Goel, Vasudha

AbstractBackgroundThe subcutaneous implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (S‐ICD) has a larger generator and its implantation involves more dissection and tunneling compared to traditional transvenous defibrillator system. Liposomal bupivacaine, an extended‐release bupivacaine with 72 h of duration has been used for postoperative pain management in patients undergoing S‐ICD implantation. Our aim was to compare postoperative pain and opioid prescription patterns among patients undergoing S‐ICD implantation who received intraprocedural liposomal bupivacaine and those who did not.MethodsWe performed a retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent subcutaneous ICD implantation from January 1, 2013 to March 30, 2018 at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Patients were categorized into those who received liposomal bupivacaine and those who did not. Data on inpatient pain score, outpatient opioid prescription rates at discharge, and doses based on oral morphine equivalents (OME) were collected.ResultsA total of 104 patients underwent S‐ICD implantation. Intraprocedural liposomal bupivacaine was used in 69% of patients. Patients who received intraprocedural liposomal bupivacaine had similar mean inpatient pain scores (2.9 vs. 2.9, p = .786). There was also no difference in the rate of inpatient opioid administration (79.2% vs. 87.5%, p = .4139), outpatient opioid prescription (23.6% vs. 12.5%, p = .29), or mean OME (41.7‐mg vs. 16.6‐mg, p = .188) when comparing patients those who received intraprocedural liposomal bupivacaine and those who did not.ConclusionIntraprocedural liposomal bupivacaine administration was not associated with any significant impact on postoperative pain scores, inpatient opioid administration, and outpatient opioid prescription rates or OME amounts at discharge.

A 52-year-old woman with a history of cervical spondylosis, nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy, and complete heart block with implantation of a cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator (Inogen XR, Boston Scientific, Natick, MA) underwent bilateral fluoroscopy-guided radiofrequency ablation of the medial branch nerves at C4, C5, and C6 levels at an ambulatory surgery center. After completion of the seemingly routine procedure, several alerts, including 1 inappropriate shock, were received via Boston Scientific’s remote monitoring system. Tracings also showed that pacing inhibition occurred. When performing radiofrequency ablation in patients with a cardiac implantable electronic device, it is imperative to follow published best practice recommendations to minimize the risk of adverse events.

AbstractBackgroundAtrial fibrillation (AF) among patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is associated with adverse clinical outcomes. Our primary aim was to evaluate patient‐centered outcomes and surrogate outcomes following catheter ablation (CA) of AF among patients with HFrEF compared to standard medical therapy with or without device therapy (atrioventricular node ablation and cardiac resynchronization therapy).MethodsA systematic literature review was performed limiting our searches to randomized control trials reporting outcomes of CA compared to standard medical therapy with or without device therapy were included. Patient‐centered outcomes were relative reduction in all‐cause mortality, heart failure readmissions, and recurrence of AF. Surrogate outcomes of interest were change in ejection fraction, change in peak oxygen consumption, reduction in brain natriuretic peptide levels, change in 6‐minute walk distance, and change in Minnesota living with heart failure score.ResultsSeven randomized control trials (Patient n = 721) met our inclusion criteria. All trials used radiofrequency energy for CA of AF. CA for AF was associated with significantly lower all‐cause mortality (Risk ratio [RR] = 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.35‐0.76, P = 0.001, I2 = 0%), lower rate of heart failure readmission (RR = 0.58, 95% CI = 0.46‐0.74, P < 0.001, I2 = 0%) and lower rate of AF recurrence (RR = 0.33, 95% CI = 0.22‐0.50, P < 0.001, I2 = 68%) as compared to standard medical therapy. Surrogate outcomes showed a similar benefit favoring CA.Conclusion and RelevanceCatheter ablation for AF in HFrEF is associated with improvement in patient‐centered outcomes and surrogate outcomes when compared to standard medical therapy with or without device therapy.