Electrophysiological differences of randomized deep sedation with dexmedetomidine versus propofol.
Atrial fibrillation
Catheter ablation
Dexmedetomidine
Propofol
Sedation
Journal
BMC anesthesiology
ISSN: 1471-2253
Titre abrégé: BMC Anesthesiol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968535
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
31 Jul 2024
31 Jul 2024
Historique:
received:
13
02
2024
accepted:
18
07
2024
medline:
1
8
2024
pubmed:
1
8
2024
entrez:
31
7
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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). 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. ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT03844841, 19/02/2019.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
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
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
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
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
BACKGROUND
ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT03844841, 19/02/2019.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39085782
doi: 10.1186/s12871-024-02647-x
pii: 10.1186/s12871-024-02647-x
doi:
Substances chimiques
Dexmedetomidine
67VB76HONO
Propofol
YI7VU623SF
Hypnotics and Sedatives
0
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT03844841']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Comparative Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
263Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Pertzov B, Krasulya B, Azem K, et al. Dexmedetomidine versus propofol sedation in flexible bronchoscopy: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Pulm Med. 2022;22:87.
doi: 10.1186/s12890-022-01880-9
pubmed: 35291989
pmcid: 8922860
Salukhe TV, Willems S, Drewitz I, et al. Propofol sedation administered by cardiologists without assisted ventilation for long cardiac interventions: an assessment of 1000 consecutive patients undergoing atrial fibrillation ablation. Europace. 2012;14:325–30.
doi: 10.1093/europace/eur328
pubmed: 22024600
Servatius H, Hofeler T, Hoffmann BA, et al. Propofol sedation administered by cardiologists for patients undergoing catheter ablation for ventricular tachycardia. Europace. 2016;18:1245–51.
doi: 10.1093/europace/euv303
pubmed: 27247017
Dere K, Sucullu I, Budak ET, et al. A comparison of dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for sedation, pain and hemodynamic control, during colonoscopy under conscious sedation. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2010;27:648–52.
doi: 10.1097/EJA.0b013e3283347bfe
pubmed: 20531094
Venn RM, Bradshaw CJ, Spencer R, et al. Preliminary UK experience of dexmedetomidine, a novel agent for postoperative sedation in the intensive care unit. Anaesthesia. 1999;54:1136–42.
doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2044.1999.01114.x
pubmed: 10594409
Alizadehasl A, Sadeghpour A, Totonchi Z, Azarfarin R, Rahimi S, Hendiani A. Comparison of sedation between dexmedetomidine and propofol during transesophageal echocardiography: A randomized controlled trial. Ann Card Anaesth. 2019;22:285–90.
doi: 10.4103/aca.ACA_42_18
pubmed: 31274491
pmcid: 6639890
Chen YT, Sun CK, Wu KY, et al. The use of propofol versus dexmedetomidine for patients receiving drug-induced sleep endoscopy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Med. 2021;10:10.
Constantin JM, Momon A, Mantz J, et al. Efficacy and safety of sedation with dexmedetomidine in critical care patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Anaesthesia, critical care & pain medicine. 2016;35:7–15.
doi: 10.1016/j.accpm.2015.06.012
Goettel N, Bharadwaj S, Venkatraghavan L, Mehta J, Bernstein M, Manninen PH. Dexmedetomidine vs propofol-remifentanil conscious sedation for awake craniotomy: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Br J Anaesth. 2016;116:811–21.
doi: 10.1093/bja/aew024
pubmed: 27099154
Ter Bruggen F, Ceuppens C, Leliveld L, Stronks DL, Huygen F. Dexmedetomidine vs propofol as sedation for implantation of neurostimulators: A single-center single-blinded randomized controlled trial. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2019;63:1321–9.
doi: 10.1111/aas.13452
pubmed: 31321763
Servatius H, Kuffer T, Baldinger SH, et al. Dexmedetomidine versus propofol for operator-directed nurse-administered procedural sedation during catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation: A randomized controlled study. Heart Rhythm. 2022;19:691–700.
doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2021.12.028
pubmed: 34971816
Amaniti A, Dalakakis I, Gkinas D, Sapalidis K, Grosomanidis V, Papazisis G. Corrigendum to “Bradycardia Leading to Asystole Following Dexmedetomidine Infusion during Cataract Surgery: Dexmedetomidine-Induced Asystole for Cataract Surgery.” Case Rep Anesthesiol. 2019;2019:7254218.
pubmed: 31781404
pmcid: 6875387
Banc-Husu AM, Badke CM, Sanchez-Pinto LN, Alonso EM. Dexmedetomidine leading to profound bradycardia in a pediatric liver transplant recipient. Pediatr Transplant. 2021;25:e13895.
doi: 10.1111/petr.13895
pubmed: 33118274
Lewis K, Alshamsi F, Carayannopoulos KL, et al. Dexmedetomidine vs other sedatives in critically ill mechanically ventilated adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Intensive Care Med. 2022;48:811–40.
doi: 10.1007/s00134-022-06712-2
pubmed: 35648198
Takata K, Adachi YU, Suzuki K, Obata Y, Sato S, Nishiwaki K. Dexmedetomidine-induced atrioventricular block followed by cardiac arrest during atrial pacing: a case report and review of the literature. J Anesth. 2014;28:116–20.
doi: 10.1007/s00540-013-1676-7
pubmed: 23948748
Bharati S, Pal A, Biswas C, Biswas R. Incidence of cardiac arrest increases with the indiscriminate use of dexmedetomidine: a case series and review of published case reports. Acta Anaesthesiol Taiwan. 2011;49:165–7.
doi: 10.1016/j.aat.2011.11.010
pubmed: 22221692
Noh JI, Lee JH, Woo SY, et al. Complete atrioventricular nodal block after propofol administration in an elderly patient undergoing total knee replacement arthroplasty -A case report. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2013;64:363–6.
doi: 10.4097/kjae.2013.64.4.363
pubmed: 23646248
pmcid: 3640171
Morozowich ST, Saslow SB. Progression of asymptomatic bifascicular block to complete heart block during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy with propofol sedation. Can J Anaesth. 2009;56:83–4.
doi: 10.1007/s12630-008-9014-5
pubmed: 19247782
Gauss A, Hubner C, Radermacher P, Georgieff M, Schutz W. Perioperative risk of bradyarrhythmias in patients with asymptomatic chronic bifascicular block or left bundle branch block: does an additional first-degree atrioventricular block make any difference? Anesthesiology. 1998;88:679–87.
doi: 10.1097/00000542-199803000-00019
pubmed: 9523812
Tramer MR, Moore RA, McQuay HJ. Propofol and bradycardia: causation, frequency and severity. Br J Anaesth. 1997;78:642–51.
doi: 10.1093/bja/78.6.642
pubmed: 9215013
Sairaku A, Yoshida Y, Hirayama H, Nakano Y, Ando M, Kihara Y. Procedural sedation with dexmedetomidine during ablation of atrial fibrillation: a randomized controlled trial. Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology. 2014;16:994–9.
doi: 10.1093/europace/eut363
pubmed: 24351886
Poyhia R, Nieminen T, Tuompo VWT, Parikka H. Effects of dexmedetomidine on basic cardiac electrophysiology in adults; a descriptive review and a prospective case study. Pharmaceuticals (Basel). 2022;15:15.
doi: 10.3390/ph15111372
Ergul Y, Unsal S, Ozyilmaz I, Ozturk E, Carus H, Guzeltas A. Electrocardiographic and electrophysiologic effects of dexmedetomidine on children. Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE. 2015;38:682–7.
doi: 10.1111/pace.12623
pubmed: 25753681
Warpechowski P, Lima GG, Medeiros CM, et al. Randomized study of propofol effect on electrophysiological properties of the atrioventricular node in patients with nodal reentrant tachycardia. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2006;29:1375–82.
doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.2006.00550.x
pubmed: 17201845
Pires LA, Huang SK, Wagshal AB, Kulkarni RS. Electrophysiological effects of propofol on the normal cardiac conduction system. Cardiology. 1996;87:319–24.
doi: 10.1159/000177113
pubmed: 8793167
Matsushima M, Kimura S, Kitaura A, et al. Propofol suppresses the His-ventricular conduction in paediatric patients. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2021;46:433–9.
doi: 10.1111/jcpt.13302
pubmed: 33098128
Slupe AM, Minnier J, Raitt MH, Zarraga IGE, MacMurdy KS, Jessel PM. Dexmedetomidine sedation for paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia ablation is not associated with alteration of arrhythmia inducibility. Anesth Analg. 2019;129:1529–35.
doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000003359
pubmed: 31743172