Sedation strategies for defibrillation threshold testing: safety outcomes with anaesthesiologist compared to proceduralist-directed sedation: an analysis from the SIMPLE study
Language English Country Great Britain, England Media print
Document type Journal Article, Randomized Controlled Trial
PubMed
29878102
DOI
10.1093/europace/euy114
PII: 5034077
Knihovny.cz E-resources
- MeSH
- Conscious Sedation * adverse effects methods MeSH
- Defibrillators, Implantable * MeSH
- Ventricular Fibrillation therapy MeSH
- Risk Assessment MeSH
- Hypnotics and Sedatives * administration & dosage adverse effects MeSH
- Prosthesis Implantation * adverse effects instrumentation methods MeSH
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Death, Sudden, Cardiac etiology prevention & control MeSH
- Postoperative Complications * diagnosis epidemiology etiology MeSH
- Risk Factors MeSH
- Aged MeSH
- Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care MeSH
- Check Tag
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Male MeSH
- Aged MeSH
- Female MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Randomized Controlled Trial MeSH
- Names of Substances
- Hypnotics and Sedatives * MeSH
AIMS: No standard practice exists with respect to anaesthesiologist-directed sedation (ADS) vs. sedation by proceduralist (PDS) for defibrillation threshold (DT) testing. We aimed to evaluate adverse events and safety outcomes with ADS vs. PDS for DT testing. METHODS AND RESULTS: A post hoc analysis of the Shockless Implant Evaluation (SIMPLE) study was performed among the 1242 patients who had DT testing (624 ADS and 618 PDS). We evaluated both intraoperative and in-hospital adverse composite events and two safety composite outcomes at 30-days of the main trial. Propensity score adjusted models were used to compute odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) to evaluate the association between adverse and safety outcomes with method of sedation and independent predictors for use of ADS. Compared to PDS, patients who received ADS were younger (62 ± 12 years vs. 64 ± 12 years, P = 0.01), had lower ejection fraction (left ventricular ejection fraction 0.31 ± 13 vs. 0.33 ± 13, P = 0.03), were more likely to receive inhalational anaesthesia, propofol, or narcotics (P < 0.001, respectively) and receive an arterial line (43% vs. 8%, P = <0.0001). Independent predictors for ADS sedation were presence of coronary artery disease (OR 1.69, 95% CI 1.0-2.72; P = 0.03) and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (OR 2.64, 95% CI 1.19-5.85; P = 0.02). Anaesthesiologist directed sedation had higher intraoperative adverse events (2.2% vs. 0.5%; OR 4.47, 95% CI 1.25-16.0; P = 0.02) and higher primary safety outcomes at 30 days (8.2% vs. 4.9%; OR 1.72 95% CI 1.06-2.80; P = 0.03) and no difference in other outcomes compared to PDS. CONCLUSION: Proceduralist-directed sedation is safe, however, this could be result of selection bias. Further research is needed.
Boston Scientific Brussels Belgium
Boston Scientific Minneapolis MN USA
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Rennes France
Hospital de Santa Creu i Sant Pau Barcelona Spain
Hungary Semmelweis Univ Sch Med Budapest Hungary
Institut Universitaire de Cardiologie et de Pneumologie de Québec QC Canada
Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine Prague Czech Republic
JW Goethe University Frankfurt Germany
Karolinska Institute Stockholm Sweden
Klinikum Kassel Kassel Germany
Leiden University Medical Center Leiden the Netherlands
Leviev Heart Center Sheba Medical Center Tel Hashomer Israel
Mazankowski Alberta Heart Institute University of Alberta 8440 112 Street 2C2 WMC Edmonton AB Canada
Population Health Research Institute McMaster University Hamilton ON Canada
References provided by Crossref.org