Guide Wire Stimulation During Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation-Induced Cardiac Arrest in a Patient With Preexisting Left Bundle Branch Block: A Case Report

Right bundle branch block can occasionally occur when a guide wire or catheter is inserted into the heart. An 83-year-old woman with preexisting left bundle branch block (LBBB) was diagnosed with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) and severe mitral regurgitation (MR). The patient was started on amiodarone (100 mg/day) and bisoprolol (1.25 mg/day). The patient underwent catheter ablation for PAF after a percutaneous edge-to-edge mitral valve repair for MR. During the ablation procedure, performed under a sedation with dexmedetomidine, guide wire stimulation led to a paroxysmal atrioventricular block (AVB), resulting in cardiac arrest. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation was performed for 2 min, one ampule of intravenous adrenaline was administered, and a return of spontaneous circulation was obtained. The patient subsequently developed takotsubo cardiomyopathy due to the administration of catecholamines. Three months later, re-ablation was performed safely under fluoroscopic guidance and the use of noninvasive transcutaneous pacemaker. Fluoroscopic guide wire manipulation and the use of noninvasive transcutaneous pacemaker are essential for patients with LBBB to prevent paroxysmal AVB and cardiac arrest.

Electrophysiological differences of randomized deep sedation with dexmedetomidine versus propofol

BACKGROUND

Dexmedetomidine and propofol are common sedatives in intensive care units and for interventional procedures. Both may compromise sinus node function and atrioventricular conduction. The objective of this prospective, randomized study is to compare the effect of dexmedetomidine with propofol on sinus node function and atrioventricular conduction.

METHODS

In a tertiary care center in Switzerland we included from September 2019 to October 2020 160 patients (65 ± 11 years old; 32% female) undergoing first ablation for atrial fibrillation by cryoballoon ablation or by radiofrequency ablation. Patients were randomly assigned to deep sedation with dexmedetomidine (DEX group) versus propofol (PRO group). A standard electrophysiological study was performed after pulmonary vein isolation with the patients still deeply sedated and hemodynamically stable.

RESULTS

Eighty patients each were randomized to the DEX and PRO group. DEX group patients had higher baseline sinus cycle length (1022 vs. 1138 ms; p = 0.003) and longer sinus node recovery time (SNRT400; 1597 vs. 1412 ms; p = 0.042). However, both corrected SNRT and normalized SNRT did not differ. DEX group patients had longer PR interval (207 vs. 186 ms; p = 0.002) and AH interval (111 vs. 95 ms, p = 0.008), longer Wenckebach cycle length of the atrioventricular node (512 vs. 456 ms; p = 0.005), and longer atrioventricular node effective refractory period (390 vs. 344 ms; p = 0.009). QRS width and HV interval were not different. An arrhythmia, mainly atrial fibrillation, was induced in 33 patients during the electrophysiological study, without differences among groups (20% vs. 15%, p = 0.533).

CONCLUSIONS

Dexmedetomidine has a more pronounced slowing effect on sinus rate and suprahissian AV conduction than propofol, but not on infrahissian AV conduction and ventricular repolarization. These differences need to be taken into account when using these sedatives.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT03844841, 19/02/2019.

Sedation with propofol/remifentanil versus dexmedetomidine / remifentanil for patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implant: A retrospective study between 2012 and 2019

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Percutaneous implantation of an aortic valve prosthesis is a therapeutic alternative for patients with severe aortic stenosis. The procedure is traditionally performed under general anaesthesia; however, sedation is now gaining in popularity because it reduces the need for vasoactive drugs and shortens the patient's stay in the critical care unit and on the ward. The aim of this study is to evaluate the clinical efficacy, safety and potential benefits of sedation with dexmedetomidine in patients undergoing percutaneous implantation of an aortic valve prosthesis in terms of haemodynamic and respiratory complications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective study of 222 patients that had undergone percutaneous implantation of an aortic valve prosthesis between 2012 and 2019 under sedation with either dexmedetomidine plus remifentanil (DEX-RMF) or propofol plus remifentanil (PROPO-RMF). We collected data on complications, mainly haemodynamic and respiratory, during and after the procedure.

RESULTS

No significant differences were found between sedation with dexmedetomidine and propofol (in combination with remifentanil) in terms of haemodynamic stability and intraprocedural cerebral blood oxygen. In the DEX-RMF group, however, mean blood pressure, midazolam dose, and duration of anaesthesia were lower compared with the PROPO-RMF group, but the incidence of haemodynamic and respiratory complications did not differ significantly between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show that sedation, particularly with adjuvant dexmedetomidine, is a valid anaesthetic techniques in percutaneous aortic valve prosthesis implantation.

Initial loading of dexmedetomidine and continuous propofol sedation for prevention of delayed recovery: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Sedation with continuous dexmedetomidine and bolus midazolam administration provides a lower incidence of unacceptable patient movement during procedures but requires a longer recovery time. The authors aimed to compare recovery time and unacceptable patient movement during sedation with initial loading of dexmedetomidine followed by continuous propofol infusion with those during sedation with continuous dexmedetomidine and bolus midazolam administration.

METHODS

In this prospective randomized controlled trial, 54 patients undergoing dental surgery and requiring intravenous sedation were assigned to either the dexmedetomidine and propofol group (n = 27, dexmedetomidine administered at 6 μg/kg/h for 5 minutes, followed by continuous propofol infusion using a target-controlled infusion) or the dexmedetomidine and midazolam group (n = 27, dexmedetomidine administered at 0.2-0.7 μg/kg/h continuously after the same initial loading dose with bolus midazolam). A bispectral index of 70 through 80 was maintained during the procedure. Patient movement that interfered with the procedure and time from the end of sedation to achieving a negative Romberg sign were assessed.

RESULTS

Times from the end of sedation to achieving a negative Romberg sign in the dexmedetomidine and propofol group (median, 14 minutes [interquartile range, 12-15 minutes]) were significantly shorter (P < .001) than in the dexmedetomidine and midazolam group (median, 22 minutes [interquartile range, 17.5-30.5 minutes]). The incidence of unacceptable patient movement was comparable between groups (n = 3 in the dexmedetomidine and propofol group, n = 4 in the dexmedetomidine and midazolam group; P = .999).

CONCLUSIONS

Sedation with a single loading dose of dexmedetomidine followed by continuous propofol infusion can prevent delayed recovery without increasing unacceptable patient movement.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

The combination of dexmedetomidine and propofol may provide high-quality sedation for ambulatory dental practice. This clinical trial was registered in the University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry. The registration number is UMIN000039668.

Effects of dexmedetomidine in non-operating room anesthesia in adults: a systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Dexmedetomidine (DEX) is an α2-adrenergic receptor agonist used for its sedative, analgesic, and anxiolytic effects. Non-Operating Room Anesthesia (NORA) is a modality of anesthesia that can be done under general anesthesia or procedural sedation or/and analgesia. In this particular setting, a level-2 sedation, such as the one provided by DEX, is beneficial. We aimed to study the effects and safety of DEX in the different NORA settings in the adult population.

METHODS

A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was conducted. Interventions using DEX only or DEX associated with other sedative agents, in adults (18 years old or more), were included. Procedures outside the NORA setting and/or without a control group without DEX were excluded. MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, Scopus, LILACS, and SciELO were searched. The primary outcome was time until full recovery. Secondary outcomes included hemodynamic and respiratory complications and other adverse events, among others.

RESULTS

A total of 97 studies were included with a total of 6,706 participants. The meta-analysis demonstrated that DEX had a higher time until full recovery (95% CI = [0.34, 3.13] minutes, a higher incidence of hypotension (OR = 1.95 [1.25, 3.05], p = 0.003, I2 = 39%) and bradycardia (OR = 3.60 [2.29, 5.67], p < 0.00001, I2 = 0%), and a lower incidence of desaturation (OR = 0.40 [0.25, 0.66], p = 0.0003, I² = 60%).

CONCLUSION

DEX in NORA procedures in adults was associated with a lower incidence of amnesia and respiratory effects but had a long time to recovery and more hemodynamic complications.

Dexmedetomidine Sedation Combined With Remifentanil in MitraClip Procedures is Feasible and Improves Hemodynamics

OBJECTIVES

The objective of the study was to compare the overall feasibility, respiratory and hemodynamic stability, as well as process times of a dexmedetomidine-based sedative regimen compared with general anesthesia among patients undergoing MitraClip procedures.

DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

A single tertiary care university center.

PARTICIPANTS

The study included 79 patients.

INTERVENTIONS

Dexmedetomidine sedation versus general anesthesia.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Seventy-nine MitraClip procedures in dexmedetomidine/remifentanil conscious sedation (DCS, n = 26) or general anesthesia (GA, n = 53), performed between 2018 and 2020 at Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, were analyzed retrospectively. Patients' median age was 81 years in both groups without differences in preinterventional EuroScore I (DCS 6 [5; 8], GA 7 [6; 8]) or systolic function (left ventricular ejection fraction: DCS 50% [32; 60] v. GA 50% [36; 60]; tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion: DCS 19 mm [16; 22] v GA 19 mm [15; 22]). During MitraClip procedures, respiratory parameters revealed no differences between groups, whereas patients under DCS showed higher mean arterial pressures (DCS 64 mmHg [59; 74] v GA 58 mmHg [53; 66]) and needed less norepinephrine (DCS 0.0µg/kg/min [0.0; 0.2] v GA 0.08 µg/kg/min [0.05; 0.15]). Emergence from both anesthesia regimens to readiness for intensive care unit transfer was faster in DCS (8 min [4; 18] v GA 16 min [11; 23]); however, total process time was comparable between groups (DCS 128 min [104; 155] v GA 142 min [117; 190]). Two patients required a switch from DCS to GA due to oral bleeding or prolonged procedure time. Both were excluded from the analysis. There was no switch to open surgery and no differences in postoperative complications between DCS and GA.

CONCLUSION

Dexmedetomidine/remifentanil sedation appears to be feasible and a safe option for MitraClip procedures, and provides better hemodynamic stability with faster emergence times compared with general anesthesia.

Heart Rate Decrease After Atrial Fibrillation Catheter Ablation Predicts Decompensated Heart Failure After the Procedure

Background: Decompensated heart failure (DHF) can complicate catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF). We investigated the association between heart rate and DHF in AF patients undergoing catheter ablation. Methods and Results: In all, 1,004 consecutive patients who underwent initial ablation for AF (mean [±SD] age 68±10 years; 34% female; persistent AF n=513 [51%]) were enrolled in the study. Heart rate was assessed before and after ablation. DHF was defined as heart failure requiring medical therapy within 2 days after the procedure. The incidence of DHF was 2% (22 of 1,004 patients). Patients with DHF had a higher prevalence of a history of symptomatic heart failure (11/22 [50%] vs. 160/982 [16%]; P<0.0001) and a greater degree of heart rate decrease after the procedure (-21±29 vs. 2±21 beats/min; P=0.001) than those without DHF. On multivariate analysis, heart rate decrease was a significant independent predictor of DHF (hazard ratio 0.8; 95% confidence interval 0.7-0.9; P=0.004; 10 beats/min-increment). Conclusions: In patients undergoing AF ablation, a decrease in heart rate after the procedure was an independent predictor of DHF.

Dexmedetomidine versus Propofol for Operator-Directed Nurse-Administered Procedural Sedation during Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation: a Randomized Controlled Study

BACKGROUND

Operator-directed nurse-administered (ODNA) sedation with propofol is the preferred sedation technique for catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) in many centers.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to investigate whether Dexmedetomidine, an α2-adrenergic receptor agonist, is superior to propofol.

METHODS

We randomized 160 consecutive patients undergoing first AF ablation to ODNA sedation by dexmedetomidine (DEX group) versus propofol (PRO group), according to a standardized protocol. Patients were unaware of treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was a composite of inefficient sedation, termination/change of sedation protocol or procedure abortion, hypercapnia (transcutaneous CO2 >55 mmHg), hypoxemia (SpO₂ <90%) or intubation, prolonged hypotension (systolic blood pressure <80 mmHg), and sustained bradycardia necessitating cardiac pacing. Secondary endpoints were the components of the primary endpoint and patient satisfaction with procedural sedation, as assessed by a standardized questionnaire the day following ablation.

RESULTS

The primary endpoint occurred in 15 DEX group and 25 PRO group patients (19% vs. 31%; p=0.068). Hypercapnia was significantly more frequent in PRO group patients (29% vs. 10%; p=0.003). There was no significant difference among the other components of the primary endpoint, no procedure was aborted. Patient satisfaction was significantly better in PRO group patients (visual analog scale 0-100; median 100 in PRO group vs. median 93 in DEX group; p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Efficacy of ODNA sedation with dexmedetomidine was not different to propofol. Hypercapnia occurs less frequent with dexmedetomidine, but patient satisfaction is better with propofol sedation. In selected patients, dexmedetomidine may be used as an alternative to propofol for ODNA sedation during AF ablation. (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT03844841).

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.

Dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for sedation during endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration: A randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Desaturation is a common complication of endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA). Dexmedetomidine (DEX), a commonly used sedative in intensive care, is associated with less respiratory depression compared with other sedatives.

OBJECTIVE

We compared DEX with midazolam (MDZ) when used as a sedative during EBUS-TBNA.

DESIGN

A randomised, parallel, double-blinded trial.

SETTING

A university-affiliated teaching hospital between June 2014 and July 2015.

PATIENTS

A total of 102 patients who underwent EBUS-TBNA were randomly allocated to two groups (48 DEX group, 54 MDZ group).

INTERVENTIONS

DEX group received 0.25 to 0.75 μg kg-1 h-1 (start with 0.5 μg kg-1 h-1, modulated in three steps from 0.25 to 0.75 μg kg-1 h-1) of DEX after a loading dose of 0.25 μg kg-1 h-1 for 10 min to maintain a Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS) of 3 to 5. If the patient was agitated, 1 mg of MDZ bolus was used as a rescue drug. Patients in the MDZ group initially received 0.05 mg kg-1 of MDZ as a bolus. For maintenance and rescue, 1 mg of MDZ bolus was used.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was the presence of oxygen desaturation. Secondary outcomes were level of sedation (Ramsay Sedation Scale score), cough score, sedation and procedure satisfaction score.

RESULTS

The baseline characteristics of the patients, duration of EBUS-TBNA procedures and the use of rescue MDZ were not different between the groups. There was no significant difference in desaturation events between the DEX and MDZ groups (56.3 and 68.5%, respectively; P = 0.20). The level of sedation and the sedation satisfaction scores were similar between the two groups. However, cough score was significantly lower in the DEX group (41.9 vs. 53.4; P = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

The use of DEX during EBUS-TBNA was not superior to MDZ in terms of oxygen desaturation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02157818.

Effect of Intraoperative Dexmedetomidine on Postoperative Pain and Pulmonary Function Following Video-assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery

Context:

Acute postoperative pain following video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) needs considerable attention, if untreated leads to chronic pain and postoperative lung dysfunction. Dexmedetomidine, α₂ adrenoceptor agonist has shown promising results of opioid-sparing effects.

Aims:

The objectives of this study are to investigate the effect of dexmedetomidine on postoperative analgesia and pulmonary mechanics in patients undergoing VATS.

Settings and Design:

This is a randomized controlled trial.

Subjects and Methods:

We conducted a prospective, randomized, double-blind study on lung cancer patients undergoing VATS. Each patient received either dexmedetomidine or comparable volume of normal saline during the intraoperative period. In the recovery unit, postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) score, rescue analgesic requirements, arterial blood gas values, and pulmonary function tests were recorded.

Statistical Analysis Used:

Data are analyzed using unpaired t-test, Mann–Whitney U-test, and Fischer's exact test. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results:

VAS scores were significantly lower (P < 0.05) in the dexmedetomidine group at rest, on coughing and on mobilization from supine to sitting position. The partial pressure of arterial oxygen measured in postanesthesia care unit was significantly higher in the dexmedetomidine group (88 ± 8.2 vs 78 ± 9.1 mmHg). Forced expiratory volume in 1 was significantly greater in the dexmedetomidine group compared to the control group on the first 2 postoperative days (P < 0.05). The length of hospital stay was significantly reduced by dexmedetomidine.

Conclusions:

Intraoperative dexmedetomidine administration improves the quality of analgesia and postoperative lung function in patients undergoing VATS.

Dexmedetomidine Sedation for Paroxysmal Supraventricular Tachycardia Ablation Is Not Associated With Alteration of Arrhythmia Inducibility

BACKGROUND

Dexmedetomidine (Dex) is an attractive agent for procedural sedation due to its unique pharmacodynamic profile, specifically affording predictable sedation without concurrent respiratory depression. However, Dex has previously been reported to prevent or terminate arrhythmias. The purpose of this study was to investigate paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia (PSVT) inducibility and homeostatic stability during electrophysiology studies (EPSs) and ablation when a standardized Dex protocol was used as the primary sedation agent.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of 163 consecutive procedures for PSVT ablation that received Dex as the primary sedative with adjunct fentanyl and midazolam boluses (DEX-FENT-MIDAZ). This cohort was compared to 163 consecutive control procedures wherein strictly fentanyl and midazolam were used for sedation. The primary outcome reviewed was PSVT inducibility assessed before ablation. Reviewed secondary outcomes included level of sedation and intraprocedure hemodynamics and oxygenation.

RESULTS

The arrhythmia profiles of the DEX-FENT-MIDAZ and control cohorts were very similar. The overall incidence of a "negative" EPSs in which arrhythmia was not induced was 24% in the DEX-FENT-MIDAZ group and 26% in the control group (P = .7). Unintended deep sedation was significantly less with DEX-FENT-MIDAZ (4.3% vs 27%; P ≤ .0001). However, DEX-FENT-MIDAZ use was associated with a higher incidence of intraprocedure hypotension.

CONCLUSIONS

Dex sedation during EPSs is not associated with a reduction in PSVT inducibility. The therapeutic utility of Dex during EPS arises from the predictable sedation Dex affords but is associated with an increased incidence of intraprocedure hypotension.

Randomized comparison between dexmedetomidine–remifentanil and midazolam–fentanyl for deep sedation during catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation

Background and objectives

The efficacy of dexmedetomidine for radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) of atrial fibrillation (AF) has not been well established. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of sedation using dexmedetomidine with remifentanil compared to conventional sedative agents during RFCA for AF.

Subjects and methods

A total of 240 patients undergoing RFCA for AF were randomized to either the dexmedetomidine (DEX) group (continuous infusion of dexmedetomidine and remifentanil) or the midazolam (MID) group (intermittent injections of midazolam and fentanyl) according to sedative agents. Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation was applied to all patients during the procedure. The primary outcome was patient movement during the procedure resulting in a 3D mapping system discordance, and the secondary outcome was adverse events including respiratory or hemodynamic compromise.

Results

During AF ablation, the incidence of the primary outcome was significantly reduced for the DEX group (18.2% vs. 39.5% in the DEX and the MID groups, respectively, p < 0.001). The frequency of a desaturation event (oxygen saturation < 90%) did not significantly differ between the two groups (6.6% vs. 1.7%, p = 0.056). However, the incidences of hypotension not owing to cardiac tamponade (systolic blood pressure < 80 mmHg, 19.8% vs. 8.4%, p = 0.011) and bradycardia (HR < 50 beats/min: 39.7% vs. 21.8%, p = 0.003) were higher in the DEX group. All efficacy and safety results were consistent within the predefined subgroups.

Conclusion

The combined use of dexmedetomidine and remifentanil provides higher stability sedation during AF ablation, but can lead to more frequent hemodynamic compromise compared to midazolam and fentanyl.

Sedation Strategies for Procedures Outside the Operating Room

With the rapid development of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures performed outside the operating room (OR), the need for appropriate sedation care has emerged in importance to ensure the safety and comfort of patients and clinicians. The preparation and administration of sedatives and sedation care outside the OR require careful attention, proper monitoring systems, and clinically useful sedation guidelines. This literature review addresses proper monitoring and selection of sedatives for diagnostic and interventional procedures outside the OR. As the depth of sedation increases, respiratory depression and cardiovascular suppression become serious, necessitating careful surveillance using appropriate monitoring equipment.

A collaborative educational intervention on procedural sedation and analgesia across the Pacific

Aim

Worldwide, health‐care providers carry out procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) in the emergency department. However, training opportunities are limited in many Asian countries, including Japan. We formed an educational group consisting of board‐certified emergency physicians in the USA and Japanese physicians and developed a PSA training module. The aims of our study were to demonstrate the effectiveness of training and to describe PSA practice in Japan.

Methods

We undertook a pretest of PSA knowledge questions and a retest immediately after the training intervention. We also carried out a survey and asked about participants' PSA practice. The training module consisted of four didactic hours and three simulation and skills laboratory hours. Results of all pre‐ and post‐intervention knowledge questions were analyzed with McNemar's test, and overall scores were analyzed with a paired t‐test.

Results

One hundred and forty‐four health‐care providers including 123 physicians, 16 nurses, two pharmacists, and three medical students participated in the training. A total of 119 (83%) completed both the pre‐ and post‐intervention knowledge questions. Before the training, participants scored an average 66% (63%–69%) on the written knowledge test. After the intervention, participants showed significant improvement on the knowledge test (improvement 17%; 14%–20%). Among participants who answered the practice survey, 121 (88%) have undertaken PSA. Only 14 (12%) participants always or often use a continuous capnography for PSA. Only 32 (26.4%) participants undertook pre‐PSA systematic evaluation.

Conclusion

Our educational intervention successfully increased participants' knowledge. Only the minority of health‐care providers use capnography routinely for PSA, and pre‐PSA evaluation is not commonly carried out.

Recent Trends in the Practice of Procedural Sedation Under Local Anesthesia for Catheter Ablation, Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and Endoscopic Surgery in Japan: A Retrospective Database Study in Clinical Practice from 2012 to 2015

OBJECTIVES

To investigate changes in sedation practice during 2012-2015, using a large health claims database, for catheter ablation (CA), gastrointestinal endoscopic examination (EE), and surgery (ES) after dexmedetomidine (DEX) was approved for procedural sedation in 2013. We assessed the trends of sedative utilization, sedative-analgesic combinations, and, additionally, incidence of complications from 2012 to 2015.

METHODS

Using the database provided by Medical Data Vision Co., Ltd. (Tokyo, Japan), annual utilization proportions of the sedatives and sedative-analgesic combinations and occurrence of complications were calculated in patients with a record of local anesthesia and CA, EE, and/or ES but without general anesthesia used on the same day. The sedatives studied were DEX, propofol (PF), midazolam (MDZ), diazepam, flunitrazepam, thiamylal (TIA), thiopental (TIO), and ketamine.

RESULTS

DEX was used most often for CA, followed by PF. From 2012 to 2015, the proportion of DEX increased from 30 to 36%, and that of PF slightly decreased from 29 to 27%. The order of utilization proportions did not change for EE or ES. The use of benzodiazepines, particularly MDZ, predominated. The top five sedative-analgesic combination patterns changed during the study period for CA, but not for EE or ES. The most common complications with CA, EE, and ES were bradycardia, nausea and vomiting, and respiratory depression, respectively. There were no changes in the complications' trends for the procedures.

CONCLUSION

The approved use of DEX for procedural sedation resulted in changes for CA, but not for EE or ES. The complication trends did not change.

Dexmedetomidine and Midazolam Sedation Reduces Unexpected Patient Movement During Dental Surgery Compared With Propofol and Midazolam Sedation

PURPOSE

Owing to its unpredictability, unexpected patient movement is one of the most important problems during surgery while under monitored anesthesia care with sedation. The purpose of this study was to compare unexpected patient movement during dental surgery while under dexmedetomidine and propofol sedation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The authors designed and implemented a prospective randomized controlled trial. Patients undergoing dental surgery requiring intravenous sedation were randomly assigned to dexmedetomidine and midazolam (dexmedetomidine group) or propofol and midazolam (propofol group) sedation. In each group, midazolam 0.02 mg/kg was administered in conjunction with continuous administration of dexmedetomidine or propofol to maintain a bispectral index value of 70 to 80. Unexpected patient movement interfering with the procedure was defined as acceptable, defined as no body movement or only 1 controllable movement, or unacceptable, defined as at least 2 controllable movements or any uncontrollable movement. The primary outcome was unexpected patient movement, and the secondary outcome was defined as snoring and cough reflex. Other variables included demographic and procedural characteristics. Continuous or ordinal variables were analyzed using the Student t test or Mann-Whitney test. Dichotomous or categorical variables were analyzed using the χ² test or Fisher exact test. A P value less than.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Eighty-eight patients were enrolled in the study (dexmedetomidine group, n = 44; propofol group, n = 44). There were no relevant differences between groups for demographics and baseline variables. Intraoperative unacceptable patient movement occurred more commonly in the propofol group (n = 13; 30%) than in the dexmedetomidine group (n = 4; 9%; P = .015). Intraoperative snoring occurred more commonly in the dexmedetomidine than in the propofol group (P = .045). Incidence and number of cough reflexes were comparable between groups.

CONCLUSION

Dexmedetomidine and midazolam sedation decreases unexpected patient movement during dental surgery compared with propofol and midazolam sedation.

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.

Use of Dexmedetomidine in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia

Dexmedetomidine is a highly selective α₂-adrenergic agonist with analgesic and sedative properties. In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration approved the use of the drug for short-lasting sedation (24 h) in intensive care units (ICUs) in patients undergoing mechanical ventilation and endotracheal intubation. In October 2008, the Food and Drug Administration extended use of the drug for the sedation of nonintubated patients before and during surgical and nonsurgical procedures. In the European Union, the European Medicine Agency approved the use of dexmedetomidine in September 2011 with a single recognized indication: ICU adult patients requiring mild sedation and awakening in response to verbal stimulus. At present, the use of dexmedetomidine for sedation outside the ICU remains an off-label indication. The benefits of dexmedetomidine in critically ill patients and in cardiac, electrophysiology-related, vascular, and thoracic procedures are discussed.

The Effects of Dexmedetomidine on Myocardial Function Assessed by Tissue Doppler Echocardiography During General Anesthesia in Patients With Diastolic Dysfunction: A CONSORT-Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial

Dexmedetomidine is a commonly used sedative and adjuvant agent to general anesthesia. The present was designed to evaluate the effects of dexmedetomidine on myocardial function by using tissue Doppler echocardiography during general anesthesia in patients with diastolic dysfunction.Forty patients undergoing orthostatic surgery with ejection fraction preserved diastolic dysfunction grade 2 or 3 were randomly allocated to the Control and Dex group (n = 20, each). In the Dex group, dexmedetomidine was given as an initial loading dose of 1.0 μg/kg over 10 minutes followed by a maintenance dose of 0.5 μg/kg/h. The ratio of peak early diastolic transmitral or transtricuspid inflow velocity to early diastolic mitral or tricuspid annular velocity (LV or RV E/e') and left or right ventricular myocardial performance index (LV or RV MPI) were measured at before and after the administration dexmedetomidine or saline.The Dex group showed significant decrease of heart rate (P = 0.038), and increase of mean blood pressure (P < 0.001), LV E/e' (P = 0.025), and LV MPI (P < 0.001) compared to those of the Control group on a linear mixed model analysis. Also, the Dex group showed significant increase of RV E/e' (P < 0.001) and RV MPI (P = 0.028) compared to those of the Control group.Intraoperative dexmedetomidine administration during general anesthesia was appeared to deteriorate biventricular function in patients with diastolic dysfunction. We suggest careful consideration and a need for reducing dosage when administrating dexmedetomidine in patients with diastolic dysfunction.

Intraoperative Dexmedetomidine Improves the Quality of Recovery and Postoperative Pulmonary Function in Patients Undergoing Video-assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery: A CONSORT-Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial

Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) has been known to be a stressful event for patients, and dexmedetomidine is known to attenuate surgery-induced sympathetic responses and potentiate analgesia in perioperative periods. The present was designed to evaluate the effects of intraoperative dexmedetomidine administration on the quality of recovery (QoR) and pulmonary function after VATS. Patients with lung cancer undergoing VATS were randomized to Dex group (loading of 1.0 μg/kg for 20 minutes before the termination of surgery, n = 50) or Control group (comparable volume of normal saline, n = 50). The QoR-40 questionnaire assesses postoperative recovery and validates the overall surgical and general anesthesia outcomes. The QoR-40 scores, forced expiratory volume for 1 second (FEV1) on postoperative day (POD) 1 and 2, and emergence agitation were evaluated. The global QoR-40 score (162.3 ± 17.8 vs 153.3 ± 18.7, P = 0.016 on POD 1; 174.3 ± 16.0 vs 166.8 ± 16.7, P = 0.028 on POD 2) and FEV1 (2.1 ± 0.4 vs 1.9 ± 0.5 L, P = 0.034 on POD 1; 2.2 ± 0.5 vs 2.0 ± 0.4 L, P = 0.030 on POD 2) were significantly higher in the Dex group compared with the Control group on POD1 and POD 2. The score of emergence agitation was lower in the Dex group compared with the Control group (3 [2-5] vs 5 [3-7], P < 0.001). The number of patients indicating severe emergence agitation was shorter in the Dex group than Control group (0 [0%] vs 7 [14%], P = 0.048). The length of hospital stay was significantly shorter (6.7 [3-9] vs 8.4 [4-9] days, P = 0.045) in the Dex group compared with the Control group. Intraoperative dexmedetomidine administration improved QoR, postoperative pulmonary function, and emergence agitation in patients undergoing VATS. Consequently, intraoperative dexmedetomidine administration could improve postoperative outcomes and reduced the length of hospital stay in patients undergoing VATS.