《2011HRS美國植入除顫器、起搏器和心律失常檢測儀圍術(shù)期管理專家共識(shí)》內(nèi)容簡介：

    The document represents the con-sensus of the writing committee, which was developed asdescribed above. In writing a “consensus” document, it isrecognized that consensus does not mean that there wascomplete agreement among all writing group members. Theexpert panel identified those aspects of perioperative man-agement of CIEDs for which a true “consensus” could beachieved. Surveys of the entire writing group were used toidentify these areas of consensus. For the purposes of thisdocument, they defined a consensus as 85% or greateragreement by the authors of this document.

    《2011HRS美國植入除顫器、起搏器和心律失常檢測儀圍術(shù)期管理專家共識(shí)》內(nèi)容預(yù)覽：

    Introduction
    The perioperative period for patients with pacemakers anddefibrillators poses unique challenges to ensure a high de-gree of patient safety. Rapid changes in CIED technology,expanding use of potential sources of electromagnetic in-terference （EMI） and confusing recommendations basedupon limited data have highlighted the need for a review ofthe known risks and a statement of recommendation. Forexample, in the past, there was great concern for phantomreprogramming, which is unintended random reprogram-ming due to EMI.1With current complex digital transmis-sion of programming signals, this is clearly no longer aconcern. Nonetheless, advice can be found in the literatureand in online websites that is contradictory and leaves thephysician without the ***rmation to make safe decisionsfor the physician's patients. Until recently, the website of atleast one CIED manufacturer suggested that every electro-surgical procedure required that all CIEDs needed to bereprogrammed to an inactive mode. This approach is out-side of standard of care and highlights the need for aconsistent statement.

    點(diǎn)擊下載***：《2011HRS美國植入除顫器、起搏器和心律失常檢測儀圍術(shù)期管理專家共識(shí)》