护士主导和医生主导的心脏监测器植入

B. Steinhauer, J. Spicher, S. Aerschmann, N. Ambord, J. Bartkowiak, H. Servatius, F. Noti, J. Seiler, S. Baldinger, A. Haeberlin, Antonio Madaffari, H. Tanner, T. Reichlin, L. Roten, S. Duetschler
{"title":"护士主导和医生主导的心脏监测器植入","authors":"B. Steinhauer, J. Spicher, S. Aerschmann, N. Ambord, J. Bartkowiak, H. Servatius, F. Noti, J. Seiler, S. Baldinger, A. Haeberlin, Antonio Madaffari, H. Tanner, T. Reichlin, L. Roten, S. Duetschler","doi":"10.1093/europace/euac053.046","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Type of funding sources: None. Implantation of an implantable cardiac monitor (ICM) is a simple and straightforward procedure. However, with a growing demand for such implants, workload significantly increases. In January 2020, we established a completely nurse-led ICM implantation service (N-IMPLANT) with a standard operating procedure. The present study aimed to analyze the safety, efficacy, and patient satisfaction of N-IMPLANT compared to implantation of ICMs by a physician (P-IMPLANT). Consenting patients implanted with an ICM were included in a prospective registry, which collects patient characteristics, procedural and remote monitoring data. All patients were followed-up by phone interview four weeks after ICM implantation and a standardized questionnaire was completed. Of 321 patients implanted with an ICM (median age 67 years; 33% women), 189 (59%) were N-IMPLANT. Significantly more N-IMPLANT were performed in the outpatient clinic compared to P-IMPLANT (94% vs. 10%; p<0.001). For wound closure, N-IMPLANT used wound glue in 65 (34%) and a single subcutaneous stitch in 124 patients (66%). Two N-IMPLANT patients experienced vaso-vagal reaction during implantation, whereas no adverse events occurred during P-IMPLANT (p=0.51). Two-hundred and fifty-two patients (79%) completed the questionnaire. We found no difference between N-IMPLANT and P-IMPLANT regarding pain after implant, analgesic use, wound closure after 2 weeks and presence and size of patient reported hematoma (see Table). Duration of pain was longer after P-IMPLANT. All N-IMPLANT patients indicated to be satisfied with the implant procedure. Three patients were dissatisfied with P-IMPLANT for the following reasons: ongoing pain at implant site; discomfort at implant site; and too numerous people present during the implant procedure. In three N-IMPLANT (2%) the ICM was explanted prematurely. The reasons for explantation were infection (with reimplantation of another ICM), discomfort at implant site and attempt to avoid interferences during magnetic resonance tomography in one patient each. One P-IMPLANT (1%) was explanted prematurely because of ICM malfunction. Nurse-led implantation of cardiac monitors is effective without compromising patient safety and has excellent patient satisfaction. N-IMPLANT is a suitable model to reduce the workload of physicians.","PeriodicalId":11720,"journal":{"name":"EP Europace","volume":"29 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Nurse-led compared to physician-led implant of cardiac monitors\",\"authors\":\"B. Steinhauer, J. Spicher, S. Aerschmann, N. Ambord, J. Bartkowiak, H. Servatius, F. Noti, J. Seiler, S. Baldinger, A. Haeberlin, Antonio Madaffari, H. Tanner, T. Reichlin, L. Roten, S. Duetschler\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/europace/euac053.046\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Type of funding sources: None. Implantation of an implantable cardiac monitor (ICM) is a simple and straightforward procedure. However, with a growing demand for such implants, workload significantly increases. In January 2020, we established a completely nurse-led ICM implantation service (N-IMPLANT) with a standard operating procedure. The present study aimed to analyze the safety, efficacy, and patient satisfaction of N-IMPLANT compared to implantation of ICMs by a physician (P-IMPLANT). Consenting patients implanted with an ICM were included in a prospective registry, which collects patient characteristics, procedural and remote monitoring data. All patients were followed-up by phone interview four weeks after ICM implantation and a standardized questionnaire was completed. Of 321 patients implanted with an ICM (median age 67 years; 33% women), 189 (59%) were N-IMPLANT. Significantly more N-IMPLANT were performed in the outpatient clinic compared to P-IMPLANT (94% vs. 10%; p<0.001). For wound closure, N-IMPLANT used wound glue in 65 (34%) and a single subcutaneous stitch in 124 patients (66%). Two N-IMPLANT patients experienced vaso-vagal reaction during implantation, whereas no adverse events occurred during P-IMPLANT (p=0.51). Two-hundred and fifty-two patients (79%) completed the questionnaire. We found no difference between N-IMPLANT and P-IMPLANT regarding pain after implant, analgesic use, wound closure after 2 weeks and presence and size of patient reported hematoma (see Table). Duration of pain was longer after P-IMPLANT. All N-IMPLANT patients indicated to be satisfied with the implant procedure. Three patients were dissatisfied with P-IMPLANT for the following reasons: ongoing pain at implant site; discomfort at implant site; and too numerous people present during the implant procedure. In three N-IMPLANT (2%) the ICM was explanted prematurely. The reasons for explantation were infection (with reimplantation of another ICM), discomfort at implant site and attempt to avoid interferences during magnetic resonance tomography in one patient each. One P-IMPLANT (1%) was explanted prematurely because of ICM malfunction. Nurse-led implantation of cardiac monitors is effective without compromising patient safety and has excellent patient satisfaction. N-IMPLANT is a suitable model to reduce the workload of physicians.\",\"PeriodicalId\":11720,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"EP Europace\",\"volume\":\"29 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"EP Europace\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euac053.046\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EP Europace","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euac053.046","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

资金来源类型:无。植入式心脏监护仪(ICM)的植入是一个简单而直接的过程。然而,随着对此类植入物的需求不断增长,工作量显著增加。2020年1月,我们建立了一个完全由护士主导的ICM植入服务(N-IMPLANT),具有标准的操作程序。本研究旨在分析N-IMPLANT与医师植入icm (P-IMPLANT)的安全性、有效性和患者满意度。同意植入ICM的患者被纳入前瞻性注册表,该注册表收集患者特征、程序和远程监测数据。所有患者于ICM植入4周后进行电话随访,并完成标准化问卷调查。321例植入ICM的患者(中位年龄67岁;33%女性),189例(59%)植入N-IMPLANT。与P-IMPLANT相比,门诊进行N-IMPLANT的人数明显更多(94%对10%;p < 0.001)。对于伤口闭合,N-IMPLANT在65例(34%)患者中使用创面胶,124例(66%)患者使用单次皮下缝合。2例N-IMPLANT患者在植入过程中出现血管迷走神经反应,而p - implant患者未发生不良反应(p=0.51)。252名患者(79%)完成了问卷调查。我们发现N-IMPLANT和P-IMPLANT在植入后疼痛、镇痛药使用、2周后伤口愈合以及患者报告血肿的存在和大小方面没有差异(见表)。p -植入后疼痛持续时间延长。所有N-IMPLANT患者均表示对种植过程满意。3例患者对P-IMPLANT不满意,原因如下:种植体部位持续疼痛;种植部位不适;而且植入过程中在场的人太多了。在3例(2%)N-IMPLANT中,ICM过早外植。移植的原因是感染(再植入另一个ICM),种植部位不适和试图避免在磁共振断层扫描时的干扰。1例P-IMPLANT(1%)因ICM故障而过早拔出。护士主导的心脏监护植入是有效的,不损害患者的安全,并有极好的患者满意度。N-IMPLANT是减少医生工作量的合适模型。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Nurse-led compared to physician-led implant of cardiac monitors
Type of funding sources: None. Implantation of an implantable cardiac monitor (ICM) is a simple and straightforward procedure. However, with a growing demand for such implants, workload significantly increases. In January 2020, we established a completely nurse-led ICM implantation service (N-IMPLANT) with a standard operating procedure. The present study aimed to analyze the safety, efficacy, and patient satisfaction of N-IMPLANT compared to implantation of ICMs by a physician (P-IMPLANT). Consenting patients implanted with an ICM were included in a prospective registry, which collects patient characteristics, procedural and remote monitoring data. All patients were followed-up by phone interview four weeks after ICM implantation and a standardized questionnaire was completed. Of 321 patients implanted with an ICM (median age 67 years; 33% women), 189 (59%) were N-IMPLANT. Significantly more N-IMPLANT were performed in the outpatient clinic compared to P-IMPLANT (94% vs. 10%; p<0.001). For wound closure, N-IMPLANT used wound glue in 65 (34%) and a single subcutaneous stitch in 124 patients (66%). Two N-IMPLANT patients experienced vaso-vagal reaction during implantation, whereas no adverse events occurred during P-IMPLANT (p=0.51). Two-hundred and fifty-two patients (79%) completed the questionnaire. We found no difference between N-IMPLANT and P-IMPLANT regarding pain after implant, analgesic use, wound closure after 2 weeks and presence and size of patient reported hematoma (see Table). Duration of pain was longer after P-IMPLANT. All N-IMPLANT patients indicated to be satisfied with the implant procedure. Three patients were dissatisfied with P-IMPLANT for the following reasons: ongoing pain at implant site; discomfort at implant site; and too numerous people present during the implant procedure. In three N-IMPLANT (2%) the ICM was explanted prematurely. The reasons for explantation were infection (with reimplantation of another ICM), discomfort at implant site and attempt to avoid interferences during magnetic resonance tomography in one patient each. One P-IMPLANT (1%) was explanted prematurely because of ICM malfunction. Nurse-led implantation of cardiac monitors is effective without compromising patient safety and has excellent patient satisfaction. N-IMPLANT is a suitable model to reduce the workload of physicians.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信