Tumescent local anesthesia versus general anesthesia for subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

Background: General anesthesia (GA) is the standard anesthetic approach for subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) implantation. Nonetheless, GA is expensive and can be associated with adverse events. Tumescent local anesthesia (TLA) has been shown to reduce in-room and procedural times and to decrease post-procedural pain, all of which could result in a reduction in procedure-related costs.

Objective: The purpose of this study is to compare the cost-effectiveness of GA and TLA in patients undergoing S-ICD implantation.

Methods: The present study is a prospective, nonrandomized, controlled study of patients who underwent S-ICD implantation between 2019 and 2022. Patients were allocated to either the TLA or the GA group. We performed a cost analysis for each intervention. As an effectiveness measure, the 0-10 point Numeric Pain Rating Scale at 1, 12, and 24 hours post-implantation was analyzed and compared between the groups. A score of 0 was considered no pain; 1-5, mild pain; 6-7, moderate pain; and 8-10, severe pain. Cost-effectiveness was calculated using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.

Results: Seventy patients underwent successful S-ICD implantation. The total cost of the electrophysiology laboratory was higher in the GA group than in the TLA group (median ± interquartile range US$55,824 ± US$29,411 vs US$37,222 ± US$24,293; P < .001), with a net saving of $20,821 when compared with GA for each S-ICD implantation. There was a significant decrease in post-procedural pain scores in the TLA group when compared with the GA group (repeated measures analysis of variance, P = .009; median ± interquartile range 0 ± 3 vs 0 ± 5 at 1 hour, P = .058; 3 ± 4 vs 6 ± 8 at 12 hours, P = .030; 0 ± 4 vs 2 ± 6 at 24 hours, P = .040).

Conclusion: TLA is a more cost-effective alternative to GA for S-ICD implantation, with both direct and indirect cost reductions. Importantly, these reduced costs are associated with reduced postprocedural pain.