Volume 31, Issue 10 pp. 2762-2764
CASE REPORT

Unintended ICD discharge in a patient undergoing bladder tumor resection utilizing monopolar cautery and full-body return electrode

Ryan J. Lefevre MD

Corresponding Author

Ryan J. Lefevre MD

Department of Anesthesiology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA

Correspondence Ryan J. Lefevre, MD, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 1211 Medical Center Dr, MCE 5164, Nashville, TN 37232, USA.

Email: [email protected]

Search for more papers by this author
George H. Crossley MD

George H. Crossley MD

Department of Electrophysiology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA

Search for more papers by this author
Laura L. Sorabella MD

Laura L. Sorabella MD

Department of Anesthesiology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA

Search for more papers by this author
Kara K. Siegrist MD

Kara K. Siegrist MD

Department of Anesthesiology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA

Search for more papers by this author
Susan S. Eagle MD

Susan S. Eagle MD

Department of Anesthesiology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 30 July 2020
Citations: 6

Disclosures: None.

Abstract

Patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) devices frequently present for surgical procedures. If electrocautery is used, careful planning is needed to avoid inappropriate device function or device damage. Published consensus statements suggest that if the surgery is below the umbilicus, interference is typically minimal, and therefore it is not recommended to reprogram or disable the CIED. When these guidelines were published, full-body return electrodes were not commonly used in clinical practice, and therefore were not addressed in the recommendations. A 76-year-old male with a single chamber ICD underwent bladder surgery under general anesthesia. Monopolar cautery was used with a full-body return electrode. The patient had undergone a similar procedure multiple times prior utilizing a traditional thigh adhesive return electrode without any inappropriate ICD discharges. During the procedure, the patient's movement was noted with electrocautery use which was suspected to be an inappropriate discharge of his ICD. Device interrogation was performed confirming two antitachycardia pacing therapies and four defibrillations due to interference from the electrocautery. This case examines inappropriate ICD discharge related to interference from electrocautery when utilizing a full-body return electrode, despite a subumbilical location of surgery. Current consensus statement guidelines do not recommend device reprogramming or magnet used when surgery is below the umbilicus, however, these full-body return electrodes were not routinely used when these guidelines were published. Based on these results, the authors avoid full-body return electrodes in patients with CIEDs.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.