Literature DB >> 9869975

Comparison of three different automatic defibrillator implantation approaches: pectoral implantation using conscious sedation reduces procedure times and cost.

A Bollmann1, N K Kanuru, D DeLurgio, P F Walter, J C Burnette, J J Langberg.   

Abstract

Recent technological advances in implantable defibrillator systems (ICD) have changed implantation approaches. The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of these improvements on procedure times, implant-related charges, patient recovery, and morbidity. Ninety-six consecutive patients undergoing implantation of a nonthoracotomy ICD were studied. Implantation was performed under general anesthesia with the generator placed abdominally in 22 patients (group I) and pectorally in 40 patients (group II). Thirty-four patients underwent pectoral implantation using conscious sedation (group III). Groups were comparable with respect to clinical variables. Implantation duration and total procedure duration were shorter in group III (67 +/- 21 minutes and 117 +/- 30 minutes) when compared with group I (100 +/- 25 minutes and 157 +/- 39 minutes) and group II (86 +/- 24 minutes and 153 +/- 34 minutes, P < 0.05). Patients in group III did not require admission to the Post-Anesthesia Care Unit. In contrast, patients in groups I and II spent 92 +/- 28 minutes and 91 +/- 31 minutes in the Post-Anesthesia Care Unit. Implantation-related charges were reduced in patients having pectoral implantation using conscious sedation ($1451 +/- 217 vs. $2354 +/- 550 and $2796 +/- 384, P < 0.05). Patients in group III had a lower frequency of postoperative oral analgesic use (3.2 +/- 2.7 doses, P < 0.05) and a shortened post-operative length of stay (1.9 +/- 1.6 days, P < 0.05) when compared with groups I (5.7 +/- 4.0 doses and 3.3 +/- 1.4 days) and II (5.2 +/- 3.5 doses and 2.6 +/- 1.1 days). The overall complication rate was low (6.3%), with no differences between groups. Advances in ICD technology have simplified implantation, leading to shorter, less painful, and less expensive procedures.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9869975     DOI: 10.1023/a:1009768806894

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol        ISSN: 1383-875X            Impact factor:   1.900


  12 in total

1.  Transvenous cardioverter defibrillators: cost implications of a less invasive approach.

Authors:  F J Venditti; M O'Connell; D T Martin; D M Shahian
Journal:  Pacing Clin Electrophysiol       Date:  1995-04       Impact factor: 1.976

2.  Comparison of three cardioverter defibrillator implantation techniques: initial results with transvenous pectoral implantation.

Authors:  A Anvari; G Stix; M Grabenwöger; B Schneider; Z Türel; H Schmidinger
Journal:  Pacing Clin Electrophysiol       Date:  1996-07       Impact factor: 1.976

3.  Cost savings with nonthoracotomy implantable cardioverter-defibrillators.

Authors:  D S Cardinal; D T Connelly; D M Steinhaus; R Lemery; M Waters; L Foley
Journal:  Am J Cardiol       Date:  1996-12-01       Impact factor: 2.778

4.  Safety of nurse-administered deep sedation for defibrillator implantation in the electrophysiology laboratory.

Authors:  A Natale; M M Kearney; M J Brandon; V Kent; A Wase; K H Newby; E Pisano; M J Geiger
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol       Date:  1996-04

5.  Mechanical complications after implantation of multiple-lead nonthoracotomy defibrillator systems: implications for management and future system design.

Authors:  G K Jones; G H Bardy; P J Kudenchuk; J E Poole; G L Dolack; C Troutman; J Anderson; G Johnson
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  1995-08       Impact factor: 4.749

6.  Electrophysiological laboratory, electrophysiologist-implanted, nonthoracotomy-implantable cardioverter/defibrillators.

Authors:  A P Fitzpatrick; M D Lesh; L M Epstein; R J Lee; A Siu; S Merrick; J C Griffin; M M Scheinman
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  1994-06       Impact factor: 29.690

7.  Implantation by electrophysiologists of 100 consecutive cardioverter defibrillators with nonthoracotomy lead systems.

Authors:  S A Strickberger; J D Hummel; E Daoud; M Niebauer; B D Williamson; K C Man; L Horwood; A Schmittou; S J Kalbfleisch; J J Langberg
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  1994-08       Impact factor: 29.690

8.  Cost and length of hospital stay: comparisons between nonthoracotomy and epicardial techniques in patients receiving implantable cardioverter defibrillators.

Authors:  R M Luceri; P Zilo; S M Habal; I B David
Journal:  Pacing Clin Electrophysiol       Date:  1995-01       Impact factor: 1.976

9.  A new transvenous internal cardioverter-defibrillator: implantation technique, complications, and short-term follow-up.

Authors:  L Jordaens; P Vertongen; F Provenier; J W Trouerbach; J Poelaert; L Herregods
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  1995-02       Impact factor: 4.749

10.  Safety of implantation of a cardioverter-defibrillator without general anesthesia in an electrophysiology laboratory.

Authors:  R T Tung; A K Bajaj
Journal:  Am J Cardiol       Date:  1995-05-01       Impact factor: 2.778

View more
  3 in total

Review 1.  [Implantation of cardioverter-defibrillators. How much anesthesia is necessary?].

Authors:  T Sellmann; M Winterhalter; U Herold; P Kienbaum
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 1.041

2.  Intravenous sedation for cardiac procedures can be administered safely and cost-effectively by non-anesthesia personnel.

Authors:  Anna Kezerashvili; John D Fisher; Jessica DeLaney; Savi Mushiyev; Eileen Monahan; Vanessa Taylor; Soo G Kim; Kevin J Ferrick; Jay N Gross; Eugen C Palma; Andrew K Krumerman
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2008-02-14       Impact factor: 1.900

Review 3.  Sedation in the Electrophysiology Laboratory: A Multidisciplinary Review.

Authors:  Neal S Gerstein; Andrew Young; Peter M Schulman; Eric C Stecker; Peter M Jessel
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2016-06-13       Impact factor: 5.501

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.