Division of Pediatric Cardiology, Pediatric Heart Center, Department of Surgery, University Children's Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Children's Research Center, University Children's Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2022 Sep;45(9):1009-1014. doi: 10.1111/pace.14566. Epub 2022 Jul 25.
In children, invasive electrophysiological studies (EPS) and radiofrequency catheter ablations (RFA) of supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) are often performed under general anesthesia. Atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia (AVNRT) and ectopic atrial tachycardia (EAT) must be inducible during EPS as reliable diagnosis and subsequent therapy are not possible in sinus rhythm. This study aims to assess the problem of noninducible AVNRT and EAT under general anesthesia.
Anesthesia protocols of 166 patients undergoing EPS were retrospectively analyzed. 122 AVNRT patients were compared to 22 whose tachycardia was not inducible but probably due to an AVNRT mechanism. Another 16 patients with inducible EAT were compared to 6 whose EAT appeared on surface ECG but not during EPS. Demographic characteristics were similar among all groups. Inducibility did not differ (p = .42) between AVNRT patients with inhalational anesthesia (sevoflurane and/or nitrous oxide) and patients with intravenous anesthesia (propofol with/without remifentanil). The EAT group exhibited lower inducibility under intravenous anesthesia (64%) than under inhalational (88%), however without significance (p = .35).
Tachycardia induction succeeds with similar frequency under both inhalational and intravenous general anesthesia in children with AVNRT. In children with EAT, inhalational anesthesia is associated with a trend towards better inducibility.
在儿童中,常采用全身麻醉进行侵袭性电生理研究(EPS)和射频导管消融(RFA)治疗室上性心动过速(SVT)。房室结折返性心动过速(AVNRT)和异位性房性心动过速(EAT)必须在 EPS 中诱发,因为在窦性心律下无法进行可靠的诊断和后续治疗。本研究旨在评估全身麻醉下 AVNRT 和 EAT 不可诱导的问题。
回顾性分析了 166 例行 EPS 的患者的麻醉方案。将 122 例 AVNRT 患者与 22 例心动过速不可诱导但可能为 AVNRT 机制的患者进行比较。另外,将 16 例可诱导的 EAT 患者与 6 例体表心电图上可见但 EPS 中不可见的 EAT 患者进行比较。所有组间的人口统计学特征相似。在吸入麻醉(七氟醚和/或氧化亚氮)和静脉麻醉(丙泊酚加/不加瑞芬太尼)的 AVNRT 患者中,诱导成功率无差异(p=0.42)。然而,EAT 组在静脉麻醉(64%)下的诱导成功率低于吸入麻醉(88%),但无统计学意义(p=0.35)。
在儿童 AVNRT 患者中,全身麻醉无论是吸入性还是静脉性,诱导心动过速的成功率相似。在 EAT 儿童中,吸入性麻醉与更好的诱导成功率相关。