Fox David J, Davidson Neil C, Royle Martin, Bennett David H, Clarke Bernard, Garratt Clifford J, Hall Mark C S, Zaidi Amir M, Patterson Kay, Fitzpatrick Adam P
Manchester Heart Centre, Manchester Royal Infirmary, Oxford Road, Manchester, UK.
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2007 Aug;30(8):992-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.2007.00797.x.
Implantation and testing of implantable defibrillators (ICDs) using local anesthetic and conscious sedation is widely practiced; however, some centers still use general anesthesia. We assessed safety and patient acceptability for implantation of defibrillators using local anesthetic and conscious sedation.
The records of 500 consecutive device implants from two UK cardiac centers implanted under local anesthetic and conscious sedation from January 1996 to December 2004 were reviewed. Procedure time, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) sedative dosage (midazolam), analgesic dosage (fentanyl or diamorphine), requirement for drug reversal, and respiratory support were recorded. Patient acceptability of the procedure was also assessed.
Of 500 implants examined, 387 were ICDs, 88 were biventricular ICDs, and 25 were generator changes. Patients with biventricular-ICDs had significantly longer (mean +/- SD) procedure times 129.7 +/- 7.6 minutes versus 63.3 +/- 32.3 minutes; P < 0.0001 and lower LVEF 24.4 +/- 8.4% versus 35.7 +/- 15.4%; P < 0.0001. There were no differences in the doses (mean +/- SD) of midazolam 8.9 +/- 3.5 mg versus 8.0 +/- 3.1 mg; P = NS, diamorphine 4.3 +/- 2.0 mg versus 3.8 +/- 1.7 mg; P = NS or fentanyl 94.4 +/- 53.7 mcg versus 92.2 +/- 48.6 mcg; P = NS, between the two groups. There were no deaths or tracheal intubations in either group. Acceptability was available for 373 of 500 (75%) patients, 41 of 373 (11%) described "discomfort," but from these 41 patients only 14 of 373 (3.8%) declined a second procedure under the same conditions.
Implantation of defibrillators under local anesthetic and sedation is safe and acceptable to patients. General anesthesia is no longer routinely required for implantation of defibrillators.
使用局部麻醉和清醒镇静进行植入式除颤器(ICD)的植入和测试已广泛应用;然而,一些中心仍使用全身麻醉。我们评估了使用局部麻醉和清醒镇静植入除颤器的安全性和患者可接受性。
回顾了1996年1月至2004年12月在英国两个心脏中心连续500例在局部麻醉和清醒镇静下植入设备的记录。记录手术时间、左心室射血分数(LVEF)、镇静剂剂量(咪达唑仑)、镇痛剂剂量(芬太尼或二氢吗啡酮)、药物逆转需求和呼吸支持情况。还评估了患者对该手术的可接受性。
在检查的500例植入手术中,387例为ICD,88例为双心室ICD,25例为发生器更换。双心室ICD患者的手术时间明显更长(平均±标准差),分别为129.7±7.6分钟和63.3±32.3分钟;P<0.0001,左心室射血分数更低,分别为24.4±8.4%和35.7±15.4%;P<0.0001。两组之间咪达唑仑剂量(平均±标准差)分别为8.9±3.5毫克和8.0±3.1毫克;P=无显著性差异,二氢吗啡酮剂量分别为4.3±2.0毫克和3.8±1.7毫克;P=无显著性差异,芬太尼剂量分别为94.4±53.7微克和92.2±48.6微克;P=无显著性差异。两组均无死亡或气管插管情况。500例患者中有373例(75%)可评估可接受性,373例中有41例(11%)描述有“不适”,但在这41例患者中,373例中只有14例(3.8%)拒绝在相同条件下进行第二次手术。
在局部麻醉和镇静下植入除颤器对患者来说是安全且可接受的。植入除颤器不再常规需要全身麻醉。