Kezerashvili Anna, Fisher John D, DeLaney Jessica, Mushiyev Savi, Monahan Eileen, Taylor Vanessa, Kim Soo G, Ferrick Kevin J, Gross Jay N, Palma Eugen C, Krumerman Andrew K
Department of Medicine, Cardiology Division, Arrhythmia Service, Montefiore Medical Center, The Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2008 Jan;21(1):43-51. doi: 10.1007/s10840-007-9191-0. Epub 2008 Feb 14.
Primary: to determine the safety and efficacy of intravenous sedation for cardiac procedures administered by non-anesthesia personnel. Secondary: to assess cost effectiveness of such sedation.
Anesthesiologists trained non-anesthesia personnel, and established our sedation protocol, which was then used in 9,558 patients who had cardiac procedures with sedation by non-anesthesia personnel, recorded on a computerized database. Most sedation used was midazolam (MID) and morphine (MOR). Complications and problems were derived from the database and quality assurance committee records. Doses were based on desired level of sedation and procedure duration; highest dose used: MID 78 mg, MOR 84 mg.
Data included catheterization (n = 3,819) and transesophageal echo procedures (n = 260); and overall electrophysiology (n = 5,479) and selected subsets. There were complications or problems in only 9 patients (0.1%), a strong safety statement. There were 3 deaths in electrophysiology related procedures, 2 deaths in catheterization related procedures, all in very sick patients and not definitely related to sedation; 4 others developed clinical instability (hives, hypotension and heart failure-all with no sequellae), 2 of which needed reversal medications. Three patients (<0.03%) proved difficult to sedate, and their procedures were completed with help from the anesthesia department; by protocol this was not a complication. A total of $5,365,691 was saved during the last decade on cardiac procedures performed with conscious sedation.
Non-anesthesia personnel can administer intravenous sedation for cardiac procedures in cardiac settings, with safety and cost-effectiveness demonstrated over many years. Anesthesia services are still appropriate for selected cases.
主要目标:确定由非麻醉人员实施心脏手术静脉镇静的安全性和有效性。次要目标:评估此类镇静的成本效益。
麻醉医生培训非麻醉人员,并制定我们的镇静方案,该方案随后用于9558例接受心脏手术且由非麻醉人员实施镇静的患者,相关数据记录在计算机数据库中。使用的大多数镇静药物为咪达唑仑(MID)和吗啡(MOR)。并发症和问题来源于数据库及质量保证委员会记录。剂量根据所需镇静水平和手术持续时间确定;使用的最高剂量:咪达唑仑78毫克,吗啡84毫克。
数据包括导管插入术(n = 3819)和经食管超声检查(n = 260);以及总体电生理检查(n = 5479)和选定子集。仅9例患者(0.1%)出现并发症或问题,这有力地证明了安全性。在电生理相关手术中有3例死亡,导管插入术相关手术中有2例死亡,所有死亡患者病情都很重,且不一定与镇静有关;另外4例出现临床不稳定(荨麻疹、低血压和心力衰竭,均无后遗症),其中2例需要使用逆转药物。3例患者(<0.03%)难以镇静,其手术在麻醉科的帮助下完成;根据方案,这不属于并发症。在过去十年中,清醒镇静下进行的心脏手术共节省了5365691美元。
在心脏手术环境中,非麻醉人员可以实施心脏手术的静脉镇静,多年来已证明其具有安全性和成本效益。对于某些特定病例,麻醉服务仍然是合适的。