Anaesthesiological support in a cardiac electrophysiology laboratory: a single-centre prospective observational study

A randomized controlled trial of the intraoperative use of noninvasive ventilation versus supplemental oxygen by face mask for procedural sedation in an electrophysiology laboratory

PURPOSE

The efficacy of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) during procedures that require sedation and analgesia has not been established. We evaluated whether NIV reduces the incidence of respiratory events.

METHODS

In this randomized controlled trial, we included 195 patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status of III or IV during electrophysiology laboratory procedures. We compared NIV with face mask oxygen therapy for patients under sedation. The primary outcome was the incidence of respiratory events determined by a computer-driven blinded analysis and defined by hypoxemia (peripheral oxygen saturation < 90%) or apnea/hypopnea (absence of breathing for 20 sec on capnography). Secondary outcomes included hemodynamic variables, sedation, patient safety (composite scores of major or minor adverse events), and adverse outcomes at day 7.

RESULTS

A respiratory event occurred in 89/98 (95%) patients in the NIV group and in 69/97 (73%) patients with face masks (risk ratio [RR], 1.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13 to 1.47; P < 0.001). Hypoxemia occurred in 40 (42%) patients in the NIV group and in 33 (34%) patients with face masks (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.74; P = 0.30). Apnea/hypopnea occurred in 83 patients (92%) in the NIV group vs 65 patients (70%) with face masks (RR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.14 to 1.53; P < 0.001). Hemodynamic variables, sedation, major or minor safety events, and patient outcomes were not different between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Respiratory events were more frequent among patients receiving NIV without any safety or outcome impairment. These results do not support the routine use of NIV intraoperatively.

STUDY REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02779998); registered 4 November 2015.

Safety and feasibility of trans-venous cardiac device extraction using conscious sedation alone-Implications for the post-COVID-19 era

BACKGROUND

Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) for implantable cardiac-devices is traditionally performed under general anesthesia (GA). This can lead to greater risk of exposure to COVID-19, longer recovery-times and increased procedural-costs. We report the feasibility/safety of TLE using conscious-sedation alone with immediate GA/cardiac-surgery back-up if needed.

METHODS

Retrospective case-series of consecutive TLEs performed using conscious-sedation alone between March 2016 and December 2019. All were performed in the electrophysiology-laboratory using intravenous Fentanyl, Midazolam/Diazepam with a stepwise approach using locking-stylets/cutting-sheaths, including mechanical-sheaths. Baseline patient-characteristics, procedural-details and TLE outcomes (including procedure-related complications/death) were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 130 leads were targeted in 54 patients, mean age ± SD 74.6 ± 11.8years, 47(87%) males; dual-chamber pacemakers (n = 26; 48%), cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillators (n = 17; 31%) and defibrillators (n = 8; 15%) were commonest extracted devices. Mean ± SD/median (range) lead-dwell times were 11.0 ± 8.8/8.3 (0.3-37) years, respectively. Extraction indications included systemic infection (n = 23; 43%) and lead/pulse-generator erosion (n = 27; 50%); mean 2.1 ± 2.0 leads were removed per procedure/mean procedure-time was 100 ± 54 min. Local anesthetic (LA) was used for all (mean-dose: 33 ± 8 ml 1% lidocaine), IV drug-doses used (mean ± SD) were: midazolam: 3.95 ± 2.44 mg, diazepam: 4.69 ± 0.89 mg and fentanyl: 57 ± 40 µg. Complete lead-extraction was achieved in 110 (85%) leads, partial lead-extraction (<4 cm-fragment remaining) in 5 (4%) leads. Sedation-related hypotension requiring IV fluids occurred in 2 (managed without adverse-consequences) and hypoxia requiring additional airway-management in none. No procedural deaths occurred, one patient required emergency cardiac surgery for localized ventricular perforation, nine had minor complications (transient hypotension/bradycardia/pericardial effusion not requiring intervention).

CONCLUSION

TLE undertaken using LA/conscious-sedation was safe/feasible in our series and associated with good clinical outcome/low procedural complications. Reduced risk of aerosolization of COVID-19 and quicker patient recovery/reduced anesthetic risk are potential benefits that warrant further study.

Deep sedation for transvenous lead extraction: a large single-centre experience

Aims

Transvenous lead extraction for cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) is of growing importance. Nevertheless, the optimal anaesthetic approach, general anaesthesia vs. deep sedation (DS), remains unresolved. We describe our tertiary centre experience of the feasibility and safety of DS.

Methods and results

Extraction procedures were performed in the electrophysiology (EP) laboratory by two experienced electrophysiologists. We used intravenous Fentanyl, Midazolam, and Propofol for DS. A stepwise approach with locking stylets, dilator sheaths, and mechanical sheaths via subclavian, femoral, or internal jugular venous access was utilized. Patient characteristics and procedural data were collected. Logistic regression models were used to identify parameters associated with sedation-related complications. Extraction of 476 leads (dwelling time/patient 88 ± 49 months, 30% ICD leads) was performed in 220 patients (64 ± 17 years, 80% male). Deep sedation was initiated with bolus administration of Fentanyl, Midazolam, and Propofol; mean doses 0.34 ± 0.12 μg/kg, 24.3 ± 6.8 μg/kg, and 0.26 ± 0.13 mg/kg, respectively. Deep sedation was maintained with continuous Propofol infusion (initial dose 3.7 ± 1.1 mg/kg/h; subsequently increased to 4.7 ± 1.2 mg/kg/h with 3.9 ± 2.6 adjustments) and boluses of Midazolam and Fentanyl as indicated. Sedation-related episodes of hypotension, requiring vasopressors, and hypoxia, requiring additional airway management, occurred in 25 (11.4%) and 5 (2.3%) patients, respectively. These were managed without adverse consequences. Five patients (2.3%) experienced major intraprocedural complications; there were no procedure-related deaths. All of our logistic regression models indicated intraprocedural support was associated with administration higher Fentanyl doses.

Conclusion

Transvenous lead extraction under DS in the EP laboratory is a safe procedure with high success rates when performed by experienced staff.

Significant and safe reduction of propofol sedation dose for geriatric population undergoing pacemaker implantation: randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

A previous multidisciplinary pilot study based on computer simulations for the geriatric population showed that a dose of 0.5 mg/kg/h of propofol could sedate patients older than 65 for pacemaker implantation. The present study validates that the pacemaker implantation can be done in the elderly using 0.5-1 mg/kg/h of propofol with hemodynamic stability.

METHODS

66 patients from 65 to 88 years old scheduled for pacemaker implantation were randomly assigned one of three doses of propofol. The first group received 2 mg/kg/h of propofol (P2) that is within normal range of the sedation dose. The second group received 1 mg/kg/h (P1) dose and the third group received the dose of 0.5 mg/kg/h (P0.5) according to the simulation-predicted dose for geriatric populations.

RESULTS

All patients kept MAP between 76 and 85 mmHg, with no hypotension episodes in any of the groups; therefore, they were all hemodynamically stable during the procedure. BIS was between 80 and 65 during the pacemaker implantation for the three groups, BIS of group P2 was significantly lower than the other groups. BIS in groups P1 and P0.5 was within the appropriated range for moderate sedation. Brice was positive for auditory recalls only when there was arousing noise in the operating room.

CONCLUSIONS

Moderate sedation, adequate for pacemaker implantation, can be achieved infusing 0.5-1 mg/kg/h of propofol in elderly patients when the patient has proper analgesia management at the device implantation site. The second important condition is to avoid unnecessary and alerting auditory and mechanical stimuli in the operating room, so that the patient will remain calm.