Premium
Perioperative transcutaneous pacemaker in patients with chronic bifascicular block or left bundle branch block and additional first‐degree atrioventricular block
Author(s) -
Gauss A.,
Hübner C.,
Meierhenrich R.,
Röhm H.J.,
Georgieff M.,
Schütz W.
Publication year - 1999
Publication title -
acta anaesthesiologica scandinavica
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.738
H-Index - 107
eISSN - 1399-6576
pISSN - 0001-5172
DOI - 10.1034/j.1399-6576.1999.430708.x
Subject(s) - medicine , anesthesia , bradycardia , perioperative , atrioventricular block , asymptomatic , left bundle branch block , blood pressure , cardiology , bundle branch block , heart block , electrocardiography , heart rate , heart failure
Background: Complete heart block is dreaded perioperatively in patients with chronic bifascicular or left bundle branch block (LBBB) and additional first‐degree A‐V block. Our aim was to investigate the necessity as well as the efficacy and safety of transcutaneous pacing in the perioperative setting. Methods: Thirty‐nine consecutive patients with asymptomatic chronic bifascicular block or LBBB and prolongation of the P‐R interval scheduled to undergo surgery under anesthesia were prospectively enrolled in the study. Preoperatively, a transcutaneous pacemaker (PACE 500 D, Osypka Co.) was applied; its efficacy was checked with intra‐arterial blood pressure measurement; the pain level was recorded. Additionally, 24‐h Holter monitoring (CM2, CM5) was applied. Occurrences of a block progression or a bradycardia of <40 beats/min with hemodynamic impairment were the defined end points. Results: Thirty‐seven of the 39 patients (95%) could be successfully stimulated with a median current strength of 70 mA; whereby 33 of the 39 patients felt moderate to severe pain. There was no perioperative block progression. Three cases of bradycardia of <40 beats/min with a critical drop in blood pressure occurred; but these patients were successfully treated with drug therapy without pacemaker stimulation. Conclusion: The perioperative application and testing of the pacemaker was safe and could be performed in nearly all patients successfully. However, we do not consider a routine prophylactic transcutaneous placement in patients with chronic bifascicular or LBBB and additional first‐degree A‐V block justified. Nevertheless, appropriate drugs and temporary pacemaker equipment should be easily accessible.