These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Propofol sedation administered by cardiologists without assisted ventilation for long cardiac interventions: an assessment of 1000 consecutive patients undergoing atrial fibrillation ablation.
    Author: Salukhe TV, Willems S, Drewitz I, Steven D, Hoffmann BA, Heitmann K, Rostock T.
    Journal: Europace; 2012 Mar; 14(3):325-30. PubMed ID: 22024600.
    Abstract:
    AIMS: Patients can expect a cure from atrial fibrillation (AF) with ablation. Procedural safety and success depend on patient comfort, compliance, and immobility. This is difficult to achieve with benzodiazepine and opiate boluses that are the mainstay of current practice. We sought to determine the safety and efficacy of propofol infusion sedation administered to patients without assisted ventilation for AF ablation. METHODS AND RESULTS: Procedural data from 1000 consecutive patients undergoing AF ablation were analysed. Sedation with 2% propofol was used in all procedures without assisted ventilation and was administered, monitored, and controlled by electrophysiologists. Primary outcome measures were adverse sedative affects including (i) respiratory depression (SpO(2)< 90% for >20 s) and (ii) persistent hypotension [systolic blood pressure (SBP)<90 mmHg at minimum sedation level]. Secondary endpoints included full recovery within 60 min and procedural complications. Of 1000 ablations, 506 ablations were performed for persistent and 494 for paroxysmal AF. Average patient age was 60.1 ± 11.3 years (72.3% male). Propofol was commenced in all patients at a mean infusion rate of 18.5 ± 4.8 mL/h with a mean baseline SBP of 140.3 ± 19.9 mmHg. Mean procedure time was 148.7 ± 57.7 min. Adverse sedative effects necessitating cessation of propofol and switch to midazolam bolus sedation occurred in 15.6% of patients (13.6% due to persistent hypotension, 1.9% due to respiratory depression, and 0.1% due to hypersalivation). Patients who had persistent hypotension were older (62.9 ± 11.2 vs. 60.0 ± 11.4 years, P= 0.011) and more likely to be female (39.5 vs. 23.7%, P< 0.001) than those who tolerated propofol. Patient age correlated to maximum blood pressure drop with propofol (R(2)= 0.101, P< 0.001) and inversely correlated to mean propofol infusion rate (R(2)= 0.066, P< 0.001). No procedures were abandoned due to adverse effects of sedation. All patients recovered within 60 min. Serious procedural complications, unrelated to sedation, occurred in 0.5%, all of whom had pericardial tamponade successfully treated with percutaneous pericardiocentesis. CONCLUSIONS: Sedation with 2% propofol infusion administered by cardiologists without assisted ventilation is safe, effective, and practical for use in AF ablation without serious or residual complications. In this setting, persistent hypotension is the most common acute adverse effect requiring cessation of propofol in ∼14%.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]