Desai Pushkar M, Kane Deepa, Sarkar Manjula S
Department of Anesthesiology, Seth GSMC and KEM Hospital, Parel, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
Ann Card Anaesth. 2015 Jul-Sep;18(3):306-11. doi: 10.4103/0971-9784.159798.
Electrical cardioversion is a short painful procedure to regain normal sinus rhythm requiring anaesthesia for haemodynamic stability, sedation, analgesia and early recovery.
To compare propofol and etomidate as sedatives during cardioversion.
Single centred, prospective and randomized single blind study comprising 60 patients.
Patients more than 18 years, American Society of Anesthesiologists I/II/III grades undergoing elective cardioversion, randomly divided to receive propofol 1 mg/kg intravenous (IV) bolus followed by 0.5 mg/kg (Group P, n = 30) or etomidate (Group E, n = 30) 0.1 mg/kg followed by 0.05 mg/kg. All patients received IV fentanyl (1 μg/kg) before procedure. Heart rate, blood pressure (BP) (systolic BP [SBP], diastolic BP [DBP], mean arterial pressure), respiratory rate, Aldrete recovery score (ARS) and Ramsay sedation score (RSS) were assessed at 1, 2, 5, 10, 15, 20 and 30 min post cardioversion. Incidence of hypotension, respiratory depression and side effects were compared.
Student's unpaired t-test, Chi-square test and Mann-Whitney test. P < 0.05 was taken as significant.
Group P showed significant fall in SBP, DBP, and mean BP at 2 min after cardioversion. Hypotension (33.3% Group P vs. 16.65% Group E) occurred more with propofol (P < 0.05). Group E showed better ARS at 1, 2, 5, 10, 15 and 20 min. Time required to attain RSS = 2 (659.1 s Group P and 435.7 s Group E) indicated longer recovery with propofol. Left atrial size (35.5-42.5 mm) did not affect success rate of cardioversion (80% Group P vs. 83.3% Group E). Incidence of myoclonus (Group E 26.67% vs. Group P 0%) showed significant difference.
Etomidate/fentanyl is superior over propofol/fentanyl during cardioversion for quick recovery and haemodynamic stability.
电复律是一种短暂的痛苦操作,旨在恢复正常窦性心律,需要麻醉以维持血流动力学稳定、镇静、镇痛并促进早期恢复。
比较丙泊酚和依托咪酯作为电复律期间的镇静剂效果。
单中心、前瞻性、随机单盲研究,纳入60例患者。
年龄超过18岁、美国麻醉医师协会I/II/III级的择期电复律患者,随机分为两组,分别静脉注射丙泊酚1mg/kg负荷剂量,随后0.5mg/kg(P组,n = 30),或依托咪酯0.1mg/kg负荷剂量,随后0.05mg/kg(E组,n = 30)。所有患者在操作前均静脉注射芬太尼(1μg/kg)。在电复律后1、2、5、10、15、20和30分钟评估心率、血压(收缩压[SBP]、舒张压[DBP]、平均动脉压)、呼吸频率、Aldrete恢复评分(ARS)和Ramsay镇静评分(RSS)。比较低血压、呼吸抑制和副作用的发生率。
采用学生氏非配对t检验、卡方检验和曼-惠特尼检验。P < 0.05为有统计学意义。
P组在电复律后2分钟时SBP、DBP和平均血压显著下降。丙泊酚组低血压发生率更高(P组33.3% vs. E组16.65%,P < 0.05)。E组在1、2、5、10、15和20分钟时ARS更好。达到RSS = 2所需时间(P组659.1秒,E组4,35.7秒)表明丙泊酚恢复时间更长。左心房大小(35.5 - 42.5mm)不影响电复律成功率(P组80% vs. E组83.3%)。肌阵挛发生率(E组26.67% vs. P组0%)有显著差异。
在电复律过程中,依托咪酯/芬太尼在快速恢复和血流动力学稳定性方面优于丙泊酚/芬太尼。