Cardiovascular and Respiratory Safety of Sedation Strategies Used in Transesophageal Echocardiography: A Systematic Review Incorporating Network Meta-Analysis

TRANSESOPHAGEAL ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY (TEE) is carried out in various clinical settings, with an increasing importance, and sedation usually is required to perform it. Several sedative agents are available, and the authors aimed to compare the cardiovascular and respiratory safety of the strategies used for sedation in TEE through a systematic review with network meta-analysis (NMA). The MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, and PsycInfo databases were searched in December 2020 for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing sedation strategies for patients undergoing TEE. The authors assessed variations in systolic blood pressure (SBP), heart rate (HR), and peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO₂), along with the incidences of hypotension, bradycardia, and desaturation. A random-effect meta-analysis was performed. Nine RCTs (N = 881 patients) with 20 active arms (5 dexmedetomidine; 4 propofol; 4 midazolam; 3 midazolam + opioid; 2 ketamine + propofol; 1 midazolam + ondansetron; 1 midazolam + metoclopramide) and 1 placebo arm were included. Dexmedetomidine was associated with decreases in SBP (mean difference [MD] = -18.78 mmHg; 95% CI [-26.27 to -11.28]) and HR (MD = -11.15 beats/min; 95% CI [-16.15 to -6.15]). Dexmedetomidine significantly reduced the HR compared with ketamine + propofol (-16.90 beats/min; 95% CI: -33.21 to -0.58]) and midazolam + opioid (-24.15 beats/min; 95% CI: -42.67 to -5.63). Midazolam was found to reduce SBP (-12.09 mmHg; 95% CI: -20.43 to -3.74) and was shown to reduce SpO₂ compared with the placebo (-1.00%; 95% CI -1.74 to -0.26). Based on the NMA, the drugs with a higher likelihood of decreasing both SBP and HR were dexmedetomidine and midazolam. All of the drugs led to a small decrease (only statistically significant for midazolam) in SpO₂, with the systematic use of supplemental O₂ in some trials. The risks of hypotension, bradycardia, or desaturation were not significantly different among the evaluated drugs.

Effects of Propofol, Dexmedetomidine, or Ketofol on Respiratory and Hemodynamic Profiles in Cardiac Patients Undergoing Transesophageal Echocardiography: A Prospective Randomized Study

OBJECTIVES

The authors aimed to evaluate sedation characteristics, as well as cardiorespiratory effects, of propofol, dexmedetomidine, and ketofol used for conscious sedation during transesophageal echocardiography (TEE).

DESIGN

Prospective double-blind randomized study.

SETTINGS

Tanta University hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

Seventy-five participants with left-to-right shunt requiring diagnostic TEE interventions. Patients were randomized into three groups-P, Dex, and K-to receive propofol, dexmedetomidine, or ketofol, respectively.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Time to reach targeted sedation level, duration of the procedure, recovery time, hemodynamic parameters, incidence of oxygen desaturation <90%, as well as the cardiologist's satisfaction were recorded. The time onset and offset of sedation, duration of TEE procedure, and the need for rescue propofol were significantly less in the P and K groups compared with group Dex (p value 0.000*, 0.003*, 0.000*, and 0.000* and effect size 0.39, 0.15, 0.21, and 0.34, respectively). Mean arterial pressure, heart rate, and cardiac output significantly decreased in groups P and Dex compared with either baseline or group K. Hypoxic events were more manifest in group P; whereas group K had better cardiologist's satisfaction than the other two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In the TEE settings, the three agents were capable of attaining the targeted sedation levels , with propofol and ketofol having a faster onset and recovery times compared with dexmedetomidine. Even though dexmedetomidine and ketofol provided a more stable respiratory profile than propofol, ketofol was favorable in providing fewer hemodynamic alterations with better satisfaction scores than both propofol and dexmedetomidine.

Does point-of-care ultrasonography cause discomfort in patients admitted with respiratory symptoms?

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to assess the patient-rated level of discomfort during point-of-care ultrasonography (POCUS) of the heart, lungs and deep veins in a population of patients admitted to an ED with respiratory symptoms and to what extent the patients would accept being assessed by the use of POCUS if they had to be examined for possible disease.

METHODS

A questionnaire-based observational study was conducted in an ED. Inclusion criteria were one or more of the following: respiratory rate > 20/min, oxygen saturation < 95 %, oxygen therapy initiated, dyspnoea, cough or chest pain. Patients were examined by the use of POCUS of the heart, lungs and deep veins. Patient-rated level of discomfort and acceptance were assessed using a standardised questionnaire.

RESULTS

The median duration of the sonographic examinations was 12 min (IQR 11-13, range 9-23). The median patient-rated level of discomfort for all three types of POCUS was 1 (IQR 1-1, range 1-8) on a scale from 1 to 10. All but one patient (99.6 % (95 % CI: 98.9-100 %)), would accept being examined by the use of POCUS as a part of routine ED diagnostics.

CONCLUSIONS

The patient-rated level of discomfort during POCUS of the heart, lungs and deep veins is very low and the vast majority of patients would accept being assessed by the use of POCUS if the patients once again had to be examined for possible disease.