Parlak Mine, Parlak Ismet, Erdur Bulent, Ergin Ahmet, Sagiroglu Emel
Department of Anesthesiology, Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir, Turkey.
Acad Emerg Med. 2006 May;13(5):493-9. doi: 10.1197/j.aem.2005.12.013. Epub 2006 Mar 28.
Cardioversion (CV), a painful procedure, requires sedation and analgesia. Although several sedation agents currently are in use for CV, data on age-specific efficacy and side effects of midazolam and propofol have been limited.
To compare the efficacy and side effects of midazolam and propofol in patients of two different age groups, younger than 65 years and 65 years and over, who were going through CV.
Seventy consented patients with CV indications caused by atrial fibrillation were included in this clinical trial. The participants were placed into four groups by using a stratified randomization method: patients aged younger than 65 years who were receiving midazolam (n = 12) or propofol (n = 11) and patients 65 years and over who were receiving midazolam (n = 25) or propofol (n = 22). Medications were administered by slow intermittent bolus injections. During CV, time to reach Ramsay Sedation Scale level 5 (RSS-5; induction time); time to reach RSS-2 (recovery time); and side effects including desaturation, apnea, and changes in hemodynamic parameters were recorded by a person blinded to the patient treatment allocation.
Mean induction time was similar in all four groups. Mean recovery time (min +/- SD) was shorter in both propofol groups when compared with both midazolam groups: 18.8 (+/- 4.06) and 40.33 (+/- 20.8) in the group younger than 65 years and 18.2 (+/- 5.12) and 54.2 (+/- 20.85) in the group 65 years or older, respectively (p < 0.001). Older participants in each medication group needed less medication than younger patients. There were no hemodynamic differences between the groups. Desaturation was higher in both midazolam groups as compared with individuals in the age-matched propofol groups (both p < 0.05). Patient reactions were less in propofol groups with similar joules during CV procedures than were those in the midazolam groups.
Propofol appears to be a better choice for CV sedation in elders because of its short recovery time, fewer side effects, and its more comfortable sedative effect.
心脏复律(CV)是一种痛苦的操作,需要镇静和镇痛。尽管目前有几种镇静剂用于心脏复律,但关于咪达唑仑和丙泊酚特定年龄的疗效和副作用的数据有限。
比较咪达唑仑和丙泊酚在两个不同年龄组(65岁以下和65岁及以上)接受心脏复律患者中的疗效和副作用。
本临床试验纳入了70例因房颤而有心脏复律指征且已签署知情同意书的患者。采用分层随机化方法将参与者分为四组:65岁以下接受咪达唑仑治疗的患者(n = 12)或丙泊酚治疗的患者(n = 11),以及65岁及以上接受咪达唑仑治疗的患者(n = 25)或丙泊酚治疗的患者(n = 22)。通过缓慢间歇性推注给药。在心脏复律期间,由对患者治疗分配不知情的人员记录达到拉姆齐镇静评分5级(RSS - 5;诱导时间)的时间、达到RSS - 2级(恢复时间)的时间,以及包括血氧饱和度下降、呼吸暂停和血流动力学参数变化在内的副作用。
所有四组的平均诱导时间相似。与两个咪达唑仑组相比,两个丙泊酚组的平均恢复时间(分钟±标准差)均较短:65岁以下组分别为18.8(±4.06)和40.33(±20.8),65岁及以上组分别为18.2(±5.12)和54.2(±20.85)(p < 0.001)。各药物组中年龄较大的参与者所需药物量少于年轻患者。各组之间血流动力学无差异。与年龄匹配的丙泊酚组个体相比,两个咪达唑仑组的血氧饱和度下降情况更严重(p均< 0.05)。在心脏复律过程中,能量相似时丙泊酚组患者的反应比咪达唑仑组少。
丙泊酚似乎是老年人心脏复律镇静的更好选择,因为其恢复时间短、副作用少且镇静效果更舒适。