Predictive Factors and Safety of Noninvasive Mechanical Ventilation in Combination With Propofol Deep Sedation in Left Atrial Ablation Procedures

[Non-invasive Mechanical Ventilation in Acute Respiratory Failure. Clinical Practice Guidelines - on behalf of the German Society of Pneumology and Ventilatory Medicine]

The guideline update outlines the advantages as well as the limitations of NIV in the treatment of acute respiratory failure in daily clinical practice and in different indications.Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) has a high value in therapy of hypercapnic acute respiratory failure, as it significantly reduces the length of ICU stay and hospitalization as well as mortality.Patients with cardiopulmonary edema and acute respiratory failure should be treated with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and oxygen in addition to necessary cardiological interventions. This should be done already prehospital and in the emergency department.In case of other forms of acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure with only mild or moderately disturbed gas exchange (PaO2/FiO2 > 150 mmHg) there is no significant advantage or disadvantage compared to high flow nasal oxygen (HFNO). In severe forms of ARDS NIV is associated with high rates of treatment failure and mortality, especially in cases with NIV-failure and delayed intubation.NIV should be used for preoxygenation before intubation. In patients at risk, NIV is recommended to reduce extubation failure. In the weaning process from invasive ventilation NIV essentially reduces the risk of reintubation in hypercapnic patients. NIV is regarded useful within palliative care for reduction of dyspnea and improving quality of life, but here in concurrence to HFNO, which is regarded as more comfortable. Meanwhile NIV is also recommended in prehospital setting, especially in hypercapnic respiratory failure and pulmonary edema.With appropriate monitoring in an intensive care unit NIV can also be successfully applied in pediatric patients with acute respiratory insufficiency.

Investigating Deep Sedation With Intravenous Ketamine in Spontaneous Respiration During Pulsed-Field Ablation

OBJECTIVES

The authors report their experience of a protocol for deep sedation with ketamine in spontaneous respiration during the pulsed-field ablation (PFA) of atrial fibrillation (AF).

DESIGN

Observational, prospective, nonrandomized fashion.

SETTING

Single-center hospitalized patients.

PARTICIPANTS

All consecutive patients undergoing PFA of AF.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients undergoing deep sedation with intravenous ketamine.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The authors' sedation protocol involves the intravenous administration of fentanyl (1.5 µg/kg) and midazolam (2 mg) at low doses before local anesthesia with lidocaine. A ketamine adjunct (1 mg/kg) in 5-minute boluses was injected about 5 minutes before the first PFA delivery. The authors enrolled 117 patients (age = 59 ± 10 y, 74.4% males, body mass index = 27.6 ± 5 kg/m2, fluoroscopy time = 24 ± 14 minutes, skin-to-skin time = 80 ± 40 minutes and PFA LA dwell time = 24 ± 7 minutes). By the end of the procedure, pulmonary vein isolation had been achieved in all patients using PFA alone. The mean time under sedation was 54.9 ± 6 minutes, with 92 patients (79%) being sedated for <1 hour. A satisfactory Ramsay Sedation Scale level before ketamine administration was achieved in all patients, except one (80.3% of the patients with rank 3; 18.4% with rank 2). In all procedures, the satisfaction level was found acceptable by both the patient and the primary operator (satisfactory in 98.2% of cases). All patients achieved a Numeric Rating Scale for Pain ≤3 (none or mild). No major procedure or anesthesia-related complications were reported.

CONCLUSION

The authors' standardized sedation protocol with the administration of drugs with rapid onset and pharmacologic offset at low doses was safe and effective, with an optimal degree of patient and operator satisfaction.

Deep sedation with propofol in patients undergoing left atrial ablation procedures - is it safe?

Background

Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) or left atrial tachycardia is well established. To avoid body movement and pain, sedative and analgesic agents are used.

Objective

The aim was to investigate safety of sedation/anti-pain protocol administered by electrophysiology (EP) staff.

Methods

A total of 3211 consecutive patients (61% male) undergoing left atrial ablation for paroxysmal AF (37.1%), persistent AF (35.3%) or left atrial tachycardia (27.6%) were included. Midazolam, fentanyl, and propofol were administered by EP staff. In case of respiratory depression, endotracheal intubation (eIT) or noninvasive ventilation (NIV) was implemented. Risk factors for eIT or NIV were analyzed.

Results

Mean doses of propofol, midazolam, and fentanyl were 33.7 ± 16.7 mg, 3 ± 11.1 mg, and 0.16 ± 2.2 mg, respectively. Norepinephrine was administered in 396 of 3211 patients (12.3%) because of blood pressure drop (mean arterial pressure <60 mm Hg). NIV was necessary in 47 patients (1.5%) and eIT in 1 patient (0.03%). Procedure duration, high body mass index (BMI), high CHADS₂-VASC₂ score, high age, low glomerular filtration rate, diabetes mellitus, and low baseline oxygen saturation were associated with NIV or eIT. The only independent predictor for NIV/eIT was high BMI (>30.1 ± 9.0 kg/m²). Therefore, patients with a BMI of ≥30 had a 40% higher risk for the need of NIV/eIT during the procedure in our study.

Conclusion

Sedation/anti-pain control including midazolam, propofol, and fentanyl administered by EP staff is safe, with only 1.53% requirement of NIV/eIT. High BMI (>30 kg/m²) emerged as an independent predictor for eIT/NIV.