Showing posts with label cardioversion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cardioversion. Show all posts

Friday, March 27, 2009

Glory Days


Ah, it used to be such a simple affair.

A simple dance between doctor and nurse and patient. A little oxygen applied, an IV started, a drug administered. The melodic cadence of the monitor chirping softly as the patient drifted off to sleep, eyes heavy, jaw dropping open. Yes, a little sleepy time in the office and then....

BLAM! A few gazillion volts were applied across the chest to restore the heart rhythm to normal. The patient would reflexly jerk, sometimes catching the doctor between the legs with their flailing hand. A nurse would chuckle as she supported the airway while the doctor tossed his cookies, then grabbed the closest chair to regain his composure, all the while sputtering to thank the nurse for her assistance with the patient, but next time, could she please place a sheet over the patients hands and arms to prevent this kind of thing?

In those days, costs were low, treatment effective. Nurses and doctors had time to monitor the patient. By and large, patients did well.

The glory days of medicine.

Today, the procedure is the same, but very different. No longer is cardioversion performed in the office, but the hospital. Why? They tell me it's safer. It certainly is easier for me. No more hassle and worry. Just schedule it, have the patient all prepped and ready to go. We have anesthesiologists and nurse anethesthetists who manage the airway for me, sophisticated monitors that record oxygen saturation, blood pressure, respirations, and a whole host of other parameters that we never use. We say "time-out" and make sure we have the the right patient and we're shocking the one heart in the center of the chest and not another heart somewhere else. We have biphasic defibrillators that are effective with only 100 joules instead of 360, but we have the 360-joule model just in case a patient is the size of Toledo. We give innovative (and expensive) ultra-short anesthetics that metabolize so fast that respiratory complications are rare, but the credentials committee has deemed can only be adminstered by an anesthesiologist or his or her nurse helper. We use bite blocks or rolls of gauze to prevent a patient from accidentially biting their tongue. And we get an EKG after the procedure to show the lawyers we really did what we said we did, see? And the whole thing is documented on an electronic medical record that records the drugs, and the vital signs, the pre-sedation note, the procedure note, the diagnoses, and ties them to the right ICD-9 codes, and shoots the bill to the coders, billing consultants, business managers and insurers, all at the speed of light so the bill is posted before the patient even awakens. All as the doctors and nurses work as a team to assure a pleasant experience for the patient and their family.

Yes, the glory days once more, but different.

And the patient goes home, just as before, with the chance for legal liability reduced. It is safer and more efficient for everyone, really it is. (Although I've not seen the data on this, except here).

And soon, we'll reach even better heights, with more coding, efficiency, safety initiatives, and oversight. More efficiency. More safety. And fewer medical errors. All while holding down the costs in our new, improved health care system of tomorrow.

Yep, we'll reach the land of milk and honey and the glory days will be even better.

Really they will.

Except when they still forget to strap down the patient's arms.

-Wes

Picture reference: widerider107.

Friday, March 20, 2009

Living With Atrial Fibrillation

I read this recent article by New York Times business writer Duff Wilson regarding his mother's difficulties managing atrial fibrillation: the need for anticoagulation, ineffectiveness of cardioversion, the side effects of the antiarrhythmic drugs, and her indecision regarding future drug or device therapies. For now she has decided leave her rhythm alone and (hopefully) stick with just anticoagulation. For some, doing nothing might just be the best option, provided the heart rate is well-controlled.

Our drugs are just not that effective for atrial fibrillation. Any of them. Even the upcoming dronedarone. Certainly some may work better in some patients than others, but once you fail one drug (especially amiodarone), the odds of having long-term success with another drug is limited (dofetilide might be an exception here, but can only be used in patients with normal or near-normal kidney function).

Sometimes, though, I find its helpful to try to determine what causes some one's fatigue. Is it the rapid heart rate, the irregularity of the heart rhythm, or the loss of mechanical synchronization between the atria (top chambers) and the ventricles (bottom chambers) of the heart.

If the patient complains of racing heart rhythms, then using rate control medications like beta blockers or calcium channel blockers may be all that's needed to improve their symptoms.

If the patient complains that the irregularity of the rhythm is what bothers them, then there is a good chance that a pacemaker might improve their symptoms since their rhythm can be regularized after implanting the pacemaker and then ablating the AV node. While this has the downside of rendering someone pacemaker-dependent for their heart to beat, in the older age group, this therapy has been shown to demonstrate marked improvement in symptoms with only the need for ongoing anticoagulation without the potential side effects and toxicities of antiarrhythmic medications. In the older crowd, this might not be such a bad option.

Finally, if the person's primary complaint centers on fatigue, there are two options: (1) do nothing and continue anticoagulation (since fatigue may be a difficult symptom to resolve) or (2) consider catheter ablation of the atrial fibrillation - provided the risks of the procedure are carefully reviewed. In a small subset of patients, octogenarians were thought to be as safely treated with catheter ablation as younger adults. This study was limited, however, by its retrospective design and limited numbers. What has not been shown yet is a mortality advantage to this approach and certainly there are plenty of risks with this procedure.

Finally, the need for follow-up after any one of these therapies is undertaken might vary and influence which therapy to recommend. The take-home message here is that no two patients' needs are alike and sometimes it's tough to always make the "perfect choice."

Anyway, just some thoughts. It'd be interesting to read what others might recommend.

-Wes

Friday, September 19, 2008

Equine Cardioversion

Dang. This would be cool to do: a cardioversion on a horse.

I just finished a Grand Rounds today for our housestaff and came across this helpful compilation of data on improving the success of cardioversion in humans. To summarize:
  • Use anterior-posterior (AP) rather than anterior-anterior (AA) patch position

  • Higher energies up front often lead to lower shock requirements to achieve success

  • Use biphasic defibrillators over monophasic defibrillators

  • If unsuccessful, consider pre-treating the patient with Ibutilide (1 mg over 10-15 min IVPB)
Interesting to speculate how those suggestions might be applied to a horse...

-Wes

Monday, May 05, 2008

Hang On and Shock 'em

Young cardiology fellow meets electrophysiologist after an episode of new-onset atrial fibrillation that requires cardioversion in the EP lab:
"Go ahead, hold the legs."

"Are you nuts?"

"No, I'm not nuts. You need to hold their legs so after the shock they don't bend their legs with all those catheters in them and hurt themselves."

"But you're going to use 360 Joules!"

"Yep, and you won't feel a thing."

"No way."

"Way."

"How can you be so sure?"

"Because those gloves you're wearing do not conduct electricity. Sync on? Good. Everybody clear? (No not you - you keep holding...) Go ahead."

* * * Thump * * *

"Didn't feel a thing, did you?"

"Ah, no, but now my heart is racing..."

-Wes

Reference: Lloyd MS, Heeke B, Walter PF, Langberg JJ. "Hands On Defibrillation. An Analysis of Electrical Current Flow Through Rescuers in Direct Contact With Patients During Biphasic Defibrillation." Circulation. 4 May 2008.