Richard Sheu1, Brijen Joshi1, Kane High2, Duc Thinh Pham3, Renata Ferreira4, Frederick Cobey5. 1. Department of Anesthesiology, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA. 2. Department of Anesthesiology, Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA. 3. Department of Cardiac Surgery, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA. 4. Department of Anesthesiology & Pain Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 5. Department of Anesthesiology, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA. Electronic address: fcobey@gmail.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To describe perioperative management of patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) in noncardiac procedures. DESIGN: Survey of (1) respondent demographic characteristics, (2) anesthetic practices for LVAD patients having endoscopies, and (3) low-risk surgeries requiring general anesthesia. SETTING: Internet-based. PARTICIPANTS: Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists membership. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Inpatient endoscopic procedures were done mainly in the endoscopy suite (71.7%) by a solo practitioner or 1:1 staffing ratio 59% of the time. LVAD-specific support personnel were present in more than 80% of all procedures. Both endoscopy and surgical patients used post-anesthesia recovery units and intensive care units for recovery; however, compared with endoscopy patients, surgical patients recovered in the ICU more frequently (45.5% v 29.1%, p<0.001). In addition, 18% of endoscopy patients recovered on site. Regarding patient monitoring, more than 90% of responders used electrocardiogram, pulse oximetry, end-tidal CO2, and blood pressure monitors on LVAD patients. Responders reported using arterial catheters to monitor blood pressure in 49% of endoscopy cases and 71% of surgical patients. The reported use of invasive monitors by individual clinicians was related inversely to institutional LVAD volume (p = 0.04 and p = 0.01 in endoscopy and surgical procedures, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This survey found heterogeneity in hospital resource utilization for noncardiac LVAD procedures. There was a decrease in the use of invasive monitors with increased institutional LVAD volume in both endoscopy and surgical procedures.
OBJECTIVES: To describe perioperative management of patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) in noncardiac procedures. DESIGN: Survey of (1) respondent demographic characteristics, (2) anesthetic practices for LVAD patients having endoscopies, and (3) low-risk surgeries requiring general anesthesia. SETTING: Internet-based. PARTICIPANTS: Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists membership. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Inpatient endoscopic procedures were done mainly in the endoscopy suite (71.7%) by a solo practitioner or 1:1 staffing ratio 59% of the time. LVAD-specific support personnel were present in more than 80% of all procedures. Both endoscopy and surgical patients used post-anesthesia recovery units and intensive care units for recovery; however, compared with endoscopy patients, surgical patients recovered in the ICU more frequently (45.5% v 29.1%, p<0.001). In addition, 18% of endoscopy patients recovered on site. Regarding patient monitoring, more than 90% of responders used electrocardiogram, pulse oximetry, end-tidal CO2, and blood pressure monitors on LVAD patients. Responders reported using arterial catheters to monitor blood pressure in 49% of endoscopy cases and 71% of surgical patients. The reported use of invasive monitors by individual clinicians was related inversely to institutional LVAD volume (p = 0.04 and p = 0.01 in endoscopy and surgical procedures, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This survey found heterogeneity in hospital resource utilization for noncardiac LVAD procedures. There was a decrease in the use of invasive monitors with increased institutional LVAD volume in both endoscopy and surgical procedures.
Authors: B Steinlechner; Daniel Zimpfer; Arno Schiferer; Nikolaus Heinrich; Thomas Schlöglhofer; Angela Rajek; Martin Dworschak; Michael Hiesmayr Journal: Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed Date: 2015-08-28 Impact factor: 0.840
Authors: Michael R Mathis; Subramanian Sathishkumar; Sachin Kheterpal; Matthew D Caldwell; Francis D Pagani; Elizabeth S Jewell; Milo C Engoren Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2017-03 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Finn Gustafsson; Binyamin Ben Avraham; Ovidiu Chioncel; Tal Hasin; Avishai Grupper; Aviv Shaul; Sanemn Nalbantgil; Yoav Hammer; Wilfried Mullens; Laurens F Tops; Jeremy Elliston; Steven Tsui; Davor Milicic; Johann Altenberger; Miriam Abuhazira; Stephan Winnik; Jacob Lavee; Massimo Francesco Piepoli; Lorrena Hill; Righab Hamdan; Arjang Ruhparwar; Stefan Anker; Marisa Generosa Crespo-Leiro; Andrew J S Coats; Gerasimos Filippatos; Marco Metra; Giuseppe Rosano; Petar Seferovic; Frank Ruschitzka; Stamatis Adamopoulos; Yaron Barac; Nicolaas De Jonge; Maria Frigerio; Eva Goncalvesova; Israel Gotsman; Osnat Itzhaki Ben Zadok; Piotr Ponikowski; Luciano Potena; Arsen Ristic; Tiny Jaarsma; Tuvia Ben Gal Journal: ESC Heart Fail Date: 2021-09-28