Dermatologic surgery : official publication for American Society for Dermatologic Surgery [et al.] · 2020
Hyfrecation and Interference With Implantable Cardiac Devices.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Amin Sima D, Homan Katie B, Assar Manish, Lee Mary, Housewright Chad D
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Mohs micrographic surgery, excisional surgery, and electrodessication and curettage (ED&C) are common dermatologic procedures that often use electrodessication through hyfrecators to achieve hemostasis. According to in vitro studies, electrodessication is considered safe in patients with implanted cardiac devices. To the authors' knowledge, there are no in vivo data to support this claim.
OBJECTIVE: In this study, the authors aim to describe the outcomes of hyfrecation during dermatologic procedures in patients with pacemakers and implantable cardiac devices.
METHODS: Retrospective chart review was completed from March 2014 to April 2018 at a single center. Forty-five patients met criteria of having a cardiac device and having undergone an electrosurgery procedure using the Conmed 2000 Hyfrecator (Utica, NY). Adverse perioperative and postoperative outcomes, as well as device malfunction, were evaluated.
RESULTS: No adverse perioperative effects were reported. Device reports were examined for inappropriate firing of the defibrillator, loss of capture, temporary inhibition of pacing, battery drainage, pacing at an elevated or erratic rate, failure to deliver antitachycardia, reversion to asynchronous pacing, induction of arrhythmias, or tissue damage at lead tissue, but no such issues were found.
CONCLUSION: The lack of complications associated with cardiac devices with hyfrecation is reassuring. However, prospective and larger retrospective studies are warranted.
OBJECTIVE: In this study, the authors aim to describe the outcomes of hyfrecation during dermatologic procedures in patients with pacemakers and implantable cardiac devices.
METHODS: Retrospective chart review was completed from March 2014 to April 2018 at a single center. Forty-five patients met criteria of having a cardiac device and having undergone an electrosurgery procedure using the Conmed 2000 Hyfrecator (Utica, NY). Adverse perioperative and postoperative outcomes, as well as device malfunction, were evaluated.
RESULTS: No adverse perioperative effects were reported. Device reports were examined for inappropriate firing of the defibrillator, loss of capture, temporary inhibition of pacing, battery drainage, pacing at an elevated or erratic rate, failure to deliver antitachycardia, reversion to asynchronous pacing, induction of arrhythmias, or tissue damage at lead tissue, but no such issues were found.
CONCLUSION: The lack of complications associated with cardiac devices with hyfrecation is reassuring. However, prospective and larger retrospective studies are warranted.