Tumescent local anesthesia versus general anesthesia for subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation

BACKGROUND Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) is an effective alternative to transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. General anesthesia (GA) is considered the standard sedation approach because of the pain caused by the manipulation of subcutaneous tissue with S-ICD implantation. However, GA carries several limitations, including additional risk of adverse events, prolonged in-room times, and increased costs.OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to define the effectiveness and safety of tumescent local anesthesia (TLA) in comparison to GA in patients undergoing S-ICD implantation.METHODS We performed a prospective, nonrandomized, controlled, multicenter study of patients referred for S-ICD implantation between 2019 and 2020. Patients were allocated to either TLA or GA on the basis of patient's preferences and/or anesthesia service availability. TLA was prepared using lidocaine, epinephrine, sodium bicarbonate, and sodium chloride. All patients provided written informed consent, and the institutional review board at each site provided approval for the study.RESULTS Sixty patients underwent successful S-ICD implantation from July 2019 to November 2020. Thirty patients (50%) received TLA, and the rest GA. There were no differences between groups with regard to baseline characteristics. In-room and procedural times were significantly shorter with TLA (107.6 minutes vs 186 minutes; P < .0001 and 53.2 minutes vs 153.7 minutes; P < .0001, respectively). Pain was reported less frequently by patients who received TLA. The use of opioids was significantly reduced in patients who received TLA (23% vs 62%; P = .002).CONCLUSION TLA is an effective and safe alternative to GA in S-ICD implantation. The use of TLA is associated with shorter in-room and procedural times, less postprocedural pain, and reduced usage of opioids and acetaminophen for analgesia.