Department of Anesthesiology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ 85054, USA.
J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2011 Aug;25(4):647-59. doi: 10.1053/j.jvca.2010.11.006. Epub 2011 Jan 19.
To investigate sedation and anesthesia trends and practice patterns for procedures in the cardiac electrophysiology laboratory (EPL).
A survey distributed by e-mail.
US teaching hospitals with a training program in cardiac electrophysiology.
Cardiologists involved in procedures in the electrophysiology laboratory of academic electrophysiology programs.
A survey was e-mailed to the selected programs. The survey questions included the use of anesthesia professional (MD/CRNA) and nonanesthesia professional (RN) services, medications administered, commonly performed airway interventions, satisfaction with anesthesia services, and reasons that anesthesia professionals are not used when RNs administer sedation.
Of the 95 academic electrophysiology programs surveyed, there were 38 responses (40%). The majority (71%) of respondents used a combined model of care with both anesthesia professional care and nonanesthesia professional (RN) sedation, although there were EPLs that had exclusively anesthesia professional (n = 6) and exclusively nonanesthesia professional coverage (n = 5); 26.3% of respondents answered that care by an anesthesia professional was warranted most (>50%) of the time regardless of their current care model. The main reasons cited for having RN-administered sedation were the lack of availability of anesthesia professionals, difficulty with scheduling, and increased operating room suite turnover times. Programs using exclusively RN sedation (13%) reported all levels of anesthesia including general anesthesia (patient unarousable to repeated deep stimulation).
This survey suggested that sedation for EPL procedures was sometimes allowed to progress to deep sedation and general anesthesia and that selection of anesthesia provider frequently was made based on availability, operating room efficiency, and economic reasons before patient safety issues. The implications of the survey must be explored further in a larger-scale sample population before more definitive statements can be made, but results suggested that sedation in the EPL is an area that would benefit from updated guidelines specific to the current practice as well as attention from the anesthesia community to address the deficiency in provision of anesthesia care.
调查心脏电生理实验室(EPL)程序中的镇静和麻醉趋势及实践模式。
通过电子邮件分发的调查。
在美国设有心脏电生理培训计划的教学医院。
参与学术电生理计划电生理实验室程序的心脏病专家。
向选定的计划发送了一份调查。调查问题包括使用麻醉专业人员(MD/CRNA)和非麻醉专业人员(RN)服务、使用的药物、常见的气道干预措施、对麻醉服务的满意度以及在 RN 给予镇静时不使用麻醉专业人员的原因。
在接受调查的 95 个学术电生理计划中,有 38 个(40%)做出了回应。大多数(71%)受访者采用了一种结合护理模式,既包括麻醉专业护理,也包括非麻醉专业(RN)镇静,尽管有些 EPL 仅由麻醉专业人员(n=6)或仅由非麻醉专业人员(n=5)提供服务;26.3%的受访者回答说,无论他们目前的护理模式如何,麻醉专业人员的护理都有必要(超过 50%的时间)。选择由 RN 进行镇静的主要原因是缺乏麻醉专业人员的可用性、安排困难以及手术室套房周转率增加。仅使用 RN 镇静的计划(13%)报告了所有级别的麻醉,包括全身麻醉(患者对反复深度刺激无反应)。
这项调查表明,EPL 程序的镇静有时会进展为深度镇静和全身麻醉,并且麻醉提供者的选择经常是基于可用性、手术室效率和经济原因,而不是患者安全问题。在更大规模的样本人群中进一步探索调查结果的含义之前,不能做出更明确的陈述,但结果表明,EPL 中的镇静是一个受益于更新的具体实践指南以及麻醉界关注的领域,以解决麻醉护理提供不足的问题。