Suppr超能文献

心内科医生行深度镇静在电复律中的应用:安全性和有效性。

Safety and efficacy of a cardiologist-only approach to deep sedation for electrical cardioversion.

机构信息

Department of Cardiology, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata Verona, Verona, Italy.

出版信息

J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown). 2019 Jan;20(1):16-22. doi: 10.2459/JCM.0000000000000731.

Abstract

AIMS

Electrical cardioversion is still the preferred method to restore sinus rhythm in patients with atrial fibrillation. The main disadvantage is that electrical cardioversion requires deep sedation, generally administered by anaesthesiologists, for safety concern. An exclusively cardiologic management of deep sedation should have the advantage to reduce resources and time consumed.

METHODS

All consecutive patients admitted to our division with persistent atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter to undergo elective electrical cardioversion from June 2002 to December 2016 were included. The sedation protocol was managed only by cardiologists and involved the administration of a 5-mg bolus of midazolam, followed by increasing doses of propofol to achieve the desired sedation level. Exclusion criteria were strictly observed. Complications were recorded. A retrospective analysis on a deidentified database has been performed.

RESULTS

A total of 1188 electrical cardioversions were scheduled in our centre. A total of 1195 patients were scheduled in our centre, of whom 1188 met inclusion criteria. Electrical cardioversion was performed in 1073 cases (90.3%). Electrical cardioversion was successful in restoring sinus rhythm in 1030 (96.0%) patients. Immediate recurrence of atrial fibrillation occurred in 89 patients (8.3%). 99/1073 (9.22%) patients underwent trans-oesophagel echocardiography before cardioversion. Deep sedation, according to our protocol, was effective in 100% of cases. Midazolam was administered at a dosage of 5 mg to all patients, while propofol was administered at a dosage ranging from 20 to 80 mg (25.1 ± 11.0 mg SD). No anaesthesia-related complications were observed, neither significant respiratory depression requiring intubation nor anaesthesiologist support.

CONCLUSION

The exclusively cardiological procedure of deep sedation seems to be safe and effective.

摘要

目的

电复律仍然是恢复心房颤动患者窦性节律的首选方法。主要缺点是电复律需要深度镇静,出于安全考虑,通常由麻醉师给予。专门的心脏病学管理深度镇静应该具有减少资源和时间消耗的优势。

方法

纳入 2002 年 6 月至 2016 年 12 月期间因持续性心房颤动或心房扑动而接受择期电复律的我院心内科连续住院患者。镇静方案仅由心脏病专家管理,包括给予 5mg 咪达唑仑推注,然后增加丙泊酚剂量以达到所需的镇静水平。严格遵守排除标准。记录并发症。对一个去识别数据库进行了回顾性分析。

结果

共计划在我院进行 1188 次电复律。共计划在我院进行 1195 次电复律,其中 1188 次符合纳入标准。在 1073 例患者中进行了电复律(90.3%)。在 1030 例(96.0%)患者中成功恢复窦性节律。89 例(8.3%)患者立即复发心房颤动。99/1073(9.22%)例患者在电复律前进行经食管超声心动图检查。根据我们的方案,深度镇静在 100%的病例中有效。所有患者均给予 5mg 咪达唑仑,丙泊酚剂量为 20 至 80mg(25.1±11.0mg SD)。未观察到与麻醉相关的并发症,既没有需要插管的明显呼吸抑制,也不需要麻醉师的支持。

结论

专门的心脏病学深度镇静程序似乎是安全有效的。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验