Comparison of Propofol and Ketamine for Sedation in Patients Undergoing Radiofrequency Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation.

IF 0.6
Şahin Yılmaz, Levent Pay, Cahit Coşkun, Koray Kalenderoğlu, Tufan Çınar, Mert İlker Hayıroğlu
{"title":"Comparison of Propofol and Ketamine for Sedation in Patients Undergoing Radiofrequency Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation.","authors":"Şahin Yılmaz, Levent Pay, Cahit Coşkun, Koray Kalenderoğlu, Tufan Çınar, Mert İlker Hayıroğlu","doi":"10.5543/tkda.2025.16377","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Catheter-based ablation is now widely recognized as a beneficial therapeutic option for managing atrial fibrillation (AF). However, the extended duration and pain associated with the procedure may cause patient movements, potentially leading to disruptions in the electro-anatomical mapping systems. Sedative and analgesic agents are used to prevent body movements and manage pain. This study aimed to conduct a comparison between the safety and effects of ketamine and propofol for deep sedation on outcomes in AF patients undergoing radiofrequency ablation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective and single-center study included 108 patients who underwent radiofrequency AF ablation under deep sedation (without intubation) in our hospital. The patients were categorized into two groups based on the anesthetic agent administered for deep sedation: the propofol group and the ketamine group. Procedure duration, success rates, and recovery times were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 108 patients, 54 were in the propofol group and 54 were in the ketamine group. The procedure durations were similar in both groups (propofol group: 135 min (120 - 145) vs. ketamine group: 140 min (120 - 155), p=0.803). The eye-opening time after the procedure was 275 seconds in the propofol group and 266 seconds in the ketamine group (p=0.530). Additionally, no significant variation was detected in the initial measurements of systolic and diastolic blood pressure or heart rate.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In conclusion, there was no significant difference between the propofol group and the ketamine group in terms of outcomes. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to assess the efficacy of ketamine and propofol in the radiofrequency AF ablation patient group.</p>","PeriodicalId":94261,"journal":{"name":"Turk Kardiyoloji Dernegi arsivi : Turk Kardiyoloji Derneginin yayin organidir","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Turk Kardiyoloji Dernegi arsivi : Turk Kardiyoloji Derneginin yayin organidir","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5543/tkda.2025.16377","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

Objective: Catheter-based ablation is now widely recognized as a beneficial therapeutic option for managing atrial fibrillation (AF). However, the extended duration and pain associated with the procedure may cause patient movements, potentially leading to disruptions in the electro-anatomical mapping systems. Sedative and analgesic agents are used to prevent body movements and manage pain. This study aimed to conduct a comparison between the safety and effects of ketamine and propofol for deep sedation on outcomes in AF patients undergoing radiofrequency ablation.

Methods: This retrospective and single-center study included 108 patients who underwent radiofrequency AF ablation under deep sedation (without intubation) in our hospital. The patients were categorized into two groups based on the anesthetic agent administered for deep sedation: the propofol group and the ketamine group. Procedure duration, success rates, and recovery times were compared.

Results: Of the 108 patients, 54 were in the propofol group and 54 were in the ketamine group. The procedure durations were similar in both groups (propofol group: 135 min (120 - 145) vs. ketamine group: 140 min (120 - 155), p=0.803). The eye-opening time after the procedure was 275 seconds in the propofol group and 266 seconds in the ketamine group (p=0.530). Additionally, no significant variation was detected in the initial measurements of systolic and diastolic blood pressure or heart rate.

Conclusion: In conclusion, there was no significant difference between the propofol group and the ketamine group in terms of outcomes. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to assess the efficacy of ketamine and propofol in the radiofrequency AF ablation patient group.

异丙酚与氯胺酮在房颤射频消融患者镇静作用的比较。
目的:导管消融现在被广泛认为是治疗心房颤动(AF)的一种有益的治疗选择。然而,与手术相关的持续时间延长和疼痛可能导致患者运动,潜在地导致电解剖制图系统的中断。镇静和止痛剂用于防止身体运动和控制疼痛。本研究旨在比较氯胺酮和异丙酚用于AF射频消融患者深度镇静的安全性和效果。方法:回顾性、单中心研究纳入我院深度镇静(无插管)下射频房颤消融108例患者。根据麻醉药物的不同将患者分为两组:异丙酚组和氯胺酮组。比较手术持续时间、成功率和恢复时间。结果:108例患者中异丙酚组54例,氯胺酮组54例。两组手术时间相似(异丙酚组:135 min (120 - 145) vs氯胺酮组:140 min (120 - 155), p=0.803)。异丙酚组术后睁眼时间为275秒,氯胺酮组术后睁眼时间为266秒(p=0.530)。此外,在最初的收缩压和舒张压或心率测量中没有发现明显的变化。结论:综上所述,异丙酚组与氯胺酮组在预后方面无显著差异。据我们所知,这是第一个评估氯胺酮和异丙酚在射频房颤消融患者组疗效的研究。
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