Sanghai Saket, Abbott Nicholas J, Dewland Thomas A, Henrikson Charles A, Elman Miriam R, Wollenberg Michael, Ivie Ryan, Gonzalez-Sotomayor Julio, Nazer Babak
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.
JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2021 Apr;7(4):452-460. doi: 10.1016/j.jacep.2020.09.032. Epub 2020 Dec 24.
This study sought to compare the efficacy and safety of single-injection stellate ganglion block (SGB) with a novel continuous-infusion SGB procedure.
SGB for ventricular arrhythmia (VA) storm is typically performed with a single injection of local anesthetic agents.
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.
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.
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.
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。
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。
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。
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。
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。