address the risk of inappropriate shocks.

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator: Can it overtake its transvenous counterpart

Over the past decade, the emergence of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) has provided cardiologists with an option to provide both primary or secondary prevention treatment of sudden cardiac death (SCD) without the associated risks that come with the use of intracardiac leads. S-ICD may prove to be a useful option in those who are young, have thromboembolic risk, immunodeficiency states, unfavorable anatomy due to adult congenital heart disease (ACHD). This article reviews the existing literature to determine whether S-ICD can prove to be a safe alternative in comparison to Transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (TV-ICD) and in which patient population should S-ICD be considered over TV-ICD.

Analgesic Efficacy of Regional Anesthesia of the Hemithorax in Patients Undergoing Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Placement

OBJECTIVES

Patients undergoing subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) placement usually experience substantial perioperative pain. The aim of the present study was to investigate the effect of transversus thoracic muscle plane block combined with serratus anterior plane block in patients undergoing S-ICD placement.

DESIGN

Double-blind, randomized controlled study.

SETTING

First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients aged 18-to-80 years who underwent new S-ICD placement.

INTERVENTIONS

A group of 80 patients randomly were allocated to either the regional group (R group) or local group (L group).

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The primary endpoint was pain during S-ICD placement. The secondary outcome measures included pain intensity at rest and after movement one, three, six, 12, 24, and 48 hours after surgery; the dose of dexmedetomidine and remifentanil during surgery; 24-hour ketorolac administration; postoperative sufentanil dosage; the total duration of hospitalization; intraoperative sedation; and the incidence of hypoxemia. Mean Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool scores were significantly higher during pocket creation, lead tunneling A, and lead tunneling B in the L group compared with the R group. The R group required significantly less intraoperative dexmedetomidine, intraoperative remifentanil, postoperative sufentanil, and ketorolac consumption. Compared with the R group, the L group had higher Numerical Rating Scale pain scores at 24 hours after surgery both at rest and after movement. The intraoperative Ramsay score and the incidence of hypoxemia were significantly higher in the L group compared with the R group.

CONCLUSIONS

Ultrasound-guided transversus thoracic muscle plane block and serratus anterior plane block resulted in lower intraoperative Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool scores and the need for less adjunctive pain medication and sedation compared with local anesthesia in patients undergoing S-ICD placement.

Tumescent local anesthesia versus general anesthesia for subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation

BACKGROUND

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) is an effective alternative to transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. General anesthesia (GA) is considered the standard sedation approach because of the pain caused by the manipulation of subcutaneous tissue with S-ICD implantation. However, GA carries several limitations, including additional risk of adverse events, prolonged in-room times, and increased costs.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to define the effectiveness and safety of tumescent local anesthesia (TLA) in comparison to GA in patients undergoing S-ICD implantation.

METHODS

We performed a prospective, nonrandomized, controlled, multicenter study of patients referred for S-ICD implantation between 2019 and 2020. Patients were allocated to either TLA or GA on the basis of patient's preferences and/or anesthesia service availability. TLA was prepared using lidocaine, epinephrine, sodium bicarbonate, and sodium chloride. All patients provided written informed consent, and the institutional review board at each site provided approval for the study.

RESULTS

Sixty patients underwent successful S-ICD implantation from July 2019 to November 2020. Thirty patients (50%) received TLA, and the rest GA. There were no differences between groups with regard to baseline characteristics. In-room and procedural times were significantly shorter with TLA (107.6 minutes vs 186 minutes; P < .0001 and 53.2 minutes vs 153.7 minutes; P < .0001, respectively). Pain was reported less frequently by patients who received TLA. The use of opioids was significantly reduced in patients who received TLA (23% vs 62%; P = .002).

CONCLUSION

TLA is an effective and safe alternative to GA in S-ICD implantation. The use of TLA is associated with shorter in-room and procedural times, less postprocedural pain, and reduced usage of opioids and acetaminophen for analgesia.

The Electrophysiology Laboratory: Anesthetic Considerations and Staffing Models

The electrophysiology laboratory facilitates complex procedures on patients, many of whom have advanced disease processes and extensive comorbidities. Historically, nurses administered sedation as required, but in recent years a shift to anesthesiologist-led sedation has been promoted for patient safety and advanced therapeutic considerations. Uncertainty remains, however, regarding whether the electrophysiology laboratory is best staffed with general or cardiothoracic anesthesiologists. In this article, the authors discuss the anesthetic considerations of some commonly performed electrophysiology and structural cardiac procedures and the pros and cons of staffing with general or cardiothoracic anesthesiologists.

[Anesthetic management in a patient with arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy and an implantable cardioverter defibrillator: a case report]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) is a genetic cardiomyopathy characterized by potentially lethal ventricular tachycardia. Here we describe a patient with ARVC and an Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator (ICD) in whom maxillary sinus surgery was performed under general anesthesia.

CASE REPORT

The patient was a 59 year-old man who was scheduled to undergo maxillary sinus surgery under general anesthesia. He had been diagnosed as having ARVC 15 years earlier and had undergone implantation of an ICD in the same year. Electrocardiography showed an epsilon wave in leads II, aVR, and V1-V3. Cardiac function was within normal range on transthoracic echocardiography. The ICD was temporarily deactivated after the patient arrived in the operating room and an intravenous line was secured. An external defibrillator was kept on hand for immediate defibrillation if any electrocardiographic abnormality was detected. Remifentanil 0.3 μg/kg/min, fentanyl 0.1 mg, propofol 154 mg, and rocuronium 46 mg were administered for induction of anesthesia. Tracheal intubation was performed orally. Anesthesia was maintained oxygen 1.0 L.min^-1, air 2.0 L.min^-1, propofol 5.0-7.0 mg.kg^-1.h^-1, and remifentanil 0.1-0.25 μg.kg^-1.min^-1. The surgery was completed as scheduled and the ICD was reactivated. The patient was then extubated after administration of sugammadex 200 mg.

CONCLUSION

We report the successful management of anesthesia without lethal arrhythmia in a patient with ARVC and an ICD. An adequate amount of analgesia should be administered during general anesthesia to maintain adequate anesthetic depth and to avoid stress and pain.

Anesthetic management in a patient with arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy and an implantable cardioverter defibrillator: a case report

Background and objectives

Arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) is a genetic cardiomyopathy characterized by potentially lethal ventricular tachycardia. Here we describe a patient with ARVC and an Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator (ICD) in whom maxillary sinus surgery was performed under general anesthesia.

Case report

The patient was a 59 year-old man who was scheduled to undergo maxillary sinus surgery under general anesthesia. He had been diagnosed as having ARVC 15 years earlier and had undergone implantation of an ICD in the same year. Electrocardiography showed an epsilon wave in leads II, aVR, and V1–V3. Cardiac function was within normal range on transthoracic echocardiography. The ICD was temporarily deactivated after the patient arrived in the operating room and an intravenous line was secured. An external defibrillator was kept on hand for immediate defibrillation if any electrocardiographic abnormality was detected. Remifentanil 0.3 μg/kg/min, fentanyl 0.1 mg, propofol 154 mg, and rocuronium 46 mg were administered for induction of anesthesia. Tracheal intubation was performed orally. Anesthesia was maintained oxygen 1.0 L.min⁻¹, air 2.0 L.min⁻¹, propofol 5.0–7.0 mg.kg⁻¹.h⁻¹, and remifentanil 0.1–0.25 μg.kg⁻¹.min⁻¹. The surgery was completed as scheduled and the ICD was reactivated. The patient was then extubated after administration of sugammadex 200 mg.

Conclusion

We report the successful management of anesthesia without lethal arrhythmia in a patient with ARVC and an ICD. An adequate amount of analgesia should be administered during general anesthesia to maintain adequate anesthetic depth and to avoid stress and pain.

Diagnosis and management of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator infections based on process mapping

BACKGROUND

Infection is a well-recognized complication of cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation, including the more recently available subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD). Although the AHA/ACC/HRS guidelines include recommendations for S-ICD use, currently there are no clinical trial data that address the diagnosis and management of S-ICD infections. Therefore, an expert panel was convened to develop consensus on these topics.

METHODS

A process mapping methodology was used to achieve a primary goal - the development of consensus on the diagnosis and management of S-ICD infections. Two face-to-face meetings of panel experts were conducted to recommend useful information to clinicians in individual patient management of S-ICD infections.

RESULTS

Panel consensus of a stepwise approach in the diagnosis and management was developed to provide guidance in individual patient management.

CONCLUSION

Achieving expert panel consensus by process mapping methodology in S-ICD infection diagnosis and management was attainable, and the results should be helpful in individual patient management.

Ultrasound-guided serratus anterior plane block for subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation using the intermuscular two-incision technique

PURPOSE

Operative anaesthetic requirements and perioperative discomfort are barriers to wide adoption of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) system, especially when the intermuscular technique is used because of the greater amount of tissue dissection. The procedure is most commonly performed under general anaesthesia (GA). There is growing interest in transitioning away from the routine use of GA and towards several alternative anaesthesia modalities for the S-ICD implant procedure without the involvement of an anaesthesiologist. We assessed the feasibility of ultrasound-guided serratus anterior plane block (US-SAPB) in patients undergoing S-ICD implantation with the intermuscular two-incision technique.

METHODS

The study population included 38 consecutive patients (84% male; median, 53 [46-62] years) who received S-ICD implantation using the intermuscular two-incision technique. All procedures were performed under US-SAPB and conscious sedation without the involvement of an anaesthesiologist.

RESULTS

The average procedure time was 67 ± 14 min. No patient experienced significant haemodynamic changes or oxygen desaturation during the period of the US-SAPB procedure and sedation; there was no need for pharmacological interventions. The entire procedure was well tolerated without discomfort or complications and with no need for GA, except in one (2.6%) patient who received GA with a laryngeal mask airway. Patients always remained able to respond appropriately to neurological monitoring during the S-ICD implantation procedure. There were no procedure-related complications.

CONCLUSIONS

US-SAPB and the intermuscular two-incision technique may be a promising safe and feasible combination for S-ICD implantation, overcoming the potential barrier to wider S-ICD adoption in clinical practice.

Feasibility and safety of same day subcutaneous defibrillator implantation and send home (DASH) strategy

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.

Spotlight on S-ICD™ therapy: 10 years of clinical experience and innovation

Subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD™) therapy has been established in initial clinical trials and current international guideline recommendations for patients without demand for pacing, cardiac resynchronization, or antitachycardia pacing. The promising experience in ‘ideal’ S-ICD™ candidates increasingly encourages physicians to provide the benefits of S-ICD™ therapy to patients in clinical constellations beyond ‘classical’ indications of S-ICD™ therapy, which has led to a broadening of S-ICD™ indications in many centres. However, the decision for S-ICD™ implantation is still not covered by controlled randomized trials but rather relies on patient series or observational studies. Thus, this review intends to give a contemporary update on available empirical evidence data and technical advancements of S-ICD™ technology and sheds a spotlight on S-ICD™ therapy in recently discovered fields of indication beyond ideal preconditions. We discuss the eligibility for S-ICD™ therapy in Brugada syndrome as an example for an adverse and dynamic electrocardiographic pattern that challenges the S-ICD™ sensing and detection algorithms. Besides, the S-ICD™ performance and defibrillation efficacy in conditions of adverse structural remodelling as exemplified for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy is discussed. In addition, we review recent data on potential device interactions between S-ICD™ systems and other implantable cardio-active systems (e.g. pacemakers) including specific recommendations, how these could be prevented. Finally, we evaluate limitations of S-ICD™ therapy in adverse patient constitutions, like distinct obesity, and present contemporary strategies to assure proper S-ICD™ performance in these patients. Overall, the S-ICD™ performance is promising even for many patients, who may not be ‘classical’ candidates for this technology.

An Overview of Clinical Outcomes in Transvenous and Subcutaneous ICD Patients

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Clear guidelines on when to select a subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) over a transvenous ICD (TV-ICD) are lacking. This review will provide an overview of the most recent clinical data on S-ICD and TV-ICD therapy by pooling comparison studies in order to aid clinical decision making.

RECENT FINDINGS

Pooling of observational-matched studies demonstrated an incidence rate ratio (IRR) for device-related complication of 0.90 (95% CI 0.58-1.42) and IRR for lead-related complications of 0.15 (95% CI 0.06-0.39) in favor of S-ICD. The IRR for device infections was 2.00 (95% CI 0.95-4.22) in favor of TV-ICD. Both appropriate shocks (IRR 0.67 (95% CI 0.42-1.06)) and inappropriate shocks (IRR 1.17 (95% CI 0.77-1.79)) did not differ significantly between both groups. With randomized data underway, the observational data demonstrate that the S-ICD is associated with reduced lead complications, but this has not yet resulted in a significant reduction in total number of complications compared to TV-ICDs. New technologies are expected to make the S-ICD a more attractive alternative.