暂无摘要。

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) are becoming more common for the management of underlying of cardiac dysrhythmias, and more patients with these devices are presenting for cardiac and noncardiac procedures.
We performed a retrospective, cohort, single-center study at a tertiary teaching medical center, gathering 151 patients with CIED undergoing elective and emergent surgeries for the time period between November 2013 and December 2016. We aimed to determine whether patients with CIED had the device interrogated before surgery as recommended by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS)/American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) consensus, whether this lack of compliance led to delay in the holding area before surgery and determine the presence of intra- or postoperative cardiac events in these patients.
A total of 76% of patients had interrogation of the device before surgery. Emergent cases were not interrogated as much as elective cases preoperatively (43% vs. 18%, respectively; P < 0.05). In total, 6% of cases had a CIED-related average holding area delay time of 54 minutes. Patients without preoperative device interrogation had more perioperative cardiac events than those who had the device checked (25% vs. 8%, respectively; odds ratio [OR] 0.26; 95% CI, 0.09-0.7, P < 0.013).
Our findings suggest that preoperative interrogation of the device plays a significant role to minimize the incidence of perioperative cardiac adverse events. Institutional providers show a lack of compliance with HRS/ASA recommendations for preoperative CIED management. Further research is required to determine if improved compliance to recommendations will lead to enhanced outcomes.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) can be life-saving. However, complications from CIED infection can be life-threatening, often requiring device removal. Despite publication of CIED infection management guidelines, there remains marked variation in clinical practice.
OBJECTIVE: To better understand and quantify these differences, we conducted a multinational survey of practitioners of CIED management.
METHODS: An electronic survey was sent to Heart Rhythm Society members, spanning 70 countries across six continents. All responses were collected anonymously.
RESULTS: 227 out of 3,600 (6.3%) responded to the survey. The majority of surveys were completed by practitioners from the United States (168; 68.3%) and 53.8% of these practiced in academic medical centers. The large majority (92.7%) of sites had protocols to ensure appropriate timing of prophylactic antibiotics. Superficial (incisional) site infections were treated with antibiotics alone 52.5% of the time (consistent with guidelines); in contrast, deep pocket infections were treated with antibiotics (with device removal) in accordance to guidelines only 37.4% of the time. Almost all providers (98.7%) were inclined to perform complete hardware removal in cases of CIED-related endocarditis. In contrast, 82.2% of survey participants suggested complete CIED system removal in patients with an occult Gram-positive bacteremia, 65.5% with occult Gram-negative bacteremia, and 59.3% with prolonged bacteremia due to a source other than CIED.
CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest wide variability in clinical practice in managing CIED infection with significant deviations from published guidelines. There is critical need to increase awareness and develop institutional protocols to ensure adherence with evidence-based guidelines to optimize outcomes.