Safety of ventricular tachycardia ablation under deep sedation with propofol and fentanyl.

IF 2.6
Vera Maslova, Sophie Lange, Tim Kannenberg, Augustin Uckermark, Julius Nebendahl, Arne Clüver, Sami Srouji, Yara Scherkus, Adrian Zaman, Fabian Moser, Derk Frank, Evgeny Lian
{"title":"Safety of ventricular tachycardia ablation under deep sedation with propofol and fentanyl.","authors":"Vera Maslova, Sophie Lange, Tim Kannenberg, Augustin Uckermark, Julius Nebendahl, Arne Clüver, Sami Srouji, Yara Scherkus, Adrian Zaman, Fabian Moser, Derk Frank, Evgeny Lian","doi":"10.1007/s10840-025-02081-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is no current standard of anaesthetic management for CA of VT. Data on VT ablation under deep sedation with propofol and fentanyl are limited.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of CA of VT under deep sedation with propofol and fentanyl.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data from 134 procedures in 106 patients undergoing CA for VT under sedation with propofol and fentanyl were prospectively included. Three groups were defined and compared: group 1 (no VT induction, n=36); group 2 (induction of hemodynamically unstable VT, n=42), and group 3 (induction of hemodynamically stable VT, n=56).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Median age was 64 years, 84% were male, and 97% had structural heart disease. Group 2 had a higher proportion of patients with DCM (p=0.04) and severely reduced LVEF (p=0.024). Unipolar RF ablation was performed in 95% of procedures, bipolar in 12%, and alcohol ablation in 4%. Epicardial access was utilized in 18%. Radiation dose was higher in group 2 (p=0.04), while post-ablation non-inducibility was more frequently achieved in group 3 (p=0.045). There were no cases of profound hypotension or intubation associated with sedation. CPR was performed in seven procedures due to PEA, all in group 2 (p<0.001) with ROSC achieved in all cases within 3 min. No differences were observed in complication rates or hospital stay.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>CA for VT under deep sedation with propofol and fentanyl in patients with structural heart disease is feasible and safe, irrespective of VT induction, mapping, and ablation approach. Hemodynamic instability, hypotension, and desaturation can be effectively managed.</p>","PeriodicalId":520675,"journal":{"name":"Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10840-025-02081-0","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: There is no current standard of anaesthetic management for CA of VT. Data on VT ablation under deep sedation with propofol and fentanyl are limited.

Objective: The aim was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of CA of VT under deep sedation with propofol and fentanyl.

Methods: Data from 134 procedures in 106 patients undergoing CA for VT under sedation with propofol and fentanyl were prospectively included. Three groups were defined and compared: group 1 (no VT induction, n=36); group 2 (induction of hemodynamically unstable VT, n=42), and group 3 (induction of hemodynamically stable VT, n=56).

Results: Median age was 64 years, 84% were male, and 97% had structural heart disease. Group 2 had a higher proportion of patients with DCM (p=0.04) and severely reduced LVEF (p=0.024). Unipolar RF ablation was performed in 95% of procedures, bipolar in 12%, and alcohol ablation in 4%. Epicardial access was utilized in 18%. Radiation dose was higher in group 2 (p=0.04), while post-ablation non-inducibility was more frequently achieved in group 3 (p=0.045). There were no cases of profound hypotension or intubation associated with sedation. CPR was performed in seven procedures due to PEA, all in group 2 (p<0.001) with ROSC achieved in all cases within 3 min. No differences were observed in complication rates or hospital stay.

Conclusion: CA for VT under deep sedation with propofol and fentanyl in patients with structural heart disease is feasible and safe, irrespective of VT induction, mapping, and ablation approach. Hemodynamic instability, hypotension, and desaturation can be effectively managed.

异丙酚和芬太尼深度镇静下室性心动过速消融的安全性。
背景:目前尚无关于室性心动过速CA的麻醉管理标准。关于异丙酚和芬太尼深度镇静下室性心动过速消融的数据有限。目的:评价异丙酚和芬太尼深度镇静下静脉血栓栓塞的可行性和安全性。方法:前瞻性纳入106例在异丙酚和芬太尼镇静下行房颤的134例手术的数据。将患者分为三组进行比较:第一组(无VT诱导,n=36);2组(诱导血流动力学不稳定型室速,n=42), 3组(诱导血流动力学稳定型室速,n=56)。结果:中位年龄为64岁,84%为男性,97%患有结构性心脏病。2组DCM患者比例较高(p=0.04), LVEF严重降低(p=0.024)。95%的手术采用单极射频消融,12%的手术采用双极射频消融,4%的手术采用酒精消融。18%的患者采用心外膜通路。2组放疗剂量较高(p=0.04), 3组消融后无诱导发生率较高(p=0.045)。没有发生与镇静相关的深度低血压或插管。结论:在异丙酚和芬太尼深度镇静下,结构性心脏病患者室性心动过速的CA治疗是可行和安全的,与室性心动过速诱导、定位和消融方法无关。血流动力学不稳定,低血压和去饱和可以有效地管理。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信