Pro-Con Debate: Are Patients With a Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Device Suitable to Receive Care in a Free-Standing Ambulatory Surgery Center?

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

1 Scopus citations

Abstract

Migration of surgical and other procedures that require anesthesia care from a hospital to a free-standing ambulatory surgery center (ASC) continues to grow. Patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) might benefit from receiving their care in a free-standing ASC setting. However, these patients have cardiovascular comorbidities that can elevate the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events. CIEDs are also complex devices and perioperative management varies between devices marketed by various manufacturers and require consultation and ancillary services, which may not be available in a free-standing ASC. Thus, perioperative care of these patients can be challenging. Therefore, the suitability of this patient population in a free-standing ASC remains highly controversial. Although applicable advisories exist, considerable discussion continues with surgeons and other proceduralists about the concerns of anesthesiologists. In this Pro-Con commentary article, we discuss the arguments for and against scheduling a patient with a CIED in a free-standing ASC.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)919-925
Number of pages7
JournalAnesthesia and analgesia
Volume134
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - May 1 2022

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Pro-Con Debate: Are Patients With a Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Device Suitable to Receive Care in a Free-Standing Ambulatory Surgery Center?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this