Deep sedation in patients undergoing atrioventricular nodal reentry tachycardia ablation.

BACKGROUND: General anesthesia and deep sedation can be used during cardiac EPS to relief pain and provide comfort and immobility, but many electrophysiologists avoid sedation for better arrhythmia induction. OBJECTIVE: To determine anesthesia effects in ablation procedures in adults, we used intravenous anesthetic agents in patients who underwent slow pathway ablation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred patients who were to undergo radiofrequency catheter ablation were randomly assigned to with and without intravenous anesthesia groups. All patients had palpitation with a documented electrocardiography (ECG) compatible with atrio-ventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia (AVNRT). We used propofol, fentanyl and midazolam for intravenous sedation. Electrophysiological parameters were checked for the two groups and compared before and after the ablation. RESULTS: Electrophysiological parameters were not significantly different in the two groups. In the anesthetic group, patients were more satisfied with the procedure (P value < 0. 001). CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous anesthesia could be done safely in patients who underwent electrophysiological procedures. It had no effect on arrhythmia induction or slow pathway ablation in patients with documented AVNRT.

Predictors of ventricular tachycardia induction in syncopal patients with mild to moderate left ventricular dysfunction.

BACKGROUND: In patients with mild to moderate left ventricular dysfunction (LVD) (35% pound LVEF pound 50%) who present with syncope, demonstration of tachy and/or brady-arrhythmia has prognostic value. In this group of patients electrophysiological study (EPS) is often necessary. METHODS: A total of 53 consecutive patients with mild to moderate LVD and history of undetermined syncope underwent EPS. Sinus node function, His-Purkinje system conduction and ventricular electrical stability were evaluated. RESULTS: Twenty eight patients (52.8%) had induction of sustained monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (VT) and five (9.4%) patients had a sustained ventricular arrhythmia other than monomorphic VT (ventricular flutter, ventricular fibrillation, and polymorphic VT) induced during EPS. Abnormal sinus node function and/or His-Purkinje system conduction was found in five (9.4%) patients. Age, gender, history of myocardial infarction, type of underlying heart disease and history of revascularization were not predictors of VT induction. Wide QRS morphology independently, and lower left ventricular ejection fraction and presence of pathologic q wave in precordial leads dependently, could increase risk of VT induction. CONCLUSIONS: The EPS can determine which patient with syncope and mild to moderate LVD is likely to benefit from placing an ICD for prevention of sudden cardiac death. Pathologic precordial q wave, wide QRS morphology and lower left ventricular ejection fraction could be predictors of VT induction during EPS. Wide QRS morphology has an independent effect in this category.