Feasibility of a cardiologist-only approach to sedation for electrical cardioversion of atrial fibrillation: A randomized, open-blinded, prospective study

Peri-procedural anesthesia and patient pain experience in pulmonary vein isolation by means of very high-power short-duration radiofrequency ablation

BACKGROUND

Very high-power short-duration (vHPSD) temperature-controlled radiofrequency ablation (vHPSD) may reduce ablation times and improve patient tolerability, permitting pulmonary vein (PV) isolation under mild conscious sedation. We evaluated of the anesthetic drugs use and patients' pain experience during vHPSD PV isolation.

METHODS

Fifty-eight patients, with paroxysmal and persistent atrial fibrillation (AF), treated with QDot Micro catheter and vHPSD (90 w for 4 s) (vHPSD group), were compared with the last 33 patients treated with a surround flow contact force-sensing catheter guided by the ablation index (450 anteriorly at 50 W, 330 posteriorly at 40 W) (AI group). Anesthetic drugs use was compared as well as pain experience, measured using a 0-10 scale.

RESULTS

All PVs were acutely isolated. Procedural time (78 ± 10 min vs 84 ± 12 min, p = 0.012), fluoroscopy time (369 ± 139 s vs 441 ± 172 s, p = 0.03), and RF time in the vHPSD group (8.3 ± 2.1 min) were shorter than in the AI group (25 ± 11 min, p < 0.001). Only 4 patients experienced an access site-related vascular complication (groin hematoma). Midazolam was required in 36 (62%) vHPSD group patients vs 31 (94%) AI group patients (p < 0.001). Fentanyl was required in 4 (7%) vHPSD group patients vs 25 (76%) AI group patients (p < 0.001). No patients required general anesthesia. Twenty-two (38%) vHPSD group patients underwent PV isolation without any anesthetic drug. Pain experience was significantly lower in vHPSD group (4.9 ± 2 vs 6.6 ± 1.8, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

vHPSD radiofrequency ablation for PVI can be performed under conscious sedation using only benzodiazepine in most of patients without compromising patient pain experience.

Management of anesthesia for procedures in the cardiac electrophysiology laboratory

The complexity of cardiac electrophysiology procedures has increased significantly during the past 3 decades. Anesthesia requirements of these procedures can differ on the basis of patient- and procedure-specific factors. This manuscript outlines various anesthesia strategies for cardiac implantable electronic devices and electrophysiology procedures, including preprocedural, procedural, and postprocedural management. A team-based approach with collaboration between cardiac electrophysiologists and anesthesiologists is required with careful preprocedural and intraprocedural planning. Given the recent advances in electrophysiology, there is a need for specialized cardiac electrophysiology anesthesia care to improve the efficacy and safety of the procedures.

Korean clinical practice guidelines for diagnostic and procedural sedation

Safe and effective sedation depends on various factors, such as the choice of sedatives, sedation techniques used, experience of the sedation provider, degree of sedation-related education and training, equipment and healthcare worker availability, the patient's underlying diseases, and the procedure being performed. The purpose of these evidence-based multidisciplinary clinical practice guidelines is to ensure the safety and efficacy of sedation, thereby contributing to patient safety and ultimately improving public health. These clinical practice guidelines comprise 15 key questions covering various topics related to the following: the sedation providers; medications and equipment available; appropriate patient selection; anesthesiologist referrals for high-risk patients; pre-sedation fasting; comparison of representative drugs used in adult and pediatric patients; respiratory system, cardiovascular system, and sedation depth monitoring during sedation; management of respiratory complications during pediatric sedation; and discharge criteria. The recommendations in these clinical practice guidelines were systematically developed to assist providers and patients in sedation-related decision making for diagnostic and therapeutic examinations or procedures. Depending on the characteristics of primary, secondary, and tertiary care institutions as well as the clinical needs and limitations, sedation providers at each medical institution may choose to apply the recommendations as they are, modify them appropriately, or reject them completely.

ANMCO-SIMEU consensus document: appropriate management of atrial fibrillation in the emergency department

Atrial fibrillation (AF) accounts for 2% of the total presentations to the emergency department (ED) and represents the most frequent arrhythmic cause for hospitalization. It steadily increases the risk of thromboembolic events and is often associated with several comorbidities that negatively affect patient's quality of life and prognosis. AF has a considerable impact on healthcare resources, making the promotion of an adequate and coordinated management of this arrhythmia necessary in order to avoid clinical complications and to implement the adoption of appropriate technological and pharmacological treatment options. AF management varies across regions and hospitals and there is also heterogeneity in the use of anticoagulation and electric cardioversion, with limited use of direct oral anticoagulants. The ED represents the first access point for early management of patients with AF. The appropriate management of this arrhythmia in the acute setting has a great impact on improving patient's quality of life and outcomes as well as on rationalization of the financial resources related to the clinical course of AF. Therefore, physicians should provide a well-structured clinical and diagnostic pathway for patients with AF who are admitted to the ED. This should be based on a tight and propositional collaboration among several specialists, i.e. the ED physician, cardiologist, internal medicine physician, anesthesiologist. The aim of this ANMCO-SIMEU consensus document is to provide shared recommendations for promoting an integrated, accurate, and up-to-date management of patients with AF admitted to the ED or Cardiology Department, in order to make it homogeneous across the national territory.

The Year in Electrophysiology: Selected Highlights From 2022

This special article is the fifth in an annual series for the Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia. The authors would like to thank the Editor-in-Chief, Dr Kaplan, the Associate Editor-in-Chief, Dr Augoustides, and the editorial board for the opportunity to author this series, which summarizes the key research papers in the electrophysiology (EP) field relevant to cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesiologists. These articles are shaping perioperative EP procedures and practices, such as pulsed-field ablation, cryoablation for first-line treatment for atrial fibrillation, advancements in conduction system pacing, safety issues related to smartphones and cardiac implantable electronic devices, and alterations in EP workflow as the world emerges from the COVID-19 pandemic. Special emphasis is placed on the implications of these advancements for the anesthetic care of patients undergoing EP procedures.

Comparison of Bolus Dosing of Methohexital and Propofol in Elective Direct Current Cardioversion

Background Methohexital and propofol can both be used as sedation for direct current cardioversion (DCCV). However, there are limited data comparing these medications in this setting. We hypothesized that patients receiving methohexital for elective DCCV would be sedated more quickly, recover from sedation faster, and experience less adverse effects. Methods and Results This was a prospective, blinded randomized controlled trial conducted at a single academic medical center. Eligible participants were randomly assigned to receive either methohexital (0.5 mg/kg) or propofol (0.8 mg/kg) as a bolus for elective DCCV. The times from bolus of the medication to achieving a Ramsay Sedation Scale score of 5 to 6, first shock, eyes opening on command, and when the patient could state their age and name were obtained. The need for additional medication dosing, airway intervention, vital signs, and medication side effects were also recorded. Seventy patients who were randomized to receive methohexital (n=37) or propofol (n=33) were included for analysis. The average doses of methohexital and propofol were 0.51 mg/kg and 0.84 mg/kg, respectively. There were no significant differences between methohexital and propofol in the time from end of injection to loss of conscious (1.4±1.8 versus 1.1±0.5 minutes; P=0.33) or the time to first shock (1.7±1.9 versus 1.4±0.5 minutes; P=0.31). Time intervals were significantly lower for methohexital compared with propofol in the time to eyes opening on command (5.1±2.5 versus 7.8±3.7 minutes; P=0.0005) as well as at the time to the ability to answer simple questions of age and name (6.0±2.6 versus 8.6±4.0 minutes; P=0.001). The methohexital group experienced less hypotension (8.1% versus 42.4%; P<0.001) and less hypoxemia (0.0% versus 15.2%; P=0.005), had lower need for jaw thrust/chin lift (16.2% versus 42.4%; P=0.015), and had less pain on injection compared with propofol using the visual analog scale (7.2±9.7 versus 22.4±28.1; P=0.003). Conclusions In this model of fixed bolus dosing, methohexital was associated with faster recovery, more stable hemodynamics, and less hypoxemia after elective DCCV compared with propofol. It can be considered as a preferred agent for sedation for DCCV. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct; Unique identifier: NCT04187196.

The Practice of Deep Sedation in Electrophysiology and Cardiac Pacing Laboratories: Results of an Italian Survey Promoted by the AIAC (Italian Association of Arrhythmology and Cardiac Pacing)

The aim of this survey, which was open to all Italian cardiologists involved in arrhythmia, was to assess common practice regarding sedation and analgesia in interventional electrophysiology procedures in Italy. The survey consisted of 28 questions regarding the approach to sedation used for elective direct-current cardioversion (DCC), subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) implantation, atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation, ventricular tachycardia (VT) ablation, and transvenous lead extraction procedures. A total of 105 cardiologists from 92 Italian centres took part in the survey. The rate of centres where DCC, S-ICD implantation, AF ablation, VT ablation and lead extraction procedures were performed without anaesthesiologic assistance was 60.9%, 23.6%, 51.2%, 37.3%, and 66.7%, respectively. When these procedures were performed without anaesthesiologic assistance, the drugs (in addition to local anaesthetics) commonly administered were benzodiazepines (from 64.3% to 79.6%), opioids (from 74.4% to 88.1%), and general anaesthetics (from 7.1% to 30.4%). Twenty-three (21.9%) of the 105 cardiologists declared that they routinely administered propofol, without the supervision of an anaesthesiologist, in at least one of the above-mentioned procedures. In current Italian clinical practice, there is a lack of uniformity in the sedation/analgesia approach used in interventional electrophysiology procedures.

Procedural sedation for direct current cardioversion: a feasibility study between two management strategies in the emergency department

BACKGROUND

A cardiologist-only approach to procedural sedation with midazolam in the setting of elective cardioversion (DCC) for AF has already been proven as safe as sedation with propofol and anaesthesiologist assistance. No data exist regarding the safety of such a strategy during emergency procedures. The aim of this study is to compare the feasibility of sedation with midazolam, administered by a cardiologist, to an anaesthesiologist-assisted protocol with propofol in emergency DCC.

METHODS

Single centre, prospective, open blinded, randomized study including all consecutive patients admitted to the Emergency Department requiring urgent or emergency DCC. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to either propofol or midazolam treatment arm. Patients in the midazolam group were managed by the cardiologist only, while patients treated with propofol group underwent DCC with anaesthesiologist assistance.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine patients were enrolled and split into two groups. Eighteen patients (26.1%) experienced peri-procedural adverse events (bradycardia, severe hypotension and severe hypoxia), which were similar between the two groups and all successfully managed by the cardiologist. No deaths, stroke or need for invasive ventilation were registered. Patients treated with propofol experienced a greater decrease in systolic and diastolic blood pressure when compared with those treated with midazolam. As the procedure was shorter when midazolam was used, the median cost of urgent/emergency DCC with midazolam was estimated to be 129.0 € (1st-3rd quartiles 114.6-151.6) and 195.6 € (1st-3rd quartiles 147.3-726.7) with propofol (p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Procedural sedation with midazolam given by the cardiologist alone was feasible, well-tolerated and cost-effective in emergency DCC.

Propofol for sedation for direct current cardioversion

Direct current cardioversion is a low-risk and standard procedure to restore normal sinus rhythm in patients with tachyarrhythmias. It requires sedation to facilitate the procedure, as it is painful and distressful. The preferred anesthetic drug must be short acting, producing conscious sedation, to enable rapid recovery after the procedure. In this sense, this narrative review focuses on the critical analysis of recent randomized studies and presents about the safety and effectiveness of propofol, comparing it with other established sedatives, mainly etomidate and midazolam. The research was performed on MEDLINE database with Propofol and Cardioversion keywords. In most cases, propofol comes to be the best option, with a quick recovery time and low rates of side effects. Different studies have demonstrated no inferiority when comparing to other drugs and, when these adverse events happened, they were easily and quickly handled. Exceptions in this scenario are those patients, particularly the elderly, with baseline important structural heart disease, in which etomidate with fentanyl has been pointed to lead to better hemodynamic stability.

Safety and efficacy of a cardiologist-only approach to deep sedation for electrical cardioversion

AIMS

Electrical cardioversion is still the preferred method to restore sinus rhythm in patients with atrial fibrillation. The main disadvantage is that electrical cardioversion requires deep sedation, generally administered by anaesthesiologists, for safety concern. An exclusively cardiologic management of deep sedation should have the advantage to reduce resources and time consumed.

METHODS

All consecutive patients admitted to our division with persistent atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter to undergo elective electrical cardioversion from June 2002 to December 2016 were included. The sedation protocol was managed only by cardiologists and involved the administration of a 5-mg bolus of midazolam, followed by increasing doses of propofol to achieve the desired sedation level. Exclusion criteria were strictly observed. Complications were recorded. A retrospective analysis on a deidentified database has been performed.

RESULTS

A total of 1188 electrical cardioversions were scheduled in our centre. A total of 1195 patients were scheduled in our centre, of whom 1188 met inclusion criteria. Electrical cardioversion was performed in 1073 cases (90.3%). Electrical cardioversion was successful in restoring sinus rhythm in 1030 (96.0%) patients. Immediate recurrence of atrial fibrillation occurred in 89 patients (8.3%). 99/1073 (9.22%) patients underwent trans-oesophagel echocardiography before cardioversion. Deep sedation, according to our protocol, was effective in 100% of cases. Midazolam was administered at a dosage of 5 mg to all patients, while propofol was administered at a dosage ranging from 20 to 80 mg (25.1 ± 11.0 mg SD). No anaesthesia-related complications were observed, neither significant respiratory depression requiring intubation nor anaesthesiologist support.

CONCLUSION

The exclusively cardiological procedure of deep sedation seems to be safe and effective.

Sedation strategies for defibrillation threshold testing: safety outcomes with anaesthesiologist compared to proceduralist-directed sedation: an analysis from the SIMPLE study

Aims

No standard practice exists with respect to anaesthesiologist-directed sedation (ADS) vs. sedation by proceduralist (PDS) for defibrillation threshold (DT) testing. We aimed to evaluate adverse events and safety outcomes with ADS vs. PDS for DT testing.

Methods and results

A post hoc analysis of the Shockless Implant Evaluation (SIMPLE) study was performed among the 1242 patients who had DT testing (624 ADS and 618 PDS). We evaluated both intraoperative and in-hospital adverse composite events and two safety composite outcomes at 30-days of the main trial. Propensity score adjusted models were used to compute odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) to evaluate the association between adverse and safety outcomes with method of sedation and independent predictors for use of ADS. Compared to PDS, patients who received ADS were younger (62 ± 12 years vs. 64 ± 12 years, P = 0.01), had lower ejection fraction (left ventricular ejection fraction 0.31 ± 13 vs. 0.33 ± 13, P = 0.03), were more likely to receive inhalational anaesthesia, propofol, or narcotics (P < 0.001, respectively) and receive an arterial line (43% vs. 8%, P = <0.0001). Independent predictors for ADS sedation were presence of coronary artery disease (OR 1.69, 95% CI 1.0-2.72; P = 0.03) and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (OR 2.64, 95% CI 1.19-5.85; P = 0.02). Anaesthesiologist directed sedation had higher intraoperative adverse events (2.2% vs. 0.5%; OR 4.47, 95% CI 1.25-16.0; P = 0.02) and higher primary safety outcomes at 30 days (8.2% vs. 4.9%; OR 1.72 95% CI 1.06-2.80; P = 0.03) and no difference in other outcomes compared to PDS.

Conclusion

Proceduralist-directed sedation is safe, however, this could be result of selection bias. Further research is needed.

Etomidate versus propofol sedation for electrical external cardioversion: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of etomidate vs propofol sedation for electrical cardioversion.

METHODS

The authors searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Google Scholar, Koreamed, and KMBASE databases to identify all randomized controlled trials that compared etomidate and propofol sedation for cardioversion in adult patients. Induction and recovery time, success rate, number of shocks, and cumulative energy were evaluated. Adverse effects, including respiratory and cardiovascular complications, myoclonus, and nausea and vomiting, were also assessed.

RESULTS

A total of nine studies, involving a total of 430 patients, were included. Induction and recovery time, success rate, number of shocks, and cumulative energy were similar. The incidences of hypotension and respiratory depression were significantly higher in the propofol group than in the etomidate group (risk ratio [RR] = 0.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.02-0.74, I² = 0%; RR = 0.50, 95% CI = 0.32-0.77, I² = 47%, respectively). The incidences of myoclonus and nausea or vomiting were significantly higher in the etomidate group than in the propofol group (RR = 8.89, 95% CI  =  4.59-17.23, I² = 9%; RR = 5.13, 95% CI = 1.72-15.31, I² = 31%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Issues affecting efficacy, including induction and recovery time, success rate, number of shocks, and cumulative energy, were comparable between etomidate and propofol sedation. Regarding safety issues, propofol sedation resulted in hypotension and respiratory depression more frequently; however, initiation of positive pressure ventilation was comparable. Etomidate sedation caused myoclonus and nausea or vomiting more frequently.

Practice Guidelines for Moderate Procedural Sedation and Analgesia 2018

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Sedation in cardiac arrhythmias management

INTRODUCTION

Procedural sedation is of paramount importance for a plethora of electrophysiological procedures. From electrical cardioversion to electrophysiology studies, device implantations, and catheter ablations, intraprocedural sedation and anesthesia have a pivotal role in allowing procedural success while ensuring patient safety and avoiding discomfort. Areas covered: The present review will discuss the current state-of-the-art in sedation and anesthesia during electrical cardioversion, cardiac implantable electronic device implantation, catheter ablation and electrophysiology studies. Specific information will be provided for each procedure in order to reach the core of this important clinical issue, and specific protocols will be compared. The main pro-arrhythmic and anti-arrhythmic effects of the most commonly used sedatives will also be discussed. Expert commentary: According to much recent evidence, the cardiologist can be the only person responsible for sedation administration in many settings, highlighting few safety issues associated with the absence of a dedicated anesthesiologist thus a concomitant reduction in costs. However, many concerns have been raised in allowing non-anesthesiologists to manage sedatives, as adverse events, while rare, could have catastrophic consequences. The present paper will highlight when a cardiologist-directed sedation is considered safe, how it should be performed, and the pros and cons related to this strategy.

Effectiveness of structured, hospital-based, nurse-led atrial fibrillation clinics: a comparison between a real-world population and a clinical trial population

Objective

A previous randomised trial showed that structured, nurse-led atrial fibrillation (AF) care is superior to conventional AF care, although further research is needed to determine the outcomes of such care in a real-world setting. We compared the outcomes of patients in real-world, nurse-led, structured hospital AF clinics with the outcomes of a randomised trial of the efficacy of a nurse-led AF clinic, with respect to a composite outcome of cardiovascular-related hospitalisation and death.

Methods

All patients were referred to the AF nurse specialist by cardiologists. The AF nurse specialist provided patient education, risk-factor control and stimulated empowerment and compliance. During follow-up, treatment was adjusted according to clinical guidelines. Patient education was repeated, and compliance with medical treatment was controlled. The study size was powered as a non-inferiority study. Outcome measures were adjudicated by the same principles in both cohorts.

Results

A total of 596 patients from the real world and 356 patients from a clinical trial were included in this study. No significant difference between groups with respect to age, type of AF or CHA₂DS₂VASc score was found. The composite primary end point occurred with an incidence rate of 8.0 (95% CI 6.1 to 10.4) per 100 person-years in the real-world population and 8.3 (95% CI 6.3 to 10.9) per 100 person-years in the clinical trial, with a crude HR of 0.83 (95% CI 0.56 to 1.23).

Conclusions

Structured, nurse-led, hospital-based AF care appears to be effective, and patient outcomes in an actual, hospital-based, structured AF care are as least as good as those in trial settings.

Vernakalant-facilitated electrical cardioversion: comparison of intravenous vernakalant and amiodarone for drug-enhanced electrical cardioversion of atrial fibrillation after failed electrical cardioversion

AIMS

Electrical cardioversion is one cornerstone for the rhythm control strategy of atrial fibrillation (AF), which is, however, hampered by immediate AF recurrence (IRAF) or failed electrical cardioversion (FECV). We aimed to investigate the potential role of vernakalant for facilitated electrical cardioversion in cardioversion-resistant AF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The subjects of this study were 63 patients referred to the Heart Centre Leipzig between November 2011 and May 2014 for transthoracic electrical cardioversion of AF. All patients experienced after antiarrhythmic-naïve electrical cardioversion either IRAF (n = 44; 70%) or FECV (n = 19; 30%). After drug infusion, electrical cardioversion was successful in 66.7% of vernakalant-treated as opposed to 46.7% of amiodarone-treated patients (P = 0.109). Multivariate analysis revealed treatment with vernakalant (OR 0.057, 95% CI 0.006-0.540, P = 0.013), treatment with ACEI or ARB (OR 0.101, 95% CI 0.015-0.691 P = 0.019), and IRAF after initial CV (OR 0.047, 95% CI 0.004-0.498, P = 0.011) as predictors for successful, drug-facilitated electrical cardioversion. Subgroup analysis of 18 patients with previous AF ablation revealed a significantly higher success rate of electrical cardioversion after infusion of vernakalant than after infusion of amiodarone (66.7 vs. 11.1%, P = 0.016).

CONCLUSION

Vernakalant may therefore be considered as a useful agent for facilitated electrical cardioversion in cardioversion-resistant AF.