Servatius, Helge; Küffer, Thomas; Erdoes, Gabor; Seiler, Jens; Tanner, Hildegard; Noti, Fabian; Häberlin, Andreas; Madaffari, Antonio; Branca, Mattia; Dütschler, Sophie; Theiler, Lorenz; Reichlin, Tobias; Roten, Laurent (2024). Electrophysiological differences of randomized deep sedation with dexmedetomidine versus propofol. BMC anesthesiology, 24(1), p. 263. BioMed Central 10.1186/s12871-024-02647-x
|
Text
s12871-024-02647-x.pdf - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons: Attribution (CC-BY). Download (811kB) | Preview |
BACKGROUND
Dexmedetomidine and propofol are common sedatives in intensive care units and for interventional procedures. Both may compromise sinus node function and atrioventricular conduction. The objective of this prospective, randomized study is to compare the effect of dexmedetomidine with propofol on sinus node function and atrioventricular conduction.
METHODS
In a tertiary care center in Switzerland we included from September 2019 to October 2020 160 patients (65 ± 11 years old; 32% female) undergoing first ablation for atrial fibrillation by cryoballoon ablation or by radiofrequency ablation. Patients were randomly assigned to deep sedation with dexmedetomidine (DEX group) versus propofol (PRO group). A standard electrophysiological study was performed after pulmonary vein isolation with the patients still deeply sedated and hemodynamically stable.
RESULTS
Eighty patients each were randomized to the DEX and PRO group. DEX group patients had higher baseline sinus cycle length (1022 vs. 1138 ms; p = 0.003) and longer sinus node recovery time (SNRT400; 1597 vs. 1412 ms; p = 0.042). However, both corrected SNRT and normalized SNRT did not differ. DEX group patients had longer PR interval (207 vs. 186 ms; p = 0.002) and AH interval (111 vs. 95 ms, p = 0.008), longer Wenckebach cycle length of the atrioventricular node (512 vs. 456 ms; p = 0.005), and longer atrioventricular node effective refractory period (390 vs. 344 ms; p = 0.009). QRS width and HV interval were not different. An arrhythmia, mainly atrial fibrillation, was induced in 33 patients during the electrophysiological study, without differences among groups (20% vs. 15%, p = 0.533).
CONCLUSIONS
Dexmedetomidine has a more pronounced slowing effect on sinus rate and suprahissian AV conduction than propofol, but not on infrahissian AV conduction and ventricular repolarization. These differences need to be taken into account when using these sedatives.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT03844841, 19/02/2019.
Actions (login required)
 |
Edit item |