{"title":"异丙酚与氯胺酮在房颤射频消融患者镇静作用的比较。","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":"{\"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}","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
摘要
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。
Comparison of Propofol and Ketamine for Sedation in Patients Undergoing Radiofrequency Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation.
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.