Cardioversion: What to choose? Etomidate or propofol

Safety and efficacy of a nurse-led elective cardioversion with etomidate for atrial arrhythmia in a tertiary hospital

Management of cardiac arrhythmias often requires direct current cardioversion (DCC) to restore sinus rhythm. This intervention varies greatly between countries and hospitals, mostly regarding the organization of an elective DCC, and the choice of the sedation. The aim of this study is to assess the safety and efficacy of an elective DCC performed in a cardiology day hospital, led by trained nurses, and using intravenous Etomidate as sedation. We performed a retrospective cohort study at a single tertiary hospital in Belgium. Data were collected from January 2017 to October 2020. A total of 788 electrical cardioversions were performed on 574 patients from 2017 to 2020. Age was 70.9 ± 10 years. Restoration of sinus rhythm was obtained in 89.5% of the patients. One (0.1%) patient experienced ischemic stroke within 24 h, despite adequate anticoagulation. There were 4 (0.5%) cases of transient sinus arrest requiring atropine. Three patients (0.4%) experienced respiratory depression, requiring bag-mask ventilation but not oro-tracheal intubation. There were no cases of hypotension. No periprocedural death was reported. In conclusion, an elective electrical cardioversion performed and led by trained nurses, using Etomidate as sedation, appears to be both safe and effective.

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.

Changes of inflammatory factors in patients after resection of lung adenocarcinoma with propofol and etomidate

OBJECTIVE

This research was designed to investigate the changes of inflammatory factors in patients after resection of lung adenocarcinoma with propofol versus etomidate.

METHODS

A total of 104 patients who underwent resection of lung adenocarcinoma in our hospital were divided into a propofol group (group A, n=50) and an etomidate group (group B, n=54). The levels of CRP and IL-6 at different time points and the changes of blood gas indexes at 10 min before and after operation were observed in both groups. Their pain score and quality of life score were compared. Besides, we observed the wake-up time, tracheal extubation time and the incidence of adverse reactions.

RESULTS

The anesthesia recovery and tracheal extubation time in group B were shorter than those in group A (P<0.05). After 10-minutes of spontaneous breathing, PaO₂ and SaO₂ in group B were higher than those in group A (P<0.05), and PaCO₂ was lower (P<0.05); compared with group A. The incidence of adverse reactions and the levels of inflammatory factors in group B were lower than those in group A after operation (both P<0.05). The quality of life of patients in group B after operation was better than that in group A (P<0.05). There was no marked difference in VAS scores between groups.

CONCLUSION

Etomidate has better anesthetic effect than propofol in lung adenocarcinoma resection, leading to better stabilization of the vital signs of patients and it also has higher safety.

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.

Effect of butorphanol on etomidate-induced myoclonus: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective: To evaluate the effect of butorphanol on the prevention of myoclonus induced by etomidate.

Materials and methods: We searched the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases to collect relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effect of butorphanol on etomidate-induced myoclonus in January 2019 without any language restrictions. The primary outcome was the incidence of etomidate-induced myoclonus. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of myoclonus at various degrees and the incidence of adverse effects. Risk ratios (RRs) were calculated for binary outcomes. All statistical analysis were performed by using RevMan 5.3 software.

Results: We identified 6 RCTs involving a total of 608 patients who reported the incidence of etomidate-induced myoclonus. In pooled analyses, the incidence of etomidate-induced myoclonus in the butorphanol group was significantly lower than that in the control group (RR =0.15, 95% CI [0.10, 0.22], P<0.00001). Subgroup analyses showed that butorphanol significantly decreased the numbers of patients with mild myoclonus (RR =0.41, 95% CI [0.25, 0.68], P=0.0005), moderate myoclonus (RR =0.18, 95% CI [0.09, 0.34], P<0.00001), and severe myoclonus (RR =0.04, 95% CI [0.01, 0.10], P<0.00001). Additionally, butorphanol did not increase the incidence of postoperative nausea/vomiting (RR =3.0, 95% CI [0.32, 28.42], P=0.34) or dizziness (RR =6.79, 95% CI [0.84, 54.84], P=0.07) associated with etomidate.

Conclusion: Our findings suggest that butorphanol can effectively prevent the incidence of etomidate-induced myoclonus and alleviate the intensity of etomidate-induced myoclonus, without inducing postoperative nausea/vomiting and dizziness.

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.

Etomidate and propylene glycol activate nociceptive TRP ion channels

BACKGROUND

Etomidate is a preferred drug for the induction of general anesthesia in cardiovascular risk patients. As with propofol and other perioperatively used anesthetics, the application of aqueous etomidate formulations causes an intensive burning pain upon injection. Such algogenic properties of etomidate have been attributed to the solubilizer propylene glycol which represents 35% of the solution administered clinically. The aim of this study was to investigate the underlying molecular mechanisms which lead to injection pain of aqueous etomidate formulations.

RESULTS

Activation of the nociceptive transient receptor potential (TRP) ion channels TRPA1 and TRPV1 was studied in a transfected HEK293t cell line by whole-cell voltage clamp recordings of induced inward ion currents. Calcium influx in sensory neurons of wild-type and trp knockout mice was ratiometrically measured by Fura2-AM staining. Stimulated calcitonin gene-related peptide release from mouse sciatic nerves was detected by enzyme immunoassay. Painfulness of different etomidate formulations was tested in a translational human pain model. Etomidate as well as propylene glycol proved to be effective agonists of TRPA1 and TRPV1 ion channels at clinically relevant concentrations. Etomidate consistently activated TRPA1, but there was also evidence for a contribution of TRPV1 in dependence of drug concentration ranges and species specificities. Distinct N-terminal cysteine and lysine residues seemed to mediate gating of TRPA1, although the electrophile scavenger N-acetyl-L-cysteine did not prevent its activation by etomidate. Propylene glycol-induced activation of TRPA1 and TRPV1 appeared independent of the concomitant high osmolarity. Intradermal injections of etomidate as well as propylene glycol evoked severe burning pain in the human pain model that was absent with emulsification of etomidate.

CONCLUSIONS

Data in our study provided evidence that pain upon injection of clinical aqueous etomidate formulations is not an unspecific effect of hyperosmolarity but rather due to a specific action mediated by activated nociceptive TRPA1 and TRPV1 ion channels in sensory neurons.

Effects of transcutaneous acupoint electrical stimulation combined with low-dose sufentanil pretreatment on the incidence and severity of etomidate-induced myoclonus: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Myoclonus is an undesirable phenomenon that occurs after induction of general anesthesia using etomidate. Opioids such as sufentanil are considered effective pretreatment drugs for myoclonus inhibition, although high doses are required. Transcutaneous acupoint electrical stimulation (TAES), a noninvasive technique involving electrical stimulation of the skin at the acupuncture points, exhibits analgesic effects, promotes anesthetic effects, decreases the dose of anesthetic drugs, and increases endogenous opioid peptide levels. In the present study, we investigated the effects of TAES combined with low-dose sufentanil pretreatment on the incidence and severity of etomidate-induced myoclonus in patients undergoing elective hysteroscopy.

METHODS

In a double-blind manner, 172 patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists class I-II; age, 20-55 years) scheduled to undergo elective hysteroscopy were randomized into the following groups (n = 43 each): control (false TAES followed by saline injection after 30 min), TAES (TAES followed by saline injection after 30 minutes), sufentanil [false TAES followed by low-dose sufentanil (0.1 μg/kg) injection after 30 minutes], and sufentanil plus TAES (TAES followed by low-dose sufentanil injection after 30 minutes). In all groups, general anesthesia was induced by etomidate 0.3 mg/kg after sufentanil or saline injection. The incidence and severity of myoclonus were assessed for 2 minutes after etomidate administration. The visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for pain at 1 hour after surgery were recorded. The heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and peripheral capillary oxygen saturation (SPO2) were recorded before premedication, after etomidate injection, after uterus expansion, and after recovery from anesthesia.

RESULTS

The incidence of myoclonus was highest in the control group (88.3%), followed by TAES (74.4%), sufentanil (60.4%), and TAES plus sufentanil (48.8%) groups. Thus, the incidence was significantly higher in the control and TAES groups than in the sufentanil and TAES plus sufentanil groups. Grade 3 myoclonus occurred in 30.2%, 9.3%, 11.6%, and 9.3% patients in the control, TAES, sufentanil, and TAES plus sufentanil groups, respectively, with significant differences between the control group and the other 3 groups. Furthermore, the postoperative VAS scores for pain were significantly lower in the TAES, sufentanil, and TAES plus sufentanil groups compared with those in the control group. There were no significant differences in any other parameters among groups.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that TAES combined with low-dose opioids such as sufentanil can decrease the incidence and severity of etomidate-induced myoclonus.

Anesthesia in the Electrophysiology Laboratory

The electrophysiology suite is a foreign location to many anesthesiologists. The initial experience was with shorter procedures under conscious sedation, and the value of greater tailoring of the sedation/anesthesia by anesthesiologists was not perceived until practice patterns had already been established. Although better control of ventilation with general anesthesia may be expected, suppression of arrhythmias, blunting of the hemodynamic adaptation to induced arrhythmias, and interference by muscle relaxants with identification of the phrenic nerve may be seen. We review a range of electrophysiology procedures and discuss anesthetic approaches that balance patient safety and favorable outcomes.

Comparison of ketamine/propofol (ketofol) and etomidate/fentanyl (etofen) combinations for procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department: An observational study

OBJECTIVES

The primary aim of this study was to report the vital signs, hemodynamic parameters and pain scores of the patients who have received procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) with either ketofol (combination of ketamine and propofol) or etofen (combination of etomidate and fentanyl) and compare the proportion of patients with airway or respiratory adverse events (AEs) requiring an intervention and calculate the relative risk of AEs with each combination.

METHODS

This study is a prospective observational study with survey analysis. All patients received procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) with either ketofol (combination of ketamine and propofol) or etofen (combination of etomidate and fentanyl) were prospectively observed. Vital and hemodynamic parameters and pain scores of the patients were recorded by automated equipment and visual analog scale (VAS) charts.

RESULTS

112 patients were enrolled, 55 received ketofol and 57 received etofen. All patients with a respiratory AE (n = 27) observed to receive a respiratory intervention. Respiratory AE rate and proportion of patient who required a respiratory intervention were significantly higher with ketofol (p = 0.0029). Overall AE rate, and rates of desaturation, emergence reaction were also significantly higher in ketofol group.

CONCLUSION

Etofen is a promising combination for the PSA of adult patients with lower respiratory AE and intervention rates and with better hemodynamic profile.