Peri-procedural anesthesia and patient pain experience in pulmonary vein isolation by means of very high-power short-duration radiofrequency ablation.

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Poggi Sara, Strisciuglio Teresa, Iuliano Assunta, Spiniello Giorgio, Schillaci Vincenzo, Arestia Alberto, Shopova Gergana, Salito Armando Mariano, Marano Giovanni, La Rocca Vincenzo, Agresta Alessia, Ricciolino Riccardo, Cosimo Damiano Di Candia, Tommaso Infusino, Marco Micillo, De Simone Antonio, Solimene Francesco, Stabile Giuseppe
{"title":"Peri-procedural anesthesia and patient pain experience in pulmonary vein isolation by means of very high-power short-duration radiofrequency ablation.","authors":"Poggi Sara, Strisciuglio Teresa, Iuliano Assunta, Spiniello Giorgio, Schillaci Vincenzo, Arestia Alberto, Shopova Gergana, Salito Armando Mariano, Marano Giovanni, La Rocca Vincenzo, Agresta Alessia, Ricciolino Riccardo, Cosimo Damiano Di Candia, Tommaso Infusino, Marco Micillo, De Simone Antonio, Solimene Francesco, Stabile Giuseppe","doi":"10.1007/s10840-024-01913-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Very high-power short-duration (vHPSD) temperature-controlled radiofrequency ablation (vHPSD) may reduce ablation times and improve patient tolerability, permitting pulmonary vein (PV) isolation under mild conscious sedation. We evaluated of the anesthetic drugs use and patients' pain experience during vHPSD PV isolation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Fifty-eight patients, with paroxysmal and persistent atrial fibrillation (AF), treated with QDot Micro catheter and vHPSD (90 w for 4 s) (vHPSD group), were compared with the last 33 patients treated with a surround flow contact force-sensing catheter guided by the ablation index (450 anteriorly at 50 W, 330 posteriorly at 40 W) (AI group). Anesthetic drugs use was compared as well as pain experience, measured using a 0-10 scale.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All PVs were acutely isolated. Procedural time (78 ± 10 min vs 84 ± 12 min, p = 0.012), fluoroscopy time (369 ± 139 s vs 441 ± 172 s, p = 0.03), and RF time in the vHPSD group (8.3 ± 2.1 min) were shorter than in the AI group (25 ± 11 min, p < 0.001). Only 4 patients experienced an access site-related vascular complication (groin hematoma). Midazolam was required in 36 (62%) vHPSD group patients vs 31 (94%) AI group patients (p < 0.001). Fentanyl was required in 4 (7%) vHPSD group patients vs 25 (76%) AI group patients (p < 0.001). No patients required general anesthesia. Twenty-two (38%) vHPSD group patients underwent PV isolation without any anesthetic drug. Pain experience was significantly lower in vHPSD group (4.9 ± 2 vs 6.6 ± 1.8, p < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>vHPSD radiofrequency ablation for PVI can be performed under conscious sedation using only benzodiazepine in most of patients without compromising patient pain experience.</p>","PeriodicalId":16202,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10840-024-01913-9","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Very high-power short-duration (vHPSD) temperature-controlled radiofrequency ablation (vHPSD) may reduce ablation times and improve patient tolerability, permitting pulmonary vein (PV) isolation under mild conscious sedation. We evaluated of the anesthetic drugs use and patients' pain experience during vHPSD PV isolation.

Methods: Fifty-eight patients, with paroxysmal and persistent atrial fibrillation (AF), treated with QDot Micro catheter and vHPSD (90 w for 4 s) (vHPSD group), were compared with the last 33 patients treated with a surround flow contact force-sensing catheter guided by the ablation index (450 anteriorly at 50 W, 330 posteriorly at 40 W) (AI group). Anesthetic drugs use was compared as well as pain experience, measured using a 0-10 scale.

Results: All PVs were acutely isolated. Procedural time (78 ± 10 min vs 84 ± 12 min, p = 0.012), fluoroscopy time (369 ± 139 s vs 441 ± 172 s, p = 0.03), and RF time in the vHPSD group (8.3 ± 2.1 min) were shorter than in the AI group (25 ± 11 min, p < 0.001). Only 4 patients experienced an access site-related vascular complication (groin hematoma). Midazolam was required in 36 (62%) vHPSD group patients vs 31 (94%) AI group patients (p < 0.001). Fentanyl was required in 4 (7%) vHPSD group patients vs 25 (76%) AI group patients (p < 0.001). No patients required general anesthesia. Twenty-two (38%) vHPSD group patients underwent PV isolation without any anesthetic drug. Pain experience was significantly lower in vHPSD group (4.9 ± 2 vs 6.6 ± 1.8, p < 0.001).

Conclusions: vHPSD radiofrequency ablation for PVI can be performed under conscious sedation using only benzodiazepine in most of patients without compromising patient pain experience.

Abstract Image

通过超高功率短时射频消融术隔离肺静脉的围手术期麻醉和患者疼痛体验。
背景:极高功率短持续时间(vHPSD)温控射频消融术(vHPSD)可缩短消融时间并改善患者耐受性,允许在轻度清醒镇静状态下进行肺静脉(PV)隔离。我们对 vHPSD 肺静脉隔离术中麻醉药物的使用和患者的疼痛体验进行了评估:58名阵发性和持续性心房颤动(房颤)患者接受了QDot Micro导管和vHPSD(90瓦,4秒)治疗(vHPSD组),并与最后33名接受消融指数引导的环流接触力感应导管(前方450,50瓦,后方330,40瓦)治疗的患者(AI组)进行了比较。对麻醉药物的使用以及疼痛体验进行了比较,疼痛体验采用 0-10 级评分:结果:所有上皮细胞均被急性分离。vHPSD 组的手术时间(78 ± 10 分钟 vs 84 ± 12 分钟,P = 0.012)、透视时间(369 ± 139 秒 vs 441 ± 172 秒,P = 0.03)和射频时间(8.3 ± 2.1 分钟)均短于 AI 组(25 ± 11 分钟,P = 0.012)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
11.10%
发文量
320
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology is an international publication devoted to fostering research in and development of interventional techniques and therapies for the management of cardiac arrhythmias. It is designed primarily to present original research studies and scholarly scientific reviews of basic and applied science and clinical research in this field. The Journal will adopt a multidisciplinary approach to link physical, experimental, and clinical sciences as applied to the development of and practice in interventional electrophysiology. The Journal will examine techniques ranging from molecular, chemical and pharmacologic therapies to device and ablation technology. Accordingly, original research in clinical, epidemiologic and basic science arenas will be considered for publication. Applied engineering or physical science studies pertaining to interventional electrophysiology will be encouraged. The Journal is committed to providing comprehensive and detailed treatment of major interventional therapies and innovative techniques in a structured and clinically relevant manner. It is directed at clinical practitioners and investigators in the rapidly growing field of interventional electrophysiology. The editorial staff and board reflect this bias and include noted international experts in this area with a wealth of expertise in basic and clinical investigation. Peer review of all submissions, conflict of interest guidelines and periodic editorial board review of all Journal policies have been established.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信