cardiac implantable electronic device
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

443
(FIVE YEARS 216)

H-INDEX

22
(FIVE YEARS 7)

2022 ◽  
Vol 94 ◽  
pp. 94-101
Author(s):  
Maria Daniela Falco ◽  
Stefano Andreoli ◽  
Anna Delana ◽  
Agnese Barbareschi ◽  
Paolo De Filippo ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
M. Feijen ◽  
A. D. Egorova ◽  
E. T. van der Velde ◽  
M. J. Schalij ◽  
S. L. M. A. Beeres

AbstractIn the Netherlands, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‑19) pandemic has resulted in excess mortality nationwide. Chronic heart disease patients are at risk for a complicated COVID‑19 course. The current study investigates all-cause mortality among cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) patients during the first peak of the pandemic and compares the data to the statistics for the corresponding period in the two previous years. Data of adult CIED patients undergoing follow-up at the Leiden University Medical Centre were analysed. All-cause mortality between 1 March and 31 May 2020 was evaluated and compared to the data for the same period in 2019 and 2018. At the beginning of the first peak of the pandemic, 3,171 CIED patients (median age 70 years; 68% male; 41% ischaemic aetiology) were alive. Baseline characteristics of the 2019 (n = 3,216) and 2018 (n = 3,169) cohorts were comparable. All-cause mortality during the peak of the pandemic was 1.4% compared to 1.6% and 1.4% in the same period in 2019 and 2018, respectively (p = 0.84). During the first peak of the COVID‑19 pandemic, there was no substantial excess mortality among CIED patients in the Leiden area, despite the fact that this is group at high risk for a complicated course of a COVID‑19 infection. Strict adherence to the preventive measures may have prevented substantial excess mortality in these vulnerable patients.


Author(s):  
Matteo Ziacchi ◽  
Giulia Massaro ◽  
Andrea Angeletti ◽  
Giovanni Statuto ◽  
Igor Diemberger ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Michael Sawyer ◽  
Paul Gould

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators (S-ICDs) are currently indicated for patients who meet ICD implantation criteria for the prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD). In December 2020, a unique cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) situation arose as both the S-ICD generator and electrode were under a device advisory. We would recommend all future CIED implantation guidelines receive a caveat regarding checking current CIED advisories, in order to avoid future similar scenarios.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Magnusson ◽  
Jo Ann LeQuang ◽  
Joseph V. Pergolizzi

Postoperative pain following cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) surgery may not always be adequately treated. The postoperative pain trajectory occurs over several days following the procedure with tenderness and limited arm range of motion lasting for weeks after surgery. Pain control typically commences in the perioperative period while the patient is in the hospital and may continue after discharge; outpatients may be given a prescription and advice for their analgesic regimen. It is not unusual for CIED patients to be discharged a few hours after implantation. While opioids are known as an effective analgesic to manage acute postoperative pain, growing scrutiny on opioid use as well as their side effects and potential risks have limited their use. Opioids may be considered for appropriate patients for a short course of treatment of acute postoperative pain, but other analgesics may likewise be considered.


Circulation ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 144 (20) ◽  
pp. 1590-1597
Author(s):  
Timothy M. Markman ◽  
Chase R. Brown ◽  
Lin Yang ◽  
Gustavo S. Guandalini ◽  
Matthew C. Hyman ◽  
...  

Background: Prescription opioids are a major contributor to the ongoing epidemic of persistent opioid use (POU). The incidence of POU among opioid-naïve patients after cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) procedures is unknown. Methods: This retrospective cohort study used data from a national administrative claims database from 2004 to 2018 of patients undergoing CIED procedures. Adult patients were included if they were opioid-naïve during the 180-day period before the procedure and did not undergo another procedure with anesthesia in the next 180 days. POU was defined by filling an additional opioid prescription >30 days after the CIED procedure. Results: Of the 143 400 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 15 316 (11%) filled an opioid prescription within 14 days of surgery. Among these patients, POU occurred in 1901 (12.4%) patients 30 to 180 days after surgery. The likelihood of developing POU was increased for patients who had a history of drug abuse (odds ratio, 1.52; P =0.005), preoperative muscle relaxant (odds ratio, 1.52; P <0.001) or benzodiazepine (odds ratio, 1.23; P =0.001) use, or opioid use in the previous 5 years (OR, 1.76; P <0.0001). POU did not differ after subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator or other CIED procedures (11.1 versus 12.4%; P =0.5). In a sensitivity analysis excluding high-risk patients who were discharged to a facility or who had a history of drug abuse or previous opioid, benzodiazepine, or muscle relaxant use, 8.9% of the remaining cohort had POU. Patients prescribed >135 mg of oral morphine equivalents had a significantly increased risk of POU. Conclusions: POU is common after CIED procedures, and 12% of patients continued to use opioids >30 days after surgery. Higher initially prescribed oral morphine equivalent doses were associated with developing POU.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document