Suppr超能文献

持续输注与单次注射星状神经节阻滞治疗室性心律失常风暴的比较

Stellate Ganglion Blockade With Continuous Infusion Versus Single Injection for Treatment of Ventricular Arrhythmia Storm.

作者信息

Sanghai Saket, Abbott Nicholas J, Dewland Thomas A, Henrikson Charles A, Elman Miriam R, Wollenberg Michael, Ivie Ryan, Gonzalez-Sotomayor Julio, Nazer Babak

机构信息

Knight Cardiovascular Institute, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA.

Biostatistics and Design Program, Oregon Health and Science University-Portland State University School of Public Health, Portland, Oregon, USA.

出版信息

JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2021 Apr;7(4):452-460. doi: 10.1016/j.jacep.2020.09.032. Epub 2020 Dec 24.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to compare the efficacy and safety of single-injection stellate ganglion block (SGB) with a novel continuous-infusion SGB procedure.

BACKGROUND

SGB for ventricular arrhythmia (VA) storm is typically performed with a single injection of local anesthetic agents.

METHODS

Eighteen patients underwent left-sided SGB (9 single injection and 9 continuous infusion). The number of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapies and sustained VAs/24 h were compared between the pre-SGB and post-SGB periods. Adverse effects of SGB and in-hospital outcomes were also compared.

RESULTS

The mean age was 61.1 ± 13.7 years. The presenting arrhythmia was ventricular tachycardia in 13 (72%) patients, ventricular fibrillation in 4 (22%), and both in 1 (6%). Single-injection SGB reduced VA/24 h by a median of 0.3 (interquartile range: 0.2 to 0.9), which was a 45% reduction (p = 0.008), resulting in 5 of 9 patients with no recurrent VA. Continuous-infusion SGB reduced VA/24 h by a median of 2.0 (interquartile range: 1.3 to 3.0), which was a 94% reduction (p = 0.004), resulting in 7 of 9 patients with no recurrent VA (p = 0.006 for comparison with single injection). Transient left arm weakness and voice hoarseness were each noted in 1 patient in both groups. Repeat SGB was required in 4 (44%) patients in the single-injection group. In-hospital outcomes were similar between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with VA storm, SGB performed via both continuous-infusion and single-injection approaches provided significant reductions in VA burden. Compared to single-injection SGB, continuous-infusion was associated with a greater reduction in VA burden and similar adverse events, without the need for repeat procedures.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在比较单次注射星状神经节阻滞(SGB)与新型持续输注SGB方法的疗效和安全性。

背景

用于室性心律失常(VA)风暴的SGB通常通过单次注射局部麻醉剂进行。

方法

18例患者接受了左侧SGB(9例单次注射和9例持续输注)。比较了SGB术前和术后期间植入式心脏复律除颤器治疗的次数以及持续VA/24小时的情况。还比较了SGB的不良反应和住院结局。

结果

平均年龄为61.1±13.7岁。出现的心律失常在13例(72%)患者中为室性心动过速,4例(22%)为心室颤动,1例(6%)两者皆有。单次注射SGB使VA/24小时中位数减少0.3(四分位间距:0.2至0.9),即减少45%(p = 0.008),导致9例患者中有5例无复发性VA。持续输注SGB使VA/24小时中位数减少2.0(四分位间距:1.3至3.0),即减少94%(p = 0.004),导致9例患者中有7例无复发性VA(与单次注射比较,p = 0.006)。两组各有1例患者出现短暂性左臂无力和声音嘶哑。单次注射组有4例(44%)患者需要重复SGB。两组的住院结局相似。

结论

在VA风暴患者中,通过持续输注和单次注射方法进行的SGB均能显著减轻VA负担。与单次注射SGB相比,持续输注与更大程度减轻VA负担相关,且不良事件相似,无需重复操作。

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