Sedation for electrophysiological procedures

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.

Anaesthetic management of paediatric patients undergoing electrophysiology study and ablation for supraventricular tachycardia: A focused narrative review

Every year, 80,000-100,000 ablation procedures take place in the United States and approximately 1% of these involve paediatric patients. As the paediatric population undergoing catheter ablation to treat dysrhythmia is constantly growing, involvement of anaesthesiologists in the cardiac electrophysiology laboratory is simultaneously increasing. Compared with the adult population, paediatric patients need deeper sedation or general anaesthesia (GA) to guarantee motionlessness and preserve comfort. As a result, the anaesthesiologist working in this setting should keep in mind heart physiopathology as well as possible interactions between anaesthetic drugs and arrhythmia. In fact, drug-induced suppression of accessory pathways (APs) conduction capacity is a major concern for completing a successful electrophysiology study (EPS). Nevertheless, the literature on this topic is scarce and the optimal type of anaesthesia in EPS and ablation procedures in children is still controversial. Thus, the main goal of the present review is to collect the literature published so far on the effects on cardiac conduction tissue of the drugs commonly employed for sedation/GA in the cath lab for EPS and ablation procedures to treat supraventricular tachycardia in patients aged <18 years.

Cardiologist-Directed Sedation Management in Patients Undergoing Transvenous Lead Extraction: A Single-Centre Retrospective Analysis

BACKGROUND

The demand for transvenous lead extraction (TLE) has increased. In line with this, the safety of such procedures has also increased. Traditionally, TLE is performed under resource-intensive general anaesthesia. This study aims to evaluate the safety and outcomes of Cardiologist-lead deep sedation for TLE.

METHODS

We retrospectively analysed 328 TLE procedures performed under deep sedation from 2016 to 2019. TLE procedures were performed by experienced electrophysiologists. Sedation was administered by a specifically trained cardiologist (bolus midazolam/fentanyl and propofol infusion). Procedural sedation data including blood pressure, medication administration and sedation time were collected. Complications related to sedation and the operative component of the procedure were analysed retrospectively.

RESULTS

The sedation-associated complication rate during TLE was 22.0%. The most common complication (75% of complications) was hypotension requiring noradrenaline, followed by bradycardia requiring atropine (13% of complications). Additionally, the unplanned presence of an anaesthesiologist was needed in one case (0.3%). Deep sedation was achieved with midazolam (mean dose 42.9 ± 26.5 µg/kg), fentanyl (mean dose 0.4 ± 0.6 µg/kg) and propofol (mean dose 3.5 ± 1.2 mg/kg/h). There was no difference in medication dosage between those with a sedation-associated complication and those without. Sedation-associated complications appeared significantly more in patients with reduced LVEF (p = 0.01), renal impairment (p = 0.01) and a higher American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) class (p = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Deep sedation for TLE can be safely performed by a specifically trained cardiologist, with a transition to general anaesthesia required in only 0.3% of cases. We continue to recommend the on-call availability of an anaesthesiologist and cardiac surgeon in case of major complications.

The importance of anaesthesia in atrial fibrillation ablation: Comparing conscious sedation with general anaesthesia

BACKGROUND

General anaesthesia (GA) for atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation is often preferred over conscious sedation (CS) to minimize patient discomfort and reduce the risk of map disruption from patient movement but may pose an additional risk to some patients with significant comorbidity or poor cardiac function.

METHODS

We extracted data for 300 patients who underwent AF ablation between the years 2017 and 2019 and compared the outcomes of AF ablation with CS and GA.

RESULTS

Compared to the GA group, patients were younger in the CS group (63 versus 66 years, p = 0.02), had less persistent AF (34% versus 46%, p = 0.048) and the left atrial dimension was smaller (41 versus 45 mm, p = 0.01). More patients had cryoballoon ablation (CBA) than radiofrequency (RFA) ablation in the CS than the GA group (88% CB with CS and 56% RF with GA, p < 0.01), frequency of ASA score 3-4 (higher anaesthetic risk) was less for CS than for GA (45% versus 75%, p < 0.01), and procedural duration was shorter for patients who had CS (110 versus 139 min, p < 0.001). Of the patients receiving CS, 127/182 (70%) were planned for same day discharge (SDD) and this occurred in 120 (94%) of those patients. There were no significant differences in complication rates between the groups (5.1% in GA and 6% in CS, p = 0.8). AF type was the only significant predictor of freedom from AF recurrence on multivariate analysis (HR 0.33, 0.13-0.82, p = 0.018).

CONCLUSION

In this study, the use of CS compared with GA for AF ablation was associated with similar outcomes and complication rates.

A randomized trial of non-fasting vs. fasting for cardiac implantable electronic device procedures (Fast-CIED Study)

AIMS

Data on safety and efficacy of a non-fasting strategy in minimal invasive cardiac procedures are lacking. We assessed a non-fasting strategy compared with a fasting strategy regarding patient's well-being and safety in elective cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) procedures.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In this randomized, single-blinded clinical trial, 201 patients (non-fasting = 100, fasting = 101) with a mean age of 72.0 ± 11.6 years (66.7% male) were assigned to a non-fasting strategy (solids/fluids allowed up to 1 h) or a fasting strategy (at least 6 h no solids and 2 h no fluids) before the procedure and analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. The co-primary outcomes were patients' well-being scores (based on numeric rating scale, 0-10) and incidence of intra-procedural food-related adverse events, including vomiting, perioperative pulmonary aspiration, and emergency intubation. Renal, haematological, and metabolic blood parameters and 30-day follow-up data were gathered. The summed pre-procedural patients' well-being score was significantly lower in the non-fasting group [non-fasting: 13.1 ± 9.6 vs. fasting: 16.5 ± 11.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) of mean difference (MD) -6.35 to -0.46, P = 0.029], which was mainly driven by significantly lower scores for hunger and tiredness in the non-fasting group (non-fasting vs. fasting; hunger: 0.9 ± 1.9 vs. 3.1 ± 3.2, 95% CI of MD -2.86 to -1.42, P < 0.001; tiredness: 1.6 ± 2.3 vs. 2.6 ± 2.7, 95% CI of MD -1.68 to -0.29, P = 0.023). No intra-procedural food-related adverse events were observed. Relevant blood parameters and 30-day follow-up did not show significant differences.

CONCLUSION

These results showed that a non-fasting strategy is beneficial to a fasting one regarding patient's well-being and comparable in terms of safety for CIED procedures (NCT04389697).

Holding Still for AF Ablation

Appropriate procedural sedation is imperative to successful catheter ablation (CA) for atrial fibrillation (AF). This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

A Comparison of Clinical Outcomes and Cost of Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation with Monitored Anesthesia Care vs General Anesthesia

Introduction

Monitored anesthesia care (MAC) or general anesthesia (GA) can be used during catheter ablation (CA) of atrial fibrillation (AF). However, each approach may have advantages and disadvantages with variability in operator preferences. The optimal approach has not been well established. The purpose of this study was to compare procedural efficacy, safety, clinical outcomes, and cost of CA for AF performed with MAC versus GA.

Methods

The study population consisted of 810 consecutive patients (mean age: 63 ± 10 years, paroxysmal AF: 48%) who underwent a first CA for AF. All patients completed a preprocedural evaluation by the anesthesiologists. Among the 810 patients, MAC was used in 534 (66%) and GA in 276 (34%). Ten patients (1.5%) had to convert to GA during the CA.

Results

Although the total anesthesia care was longer with GA particularly in patients with persistent AF, CA was shorter by 5 min with GA than MAC (p < 0.01). Prevalence of perioperative complications was similar between the two groups (4% vs. 4%, p = 0.89). There was no atrioesophageal fistula with either approach. GA was associated with a small, ~7% increase in total charges due to longer anesthesia care. During 43 ± 17 months of follow‐up after a single ablation procedure, 271/534 patients (51%) in the MAC and 129/276 (47%) patients in the GA groups were in sinus rhythm without concomitant antiarrhythmic drug therapy (p = 0.28).

Conclusion

With the participation of an anesthesiologist, and proper preoperative assessment, CA of AF using GA or MAC has similar efficacy and safety.

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.

Old Is (Not) Gold: Midazolam Monotherapy versus Midazolam Plus Fentanyl for Sedation during Cardiac Catheterization

Objective

We aimed to study the differences in perception of pain during cardiac catheterization with midazolam monotherapy compared to the current standard of midazolam plus fentanyl.

Background

Procedural sedation is important to ensure comfort and safety in patients undergoing left heart catheterization. Despite the widespread use of midazolam and fentanyl for procedural sedation, the effectiveness of this dual agent approach to sedation has never been studied in comparison to midazolam monotherapy.

Methods

A total of 129 patients undergoing sedation for outpatient elective cardiac catheterization were randomly assigned to either midazolam monotherapy (n = 69) or combination of midazolam and fentanyl (n = 60). The primary outcome was assessment of pain perception prior to discharge by patient completion of a pain questionnaire. Participants were asked if they experienced any pain during their procedure (yes/no) and, if yes, asked to rate their overall pain level using a 10-point Likert scale that ranged from 1 (minimal pain) to 10 (worst pain imaginable).

Results

Most patients (n = 94, 73%) reported no pain during their procedure. Patients sedated with midazolam monotherapy reported similar average pain scores compared to patients sedated with the combination of midazolam and fentanyl (1.1 vs. 1.1, p=0.95).

Conclusions

Among patients undergoing elective cardiac catheterization, no significant differences in pain scores were noted between sedation with midazolam alone compared to midazolam and fentanyl. Due to fentanyl's unfavorable interaction with P2Y12 agents, increased costs, and addiction potential, it is imperative that cardiologists revisit the role of effective procedural sedation with a single agent and avoid the use of fentanyl.

Safety of conscious sedation in electroanatomical mapping procedures and cryoballoon pulmonary vein isolation

Immobilization of patients during electrophysiological procedures, to avoid complications by patients' unexpected bodily motion, is achieved by moderate to deep conscious sedation using benzodiazepines and propofol for sedation and opioids for analgesia. Our aim was to compare respiratory and hemodynamic safety endpoints of cryoballoon pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) and electroanatomical mapping (EAM) procedures. Included patients underwent either cryoballoon PVI or EAM procedures. Sedation monitoring included non-invasive blood pressure measurements, transcutaneous oxygen saturation (tSpO₂) and transcutaneous carbon-dioxide (tpCO₂) measurements. We enrolled 125 consecutive patients, 67 patients underwent cryoballoon atrial fibrillation ablation and 58 patients had an EAM and radiofrequency ablation procedure. Mean procedure duration of EAM procedures was significantly longer (p < 0.001) and propofol doses as well as morphine equivalent doses of administered opioids were significantly higher in EAM patients compared to cryoballoon patients (p < 0.001). Cryoballoon patients display higher tpCO₂ levels compared to EAM patients at 30 min (cryoballoon: 51.1 ± 7.0 mmHg vs. EAM: 48.6 ± 6.2 mmHg, p = 0.009) and at 60 min (cryoballoon: 51.4 ± 7.3 mmHg vs. EAM: 48.9 ± 6.6 mmHg, p = 0.07) procedure duration. Mean arterial pressure was significantly higher after 60 min (cryoballoon: 84.7 ± 16.7 mmHg vs. EAM: 76.7 ± 13.3 mmHg, p = 0.017) in cryoballoon PVI compared to EAM procedures. Regarding respiratory and hemodynamic safety endpoints, no significant difference was detected regarding hypercapnia, hypoxia and episodes of hypotension. Despite longer procedure duration and deeper sedation requirement, conscious sedation in EAM procedures appears to be as safe as conscious sedation in cryoballoon ablation procedures regarding hemodynamic and respiratory safety endpoints.

Hypnosis Versus Placebo During Atrial Flutter Ablation: The PAINLESS Study: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to assess the superiority of hypnosis versus placebo on pain perception and morphine consumption during typical atrial flutter (AFL) ablation.

BACKGROUND

AFL ablation commonly requires intravenous opioid for analgesia, which can be associated with adverse outcomes. Hypnosis is an alternative technique with rising interest, but robust data in electrophysiological procedures are lacking.

METHODS

This single center, randomized controlled trial compared hypnosis and placebo during AFl ablation. In addition to the randomized intervention, all patients were treated according to the institution's standard of care analgesia protocol (administration of 1 mg of intravenous morphine in case of self-reported pain ≥5 on an 11-point numeric rating scale or on demand). The primary endpoint was perceived pain quantified by patients using a visual analog scale.

RESULTS

Between October 2017 and September 2019, 113 patients (mean age 70 ± 12 years, 21% women) were randomized to hypnosis (n = 56) or placebo (n = 57). Mean pain score was 4.0 ± 2.2 in the hypnosis group versus 5.5 ± 1.8 in the placebo group (p < 0.001). Pain perception, assessed every 5 min during the whole procedure, was consistently lower in the hypnosis group. Patients' sedation scores were also better in the hypnosis group than in the placebo group (8.3 ± 2.2 vs. 5.4 ± 2.5; p < 0.001). Finally, morphine requirements were significantly lower in the hypnosis group (1.3 ± 1.3 mg) compared with the placebo group (3.6 ± 1.8 mg; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this first randomized trial, hypnosis during AFL ablation was superior to placebo for alleviating pain and reducing morphine consumption.

[Drugs for intravenous induction of anesthesia: propofol]

In a series of articles dealing with hypnotics for induction of anesthesia, this article describes the development and current value of propofol. Its significance far exceeds that of a pure induction hypnotic (sedation in diagnostic and therapeutic procedures and on the intensive care unit). Propofol is also used for sedation in diagnostic and therapeutic procedures and on the intensive care unit. In the field of induction of anesthesia, the alternatives are barely used. Some contraindications are still controversial whereas others are no longer sufficiently anchored in the users' awareness (widespread off-label use). Adverse effects, such as injection pain, infection risk and propofol-related infusion syndrome (PRIS) could be significantly reduced by pharmacovigilance. With appropriate caution nearly the whole spectrum of anesthesiology patients can be treated using propofol. The hemodynamic side effects and the rare but potentially fatal PRIS are limitations. Further developments address the water solubility and the solubilizing agents of propofol.

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.

The effects of gender on electrical therapies for the heart: procedural considerations, results and complications: A report from the XII Congress of the Italian Association on Arrhythmology and Cardiostimulation (AIAC)

Use of cardiac implantable devices and catheter ablation is steadily increasing in Western countries following the positive results of clinical trials. Despite the advances in scientific knowledge, tools development, and techniques improvement we still have some grey area in the field of electrical therapies for the heart. In particular, several reports highlighted differences both in medical behaviour and procedural outcomes between female and male candidates. Women are referred later for catheter ablation of supraventricular arrhythmias, especially atrial fibrillation, leading to suboptimal results. On the opposite females present greater response to cardiac resynchronization, while the benefit of implantable defibrillator in primary prevention seems to be less pronounced. Differences on aetiology, clinical profile, and development of myocardial scarring are the more plausible causes. This review will discuss all these aspects together with gender-related differences in terms of acute/late complications. We will also provide useful hints on plausible mechanisms and practical procedural aspects.

Impact of intraoperative mechanical ventilation on left ventricular lead function in cardiac resynchronization therapy

BACKGROUND

Intraoperative controlled mechanical ventilation (CMV) changes the intrathoracic geometry and may impact postoperative left ventricular (LV) lead function after CRT implantation. This multicenter study investigates the effect of intraoperative ventilation setting (spontaneous breathing [SB] vs CMV) on postoperative LV lead function taking into account patients' body mass index (BMI).

METHODS

CRT implantation was performed at two centers during SB in 92 and during CMV in 73 patients. Follow-up was carried out after 3 ± 5 and 36 ± 53 days. Functional lead parameters (FLP; pacing threshold and impedance), postoperative adverse events (A;  phrenic nerve stimulation [PNS] and lead malfunction), and patients' BMI were assessed. Delta values of FLP between baseline and follow-up visits were analyzed applying an analysis of covariance model to detect subclinical alterations in LV lead function.

RESULTS

AE occurred in a total of 36 (21%) patients. PNS was observed in 26 (15%) patients and LV lead repositioning due to malfunction was necessary in 10 (6%) patients. Both AE and FLP delta values between baseline and follow-up were not associated with intraoperative ventilation settings nor the patients' BMI.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that there is no impact of the intraoperative ventilation setting (SB vs CMV) on postoperative FLP or the occurrence of AE. This is also the case taking into account the BMI. With respect to these findings both approaches-sedation only or general anaesthesia including CMV-can be safely implemented during CRT implantation.

High Patient Satisfaction with Deep Sedation for Catheter Ablation of Cardiac Arrhythmia

BACKGROUND

Patients' satisfaction with invasive procedures largely relies on periprocedural perception of pain and discomfort. The necessity for intraprocedural sedation during catheter ablation of cardiac arrhythmias for technical reasons is widely accepted, but data on patients' experience of pain and satisfaction with the procedural sedation are scarce. We have assessed patients' pain and discomfort during and after the procedure using a standardized questionnaire.

METHODS

One hundred seventeen patients who underwent catheter ablation answered a standardized questionnaire on periprocedural perception of pain and discomfort after different anesthetic protocols with propofol/midazolam with and without additional piritramide and ketamine/midazolam.

RESULTS

Patients report a high level of satisfaction with periprocedural sedation with 83% judging sedation as good or very good. The majority of patients was unconscious of the whole procedure and did not recollect experiencing pain. Procedural pain was reported by 7.7% of the patients and 16% reported adverse effects, e.g., postprocedural nausea and episodes of headache.

CONCLUSION

The results of our study show that deep sedation during catheter ablation of cardiac arrhythmias is generally well tolerated and patients are satisfied with the procedure. Yet, a number of patients reports pain or adverse events. Therefore, studies comparing different sedation strategies should be conducted in order to optimize sedation and analgesia.

Inadvertent Hypothermia After Procedural Sedation and Analgesia in a Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory: A Prospective Observational Study

OBJECTIVES

To identify the prevalence of and risk factors for inadvertent hypothermia after procedures performed with procedural sedation and analgesia in a cardiac catheterization laboratory.

DESIGN

A single-center, prospective observational study.

SETTING

A tertiary-care private hospital in Australia.

PARTICIPANTS

399 patients undergoing elective procedures with procedural sedation and analgesia were included. Propofol infusions were used when an anesthesiologist was present. Otherwise, bolus doses of either midazolam or fentanyl or a combination of these medications was used.

INTERVENTIONS

None

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Hypothermia was defined as a temperature<36.0°C. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify risk factors. Hypothermia was present after 23.3% (n = 93; 95% confidence interval [CI] 19.2%-27.4%) of 399 procedures. Sedative regimens with the highest prevalence of hypothermia were any regimen that included propofol (n = 35; 40.2%; 95% CI 29.9%-50.5%) and the use of fentanyl combined with midazolam (n = 23; 20.3%; 95% CI 12.9%-27.7%). Difference in mean temperature from pre-procedure to post-procedure was -0.27°C (standard deviation 0.45). Receiving propofol (odds ratio [OR] 4.6 95% CI 2.5-8.6), percutaneous coronary intervention (OR 3.2; 95% CI 1.7-5.9), body mass index<25 (OR 2.5; 95% CI 1.4-4.4) and being hypothermic prior to the procedure (OR 4.9; 95% CI 2.3-10.8) were independent predictors of post-procedural hypothermia.

CONCLUSIONS

A moderate prevalence of hypothermia was observed. The small absolute change in temperature observed may not be a clinically important amount. More research is needed to increase confidence in the authors' estimates of hypothermia in sedated patients and its impact on clinical outcomes.