Recent (in press) editorial commentary suggests post cardioversion CIED testing is "overkill", and states that the current European consensus document recommends interrogation only if device malfunction is suspected
Risk of cardioversion for patients with cardiac implantable electrical devices - Heart Rhythm (heartrhythmjournal.com)
the reference cited is here: OP-EHEA200611 1..126 (escardio.org) but I can't find that it actually makes any mention of post cardioversion CIED testing, and so I wonder if the statement was a mistake.
I've also looked here: Guidelines for the peri-operative management of people with cardiac implantable electronic devices: Guidelines from the British Heart Rhythm Society - PubMed (nih.gov) and they are still saying that we should do the post shock testing due to potential CIED damage.
If the context is post defibrillation (rather than cardioversion), then I have to wonder if the main requirement for testing might actually more about sensing/pacing performance etcetera rather than CIED damage? Should we be approaching defibrillation differently to cardioversion?
I'm keen to read any formal consensus document that actually states that we can discontinue the post cardioversion check, as I personally agree that it is overkill, but my opinion isn't worth much on its own.
------------------------------
Miriam Norman MS, CCDS
Cardiac Physiologist
Royal Hobart Hospital
Hobart
------------------------------