Journal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia · 2023
Anesthetic Choice for Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Device Placement and Lead Removal: A National Anesthesia Clinical Outcomes Registry Analysis.
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.
McGuire Joseph A, Hayanga J W Awori, Thibault Dylan, Zukowski Anna, Grose Brian, Woods Kaitlin, Schwartzman David, Hayanga Heather K
Аннотация
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.
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.