ICD-ON Registry for Perioperative Management of CIEDs: Most Require No Change.

BACKGROUND: There is significant variability in the perioperative management of patients with cardiac implanted electronic devices (CIEDs) undergoing procedures requiring electrosurgery. METHODS: We performed a multicenter registry from February 2014 to August 2015 at three suburban Chicago hospitals. Patients with transvenous CIEDs undergoing procedures requiring electrosurgery were assigned to one of three groups: (1) reprogram, (2) magnet, or (3) no change. Subjects with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) or those pacemaker dependent having surgical procedures within 6 inches of their CIED were assigned to the reprogram group, whereby ICD therapies were programmed off with asynchronous pacing if pacemaker dependent. Subjects with ICDs ≥ 6 inches from their surgical site but above the iliac crest were assigned to the magnet group. All others were in the no change group. We evaluated electromagnetic interference (EMI) and postoperative device reset based on surgical location. RESULTS: All patients (n = 331) had pectoral CIEDs with mean age 73 years, 65% male, ejection fraction 56% for pacemaker subjects, 35% for ICD subjects with 22% pacemaker dependent. Assignments were n = 52 (16%) reprogram group, n = 51 (15%) magnet group, and n = 228 (69%) no change. There was EMI in 45% of thoracic cases, 35% of head/neck, 15% of upper extremity, and 3% of abdominal cases above iliac crest. There was no EMI in procedures below the iliac crest. There were no inappropriate therapies or device reset. CONCLUSION: Results of the ICD-ON protocol demonstrate safe and efficient management of patients with CIEDs based on electrosurgery location, with 69% requiring no reprogramming or magnet application.

Randomized controlled trial of perioperative ICD management: magnet application versus reprogramming.

BACKGROUND: There are insufficient data to guide perioperative implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) management for patients undergoing surgical procedures using electrocautery. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter randomized controlled trial of patients with ICDs undergoing surgery with monopolar electrocautery. Subjects were randomized to an "Off" group (ICD therapy programmed off, then postoperatively programmed on) or a "Magnet" group (ICD therapy suspended with a magnet and no immediate postoperative ICD interrogation). Also, a registry was maintained of ICD patients with procedures within 6 inches of the ICD (all programmed off). The primary endpoint was ICD off time with secondary endpoints being caregiver handoffs and incidence of electromagnetic interference (EMI). RESULTS: All patients (n = 80) had pectoral ICDs. Subject demographics were well matched in each group, and duration of electrocautery was similar (80 minutes vs 64 minutes, P = 0.58). The mean "excess" ICD off time (ICD off time - electrocautery time) was significantly higher in the Off group than the Magnet group (115 minutes vs 28 minutes, P < 0.001). Mean number of caregiver handoffs were higher in the Off group (6.6 vs 5.5, P < 0.001). There was no EMI in any lower abdominal or lower extremity procedures. Neither group had arrhythmic events or device reset. CONCLUSION: A magnet protocol simplifies perioperative ICD management for procedures using electrocautery more than 6 inches from the ICD. This protocol results in significantly shorter time with ICD therapy off, fewer provider handoffs, no risk of inadvertently discharging patients home with ICD therapies off, and no device reset.