Sedation strategies for defibrillation threshold testing: safety outcomes with anaesthesiologist compared to proceduralist-directed sedation: an analysis from the SIMPLE study

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00023001%3A_____%2F18%3A00077600" target="_blank" >RIV/00023001:_____/18:00077600 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://academic.oup.com/europace/article-abstract/20/11/1798/5034077?redirectedFrom=fulltext" target="_blank" >https://academic.oup.com/europace/article-abstract/20/11/1798/5034077?redirectedFrom=fulltext</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/europace/euy114" target="_blank" >10.1093/europace/euy114</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Sedation strategies for defibrillation threshold testing: safety outcomes with anaesthesiologist compared to proceduralist-directed sedation: an analysis from the SIMPLE study

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

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 &lt; 0.001, respectively) and receive an arterial line (43% vs. 8%, P = &lt;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.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Sedation strategies for defibrillation threshold testing: safety outcomes with anaesthesiologist compared to proceduralist-directed sedation: an analysis from the SIMPLE study

Popis výsledku anglicky

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 &lt; 0.001, respectively) and receive an arterial line (43% vs. 8%, P = &lt;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.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

30201 - Cardiac and Cardiovascular systems

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

N - Vyzkumna aktivita podporovana z neverejnych zdroju

Rok uplatnění

2018

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Europace

ISSN

1099-5129

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

20

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

11

Stát vydavatele periodika

GB - Spojené království Velké Británie a Severního Irska

Počet stran výsledku

6

Strana od-do

1798-1803

Kód UT WoS článku

000457581300017

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85056068896