Suppr超能文献

在成本控制时代,采用清醒镇静进行心房颤动或心房扑动的电复律。

Electrical cardioversion of atrial fibrillation or flutter with conscious sedation in the age of cost containment.

作者信息

Goldner B G, Baker J, Accordino A, Sabatino L, DiGiulio M, Kalenderian D, Lin D, Zambrotta V, Stechel J, Maccaro P, Jadonath R

机构信息

Electrophysiology Section, Department of Medicine, North Shore University Hospital, Manhasset, NY, USA.

出版信息

Am Heart J. 1998 Dec;136(6):961-4. doi: 10.1016/s0002-8703(98)70150-4.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to compare the safety, efficacy, and cost of conscious sedation administered by electrophysiologists certified in the use of conscious sedation with sedation administered by anesthesiologists during cardioversion of atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter to sinus rhythm.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients with hemodynamically stable persistent atrial fibrillation and flutter were included in this study. Group 1 patients (n = 33) were sedated by an anesthesiologist and group 2 patients (n = 26) were sedated by an electrophysiologist. Anesthesiologists used propofol and electrophysiologists used midazolam and morphine for sedation. A cost analysis based on professional charges and cost of medications was performed for both groups and compared. Hospital charges were similar for both groups and were excluded from the cost analysis. Although time to sedation in group 1 was shorter than that in group 2, sedation was adequate in both groups such that no patient in group 1 and only 1 patient in group 2 recalled being shocked. There were no complications in either group. The cost incurred in group 2 was less than that in group 1.

CONCLUSIONS

Sedation administered by electrophysiologists for cardioversion of atrial arrhythmias is safe and cost effective. Midazolam and morphine, the sedative agents administered by electrophysiologists, were effective and well tolerated by patients.

摘要

背景

本研究旨在比较由经清醒镇静使用认证的电生理学家实施的清醒镇静与麻醉医生在房颤或房扑转复为窦性心律时实施的镇静在安全性、有效性和成本方面的差异。

方法与结果

本研究纳入血流动力学稳定的持续性房颤和房扑患者。第1组患者(n = 33)由麻醉医生实施镇静,第2组患者(n = 26)由电生理学家实施镇静。麻醉医生使用丙泊酚,电生理学家使用咪达唑仑和吗啡进行镇静。对两组进行了基于专业收费和药物成本的成本分析并比较。两组的医院收费相似,故未纳入成本分析。虽然第1组达到镇静的时间短于第2组,但两组的镇静效果均足够,第1组无患者、第2组仅有1例患者回忆起电击过程。两组均无并发症发生。第2组产生的成本低于第1组。

结论

电生理学家为房性心律失常转复实施的镇静是安全且具有成本效益的。电生理学家使用的镇静剂咪达唑仑和吗啡效果良好,患者耐受性佳。

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