Medically complex patients are increasingly being scheduled in free-standing ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs), making patient selection critical, as it can impact patient safety, perioperative outcomes, and efficiency.1 A cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) has traditionally referred to an implanted transvenous pacemaker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD), but several novel devices have recently been introduced (Table 1).2–4 It is estimated that more than 250,000 CIEDs are implanted annually in the United States3,5,6 making it inevitable that anesthesiologists practicing in a free-standing ASC will need to determine if patients with a CIED are suitable for ambulatory procedures. Although there are existing applicable advisories,7,8 considerable discussion continues with surgeons and other proceduralists regarding the concerns of anesthesiologists. Therefore, the suitability of this patient population in a free-standing ASC remains controversial. In this Pro-Con commentary article, we discuss the arguments and evidence for and against scheduling a patient with a CIED in a free-standing ASC.
PROS OF AN ASC SETTING FOR A PATIENT WITH A CIED
It is argued that patients with a CIED have a high cardiac comorbidity burden,9–11 which can potentially increase perioperative cardiac morbidity. However, patients are scheduled for procedures in a free-standing ASC only if comorbid conditions are stabilized and optimized (ie, patients have an American Society of Anesthesiologists [ASA] physical status of ≤III). Nevertheless, it is imperative that these patients are referred for timely preoperative evaluation before the day of surgery. This will also allow time for the anesthesiologist to obtain device information from the patient’s medical records. Alternatively, the device identification card can be used to obtain information from the manufacturer’s website or calling the “help line.” These resources can also be used to obtain advice regarding specific perioperative management, such as the need for preoperative programming and response to magnet placement.12
Table 1. -
Types and Characteristics of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices
||Single or multiple (atrial, ventricular)
||Multiple (right atrial, right ventricular). Shock coils present
||Single subcutaneous lead
||Multiple (right atrial, right ventricle, coronary sinus)
||No leads, device implanted in the right ventricle
||Antitachycardia pacing and/or defibrillation
|Rate modulation capability
|Typical magnet response
||Converts to asynchronous pacing
||Suspends antitachyarrhythmia therapy; no change to pacing therapy
||Shock therapy is inhibited
||CRT-P: converts to asynchronous pacing;
||Micra: no response
|CRT-D: suspends antitachyarrhythmia therapy with no change to pacing therapy
||Nanostim: converts to asynchronous pacing
Abbreviations: CRT, cardiac resynchronization therapy; CRT-D, cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator; CRT-P, cardiac resynchronization therapy-pacemaker; ICD, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator; S-ICD, subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator.
Adequate functioning of the CIED must be confirmed before surgery.8 It is recommended that CIEDs, particularly ICDs, should be interrogated within 30 days before the surgical procedure.13 Adequacy of device function can be evaluated by reviewing a recent interrogation report or cardiologist’s notes. Interrogation reports provide basic information about the indication for implantation, battery life, last programmed date, potential magnet responses, magnet rate, percentage paced events, number of ventricular tachyarrhythmia events, and number of shocks delivered.14,15
Remote monitoring now plays a central role in the management of patients with CIEDs and is capable of daily transmission of stored CIED information from the device to the health care provider.16–19 Remote interrogation, combined with virtual cardiologist consultation via telemedicine, is increasingly utilized and allows for early identification and management of any potential issues with the device. Thus, the patient does not need to schedule a cardiology office visit for CIED interrogation.20 With an ICD, the application of a magnet would result in suspension of the antitachyarrhythmia function but not conversion to asynchronous mode. Therefore, in patients with pacemaker dependence, preoperatively programming the device may be necessary,3,13,21,22 which may also be facilitated through remote consultation and programming. Pacemaker dependence can be determined based on the indication for CIED placement (eg, history of atrioventricular node ablation and significant ventricular bradyarrhythmias causing syncope) or by a paced rhythm on the electrocardiogram (ECG).22 Pacemaker-dependent patients may be suitable candidates for procedures in a free-standing ASC as long as adequate precautions are taken to prevent the adverse effects of electromagnetic interference (EMI). For example, pacing-dependent patients who have well-controlled comorbidities and are scheduled for procedures with no use of electrocautery (eg, cataract surgery) or procedures below the umbilicus and with CIEDs that are simple transvenous pacemakers can be good candidates for a free-standing ASC.
There is a concern of device malfunction from EMI generated during the procedure. However, modern CIEDs are robust and resistant to EMI, so much so that some are even magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) compatible. In addition, more than half of all procedures performed in the ambulatory setting have a low risk of EMI generation.23–26 About 40% of outpatient procedures are interventions that do not require the use of electrocautery, including cataract surgery and other ophthalmic procedures, gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures, diagnostic bronchoscopy, diagnostic cystoscopy, and analgesic procedures for treatment of chronic pain (eg, nerve, joint, and neuraxial injections). At least an additional 15% of outpatient procedures are located below the umbilicus, or at least 6 inches (15 cm) from the CIED generator and leads, which are therefore at low risk of EMI. Examples include inguinal hernia repair, urogenital procedures, and orthopedic procedures in the lower extremities like bunionectomy and knee arthroscopy or arthroplasty. These types of procedures can be safely performed in an ambulatory outpatient setting even if monopolar electrocautery or radiofrequency ablation is used.27,28 In many other procedures, bipolar electrocautery or an ultrasound (harmonic) scalpel can be used to minimize the risk of EMI. EMI generation can be reduced by (a) placing the grounding pad of the electrocautery system as close to the surgical site as possible such that the current flow does not intersect the CIED generator or leads and (b) setting the monopolar electrocautery to the lowest feasible energy level and using short, irregular, intermittent bursts.13
It is suggested that free-standing ASC efficiency may be reduced because of delayed discharge due to the need for postoperative device assessment and programming. If the CIED was programmed before surgery or a magnet used intraoperatively, the device must be interrogated to ensure proper functioning and reprogrammed if necessary. This usually takes only a few minutes and should not delay patient discharge. Careful preoperative planning and coordination should allow timely presence of a member of the CIED team in the free-standing ASC. In some cases, remote monitoring and interrogation, as well as a virtual cardiologist consultation, should facilitate postoperative and postdischarge care.
Overall, the above discussion supports that the free-standing ASC setting is safe for appropriately selected CIED patients with good ventricular function (ASA physical status of ≤III), as well as applying precautions to reduce EMI and providing appropriate postoperative care. Many of the arguments posed for avoiding the free-standing ASC setting for patients with CIED rely on outdated information and concerns that are not valid in modern clinical practice.
CONS OF AN ASC SETTING FOR A PATIENT WITH A CIED
CIED implantation suggests that a patient has a high cardiac comorbidity burden, which may not be fully realized preoperatively, as preoperative evaluation is typically performed on the day of the procedure. Even if cardiac comorbidities are optimized before the procedure, patients may be frail after survival from a serious arrhythmia or sudden cardiac arrest due to advanced cardiac disease, such as cardiomyopathy, neuromuscular disorders associated with heart disease, prolonged-QT syndrome, or Brugada syndrome.13,18,20 This group of patients may have a left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) of <35% or New York Heart Association class >II. They are usually categorized with an ASA physical status of IV, and they are thus not suitable for a procedure in a free-standing ASC.1 Due to inadequate support and lack of personnel, a free-standing ASC may not be equipped to manage the potential perioperative complications, such as unanticipated cardiac arrhythmia and hemodynamic compromise. Consultation and ancillary services may not be readily available.
Another issue is that CIED technology is advancing rapidly with increasing complexity and inconsistency in the capability of delivering pacing or antitachycardia therapy. For example, cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices may or may not have defibrillation or antitachycardia functions,29 while leadless intracardiac pacemakers have pacemaker and rate modulation capabilities but are not capable of delivering tachyarrhythmia therapies (Table 1). Furthermore, the response to magnets and the requirements for reprogramming vary between manufacturers. For example, the subcutaneous (S)-ICD lacks permanent pacing for bradycardia or antitachycardia pacing capabilities.30,31 An S-ICD has a wider sensing region and, hence, is more prone to malfunction due to EMI. Therefore, although magnet application will suspend ventricular tachyarrhythmia therapy, it is recommended that an S-ICD, which are implanted in patients without a current or anticipated need for pacing,32,33 be reprogrammed preoperatively to “therapy off” mode.34
CRT devices synchronize contraction of the right and left ventricles and thus improve electromechanical coupling in heart failure patients with LVEF ≤35%35,36 and may have an ICD component (cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator [CRT-D]) or only the biventricular pacing components (cardiac resynchronization therapy-pacemaker [CRT-P).29 For CRT-D, the antiarrhythmic therapy function should be suspended during procedures with high risk for EMI by reprogramming or using a magnet. In both scenarios, the resynchronization capability will not be suspended. In contrast, placing a magnet on a CRT-P device will make it pace in asynchronous mode.37 Given that CRT systems are commonly used in patients with decreased ventricular function, converting to asynchronous mode may have unpredictable hemodynamic effects.35
Leadless intracardiac pacemakers are small CIEDs implanted in the right ventricle with single-chamber ventricular pacemaker and rate modulation capabilities.38 Two devices are currently available. The Micra Trans catheter Pacemaker System (Medtronic) is MRI compatible but does not have a magnet sensor, and therefore, it does not convert to asynchronous mode in response to magnet application.39 The Nanostim leadless intracardiac pacemaker (St. Jude Medical) is similar to the Micra device but has the advantage of magnet responsiveness, consisting of pacing at 90 beats per minute in asynchronous mode.40,41 Neither of these devices are capable of delivering tachyarrhythmia therapies. The Micra device does not respond to the application of a magnet, and thus, pacing-dependent patients require specific software for reprogramming, which necessitates technical support.42
Even during minimally invasive procedures. the risk from EMI generation exists (Table 2).43–46 If significant intraprocedural EMI is anticipated and unavoidable, the anesthesiologist at a free-standing ASC should be prepared to place the CIED in asynchronous mode and/or suspend its antitachyarrhythmia functions. This can be achieved with the use of magnets or by reprogramming of the device; however, the choice remains highly controversial.47 Although use of a magnet has been suggested as an option, it involves several challenges. First, the anesthesia provider needs to be sure that the device is not programmed to ignore the magnet effect (mode “off”).14,15 Second, some devices do not provide a signal (beeping tones) to confirm that antitachyarrhythmia therapy has been disabled. Third, the magnet needs to be reliably secured over the CIED generator, easily accessible to the provider, and not interfere with the surgical field.
Table 2. -
Procedures With High Electromagnetic Interference Risk
|Procedures between the mandible and the xiphoid or operations involving the neck, shoulders, or upper thorax
|Operations performed close to the cardiovascular implantable electronic device generator or leads
|Radiofrequency ablation for lesions located above the umbilicus
|Interventional pulmonary procedures using monopolar electrocautery, argon plasma coagulation, or electromagnetic navigational bronchoscopy
|Diagnostic or interventional procedures using MRI
|Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation
Abbreviation: MRI, magnetic resonance imaging.
Of note, about 85% of pacemakers implanted in the United States are programmed for rate modulation, which may represent a challenge for anesthesiologists, as these devices may increase the pacing rate inappropriately in response to EMI or mechanical hyperventilation. Finally, for patients who are pacemaker-dependent and with certain type of devices, reprogramming is necessary because with most ICDs the magnet will deactivate the antitachyarrhythmia functions but will not affect the pacing mode.3,8,21,22 Reprogramming the CIED before the procedure requires the intervention of a CIED team, which may not be logistically feasible in a free-standing ASC. Also, it may delay surgery start and reduce free-standing ASC efficiency.
In the postoperative period, patients need to be closely monitored until the CIED is reprogrammed and interrogated. This requires technical support from a cardiologist or CIED team. Thus, there is potential for delay in not only the procedure start but also discharge home, which can decrease free-standing ASC efficiency.48
Table 3. -
Patients With a CIED Not Suitable to Receive Care in a Free-Standing Ambulatory Surgery Center
|Patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status ≥IV
|Patients with comorbidities that are not optimized
|CIED implanted within 3 mo before the procedure
|Patients who have experienced recurrent implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks despite optimal device programming and appropriate medical therapy
|Cardiac resynchronization therapy devices implanted to improve electromechanical coupling in a patient with left ventricle ejection fraction ≤35%
|Free-standing ambulatory surgery centers that do not have access to CIED team to reprogram the device preoperatively and postoperatively, when necessary.
|Patients with a complex CIED undergoing procedures requiring electromagnetic interference ()
|Patient’s anesthesia provider is unaware of the functional capabilities of the CIED
Abbreviation: CIED, cardiac implantable electronic device.
Given these considerations, patients with CIEDs should not be scheduled for procedures in a free-standing ASC unless (a) the patient’s comorbid conditions are optimized; (b) the desired procedure does not involve the risk of EMI; (c) the anesthesiologist is aware of the functional capabilities of the specific device, including magnet response, rate modulation, and the ability to provide permanent pacing or antitachyarrhythmia therapy; and (d) CIED team support is readily available preoperatively and postoperatively, if needed.
This Pro-Con debate suggests that the approach to the patient with a CIED should be individualized. Caution should be exercised, as not all patients with CIED are suitable for a free-standing ASC. Before scheduling in a free-standing ASC, a patient with a CIED should undergo preoperative evaluation and optimization of comorbid conditions (ASA physical status ≤III). In addition, it is necessary to evaluate CIED function, including battery life and appropriateness of magnet use. Possible intraoperative EMI generation should also be determined. Patients with well-controlled comorbidities scheduled for low-risk procedures with no risk of EMI (eg, cataract surgery under locoregional anesthesia) are in general suitable for a free-standing ASC, regardless the type of CIED.49 For other patients, free-standing ASC suitability should be determined on a case-by-case basis, recognizing the limitations of individual free-standing ASC. The ambulatory facility should be properly prepared with the necessary equipment and personnel to manage unforeseen events. Some patients may need prophylactic placement of transcutaneous pacing/defibrillation pads (eg, Zoll AED pads; Zoll Medical Corporation) and should be scheduled in a free-standing ASC with caution. Those include pacing-dependent patients with a transvenous pacemaker or ICD having procedures where magnet application may interfere with the surgical field, or the magnet cannot be reliably secured over the CIED generator; high cardiac risk patients with an ICD undergoing procedures with high risk for EMI; high-risk patients undergoing procedures in position that would prevent placement external pads; and pacing-dependent patient with concomitant S-ICD and a pacemaker.50 Efforts must be made to reduce EMI by using bipolar electrocautery or an ultrasound (harmonic) scalpel. If monopolar electrocautery is necessary, the grounding pad of the electrocautery system should be placed as close to the surgical site as possible, such that the current flow does not intersect the CIED generator or leads, and the lowest feasible energy level should be used. There must be access to timely technical support from a CIED team for consultation, particularly if preoperative and postoperative programming is deemed necessary. If the device was programmed preoperatively, exposed to EMI, or magnet was used, adequate CIED function should be confirmed before discharge home, which can be done remotely. Patients with CIED not suitable for a free-standing ASC are presented in Table 3. Further high-impact research is needed to confirm the safety and benefits of using a free-standing ASC for procedures in patients with a modern CIED. This would include the number of free-standing ASCs that have access to sophisticated CIED assessment.
Name: Eric B. Rosero, MD, MSc.
Contribution: This author helped write and revise the manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest: None.
Name: Niraja Rajan, MD.
Contribution: This author helped write and revise the manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest: None.
Name: Girish P. Joshi, MBBS, MD, FFARCSI.
Contribution: This author helped write and revise the manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest: G. P. Joshi has received honoraria from Baxter Pharmaceuticals and Pacira Pharmaceuticals.
This manuscript was handled by: Richard C. Prielipp, MD.
The authors thank Mark Kozak, MD, Professor of Medicine and Radiology, Division of Cardiology, Penn State Heart and Vascular Institute, Hershey, PA, and Soraya Samii, MD, PhD, Associate Professor of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Penn State Heart and Vascular Institute, Hershey, PA.
1. Rajan N, Rosero EB, Joshi GP. Patient selection for adult ambulatory surgery: a narrative review. Anesth Analg. 2021;133:1415–1430.
2. Steffen MM, Osborn JS, Cutler MJ. Cardiac implantable electronic device therapy: permanent pacemakers, implantable cardioverter defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization devices. Med Clin North Am. 2019;103:931–943.
3. Cronin B, Essandoh MK. Update on cardiovascular implantable electronic devices for anesthesiologists. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2018;32:1871–1884.
4. McAlister FA, Ezekowitz J, Hooton N, et al. Cardiac resynchronization therapy for patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction: a systematic review. JAMA. 2007;297:2502–2514.
5. Elbadawi A, Elgendy IY, Ha LD, et al. National trends and outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention in patients ≥70 years of age with acute coronary syndrome (from the National Inpatient Sample Database). Am J Cardiol. 2019;123:25–32.
6. Iverson A, Stanberry LI, Tajti P, et al. Prevalence, trends, and outcomes of higher-risk percutaneous coronary interventions among patients without acute coronary syndromes. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2019;20:289–292.
7. Epstein AE, DiMarco JP, Ellenbogen KA, et al.; American College of Cardiology Foundation; American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines; Heart Rhythm Society. 2012 ACCF/AHA/HRS focused update incorporated into the ACCF/AHA/HRS 2008 guidelines for device-based therapy of cardiac rhythm abnormalities: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society. Circulation. 2013;127:e283–e352.
8. American Society of Anesthesiologists. Practice advisory for the perioperative management of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices: pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators 2020: an updated report by the american society of anesthesiologists task force on perioperative management of patients with cardiac implantable electronic device. Anesthesiology. 2020;132:225–252.
9. Egholm G, Kristensen SD, Thim T, et al. Risk associated with surgery within 12 months after coronary drug-eluting stent implantation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;68:2622–2632.
10. Herbert T, Rizzolo D. The role of percutaneous coronary intervention in managing patients with stable ischemic heart disease. JAAPA. 2020;33:18–22.
11. Mahmoud KD, Sanon S, Habermann EB, et al. Perioperative cardiovascular risk of prior coronary stent implantation among patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;67:1038–1049.
12. Higaki A, Kurokawa T, Kazatani T, et al. Image similarity-based cardiac rhythm device identification from X-rays using feature point matching. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2021;44:633–640.
13. Joshi GP. Perioperative management of outpatients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2009;22:701–704.
14. Cronin B, Birgersdotter-Green U, Essandoh MK. Perioperative interrogation of boston scientific cardiovascular implantable electronic devices: a guide for anesthesiologists. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2019;33:1076–1089.
15. Cronin B, Essandoh MK. Perioperative interrogation of st. jude cardiovascular implantable electronic devices: a guide for anesthesiologists. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2018;32:982–1000.
16. Crossley GH, Boyle A, Vitense H, Chang Y, Mead RH; CONNECT Investigators. The CONNECT (Clinical Evaluation of Remote Notification to Reduce Time to Clinical Decision) trial: the value of wireless remote monitoring with automatic clinician alerts. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57:1181–1189.
17. Guédon-Moreau L, Lacroix D, Sadoul N, et al.; ECOST trial Investigators. Costs of remote monitoring vs. ambulatory follow-ups of implanted cardioverter defibrillators in the randomized ECOST study. Europace. 2014;16:1181–1188.
18. Slotwiner D, Varma N, Akar JG, et al. HRS Expert Consensus Statement on remote interrogation and monitoring for cardiovascular implantable electronic devices. Heart Rhythm. 2015;12:e69–100.
19. Zabel M, Müller-Riemenschneider F, Geller JC, et al.; MONITOR-ICD investigators. Rationale and design of the MONITOR-ICD study: a randomized comparison of economic and clinical effects of automatic remote MONITORing versus control in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators. Am Heart J. 2014;168:430–437.
20. Zeitler EP, Piccini JP. Remote monitoring of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED). Trends Cardiovasc Med. 2016;26:568–577.
21. Moss AJ, Schuger C, Beck CA, et al.; MADIT-RIT Trial Investigators. Reduction in inappropriate therapy and mortality through ICD programming. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:2275–2283.
22. Mahlow WJ, Craft RM, Misulia NL, et al. A perioperative management algorithm for cardiac rhythm management devices: the PACED-OP protocol. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2013;36:238–248.
23. Rooke GA. Intraoperative electrosurgical electromagnetic interference in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators: is it safe? Anesthesiology. 2019;130:523–525.
24. Schulman PM, Treggiari MM, Yanez ND, et al. Electromagnetic interference with protocolized electrosurgery dispersive electrode positioning in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators. Anesthesiology. 2019;130:530–540.
25. Cullen KA, Hall MJ, Golosinskiy A. Ambulatory surgery in the United States, 2006. Natl Health Stat Report. 2009:1–25.
26. Steiner CA, Karaca Z, Moore BJ, Imshaug MC, Pickens G. Steiner CA, Karaca Z, Moore BJ, et al. Surgeries in Hospital-Based Ambulatory Surgery and Hospital Inpatient Settings, 2014: Statistical Brief #223. 2017. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK442035/
27. Friedman H, Higgins JV, Ryan JD, Konecny T, Asirvatham SJ, Cha YM. Predictors of intraoperative electrosurgery-induced implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) detection. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2017;48:21–26.
28. Neubauer H, Wellmann M, Herzog-Niescery J, et al. Comparison of perioperative strategies in ICD patients: the perioperative ICD management study (PIM study). Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2018;41:1536–1542.
29. Sandhu A, Levy A, Varosy PD, Matlock D. Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators and cardiac resynchronization therapy in older adults with heart failure. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2019;67:2193–2199.
30. Weinstock J, Madias C. The subcutaneous defibrillator. Card Electrophysiol Clin. 2017;9:775–783.
31. Probst V, Boveda S, Sadoul N, et al. Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator indication in prevention of sudden cardiac death in difficult clinical situations: a French expert position paper. Arch Cardiovasc Dis. 2020;113:359–366.
32. Al-Khatib SM, Stevenson WG, Ackerman MJ, et al. 2017 AHA/ACC/HRS guideline for management of patients with ventricular arrhythmias and the prevention of sudden cardiac death: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society. Circulation. 2018;138:e210–e271.
33. Aziz S, Leon AR, El-Chami MF. The subcutaneous defibrillator: a review of the literature. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63:1473–1479.
34. Essandoh M, Daoud EG. Perioperative considerations for patients with subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators undergoing noncardiac surgery. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2016;30:756–761.
35. Dokuni K, Matsumoto K, Tatsumi K, et al. Cardiac resynchronization therapy improves left atrial reservoir function through resynchronization of the left atrium in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2020;36:1203–1212.
36. Sun WP, Li CL, Guo JC, et al. Long-term efficacy of implantable cardiac resynchronization therapy plus defibrillator for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death in patients with mild heart failure: an updated meta-analysis. Heart Fail Rev. 2016;21:447–453.
37. Kammura Y, Fujita A, Karashima Y, et al. Anesthetic management of laparoscopy-assisted total proctocolectomy in a cardiac sarcoidosis patient with a cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator: a case report. JA Clin Rep. 2020;6:43.
38. Della Rocca DG, Gianni C, Di Biase L, Natale A, Al-Ahmad A. Leadless pacemakers: state of the art and future perspectives. Card Electrophysiol Clin. 2018;10:17–29.
39. Reynolds D, Duray GZ, Omar R, et al.; Micra Transcatheter Pacing Study Group. A leadless intracardiac transcatheter pacing system. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:533–541.
40. Reddy VY, Exner DV, Cantillon DJ, et al.; LEADLESS II Study Investigators. Percutaneous implantation of an entirely intracardiac leadless pacemaker. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:1125–1135.
41. Tjong FV, Reddy VY. Permanent leadless cardiac pacemaker therapy: a comprehensive review. Circulation. 2017;135:1458–1470.
43. Cunqueiro A, Lipton ML, Dym RJ, Jain VR, Sterman J, Scheinfeld MH. Performing MRI on patients with MRI-conditional and non-conditional cardiac implantable electronic devices: an update for radiologists. Clin Radiol. 2019;74:912–917.
44. Friedrich J, Itano EM, Lynn RR. Management of cardiac implantable electrical devices in patients undergoing radiofrequency ablation for spine pain: physician survey and review of guidelines. Pain Physician. 2020;23:E335–E342.
45. Kumar A, Dhillon SS, Patel S, Grube M, Noheria A. Management of cardiac implantable electronic devices during interventional pulmonology procedures. J Thorac Dis. 2017;9:S1059–S1068.
46. Verma A, Ha AC, Dennie C, et al. Canadian Heart Rhythm Society and Canadian Association of Radiologists consensus statement on magnetic resonance imaging with cardiac implantable electronic devices. Can J Cardiol. 2014;30:1131–1141.
47. Costa A, Richman DC. Implantable devices: assessment and perioperative management. Anesthesiol Clin. 2016;34:185–199.
48. Joshi GP, Vetter TR. Causes of delays in the ambulatory surgery center setting: a keen grasp of the obvious? Anesth Analg. 2021;133:1402–1405.
49. Sweitzer BJ, Rajan N, Schell D, Gayer S, Joshi GP. Perioperative care for cataract surgery: The Society for Ambulatory Anesthesia (SAMBA) position statement. Anesth Analg. 2021;133:1431–1436.
50. Huang J, Patton KK, Prutkin JM. Concomitant use of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator and a permanent pacemaker. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2016;39:1240–1245.