4.2 Article

Feasibility of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation with opioid sparing truncal plane blocks and deep sedation

Journal

JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY
Volume 30, Issue 1, Pages 141-148

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jce.13750

Keywords

anesthesia; implantation technique; serratus anterior plane block; subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator; sudden cardiac death

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) is most commonly implanted under general anesthesia (GA), due to the intraoperative discomfort associated with tunneling and dissection. Postoperative pain can be substantial and is often managed with opioids. There is a growing interest in transitioning away from the routine use of GA during S-ICD implantation, while also controlling perioperative discomfort without the use of narcotics. As such, we assessed the feasibility of a multimodal analgesia regimen that included regional anesthesia techniques in patients undergoing S-ICD implantation. Methods and Results Twenty patients received truncal plane block (TBL) immediately before S-ICD implantation. The first 10 patients were implanted under general anesthesia (GA + TBL), and the next 10 patients were implanted under deep sedation (DS + TBL). Additionally, the DS + TBL patients were also prescribed a structured regimen of nonopioid analgesics in the perioperative period. Opioid consumption was calculated as milligram morphine equivalents (MME). In-hospital opioid consumption was significantly lower in the patients implanted with DS + TBL (MME = 0) as compared with patients receiving GA + TBL (MME = 60; P = 0.004). Conclusions Subcutaneous ICD implantation with anesthesia-delivered DS and a multimodal anesthetic regimen that includes TBL is feasible and associated with significantly less perioperative opioid consumption.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available