Cargando…
Comparison of Bolus Dosing of Methohexital and Propofol in Elective Direct Current Cardioversion
BACKGROUND: Methohexital and propofol can both be used as sedation for direct current cardioversion (DCCV). However, there are limited data comparing these medications in this setting. We hypothesized that patients receiving methohexital for elective DCCV would be sedated more quickly, recover from...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9673741/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36129031 http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.122.026198 |
_version_ | 1784833011387203584 |
---|---|
author | Beaty, Elijah H. Fernando, Rohesh J. Jacobs, Marie L. Winter, Gillian G. Bulla, Catalina Singleton, Matthew J. Patel, Neel J. Bradford, Natalie S. Bhave, Prashant D. Royster, Roger L. |
author_facet | Beaty, Elijah H. Fernando, Rohesh J. Jacobs, Marie L. Winter, Gillian G. Bulla, Catalina Singleton, Matthew J. Patel, Neel J. Bradford, Natalie S. Bhave, Prashant D. Royster, Roger L. |
author_sort | Beaty, Elijah H. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Methohexital and propofol can both be used as sedation for direct current cardioversion (DCCV). However, there are limited data comparing these medications in this setting. We hypothesized that patients receiving methohexital for elective DCCV would be sedated more quickly, recover from sedation faster, and experience less adverse effects. METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a prospective, blinded randomized controlled trial conducted at a single academic medical center. Eligible participants were randomly assigned to receive either methohexital (0.5 mg/kg) or propofol (0.8 mg/kg) as a bolus for elective DCCV. The times from bolus of the medication to achieving a Ramsay Sedation Scale score of 5 to 6, first shock, eyes opening on command, and when the patient could state their age and name were obtained. The need for additional medication dosing, airway intervention, vital signs, and medication side effects were also recorded. Seventy patients who were randomized to receive methohexital (n=37) or propofol (n=33) were included for analysis. The average doses of methohexital and propofol were 0.51 mg/kg and 0.84 mg/kg, respectively. There were no significant differences between methohexital and propofol in the time from end of injection to loss of conscious (1.4±1.8 versus 1.1±0.5 minutes; P=0.33) or the time to first shock (1.7±1.9 versus 1.4±0.5 minutes; P=0.31). Time intervals were significantly lower for methohexital compared with propofol in the time to eyes opening on command (5.1±2.5 versus 7.8±3.7 minutes; P=0.0005) as well as at the time to the ability to answer simple questions of age and name (6.0±2.6 versus 8.6±4.0 minutes; P=0.001). The methohexital group experienced less hypotension (8.1% versus 42.4%; P<0.001) and less hypoxemia (0.0% versus 15.2%; P=0.005), had lower need for jaw thrust/chin lift (16.2% versus 42.4%; P=0.015), and had less pain on injection compared with propofol using the visual analog scale (7.2±9.7 versus 22.4±28.1; P=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: In this model of fixed bolus dosing, methohexital was associated with faster recovery, more stable hemodynamics, and less hypoxemia after elective DCCV compared with propofol. It can be considered as a preferred agent for sedation for DCCV. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct; Unique identifier: NCT04187196. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9673741 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-96737412022-11-21 Comparison of Bolus Dosing of Methohexital and Propofol in Elective Direct Current Cardioversion Beaty, Elijah H. Fernando, Rohesh J. Jacobs, Marie L. Winter, Gillian G. Bulla, Catalina Singleton, Matthew J. Patel, Neel J. Bradford, Natalie S. Bhave, Prashant D. Royster, Roger L. J Am Heart Assoc Original Research BACKGROUND: Methohexital and propofol can both be used as sedation for direct current cardioversion (DCCV). However, there are limited data comparing these medications in this setting. We hypothesized that patients receiving methohexital for elective DCCV would be sedated more quickly, recover from sedation faster, and experience less adverse effects. METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a prospective, blinded randomized controlled trial conducted at a single academic medical center. Eligible participants were randomly assigned to receive either methohexital (0.5 mg/kg) or propofol (0.8 mg/kg) as a bolus for elective DCCV. The times from bolus of the medication to achieving a Ramsay Sedation Scale score of 5 to 6, first shock, eyes opening on command, and when the patient could state their age and name were obtained. The need for additional medication dosing, airway intervention, vital signs, and medication side effects were also recorded. Seventy patients who were randomized to receive methohexital (n=37) or propofol (n=33) were included for analysis. The average doses of methohexital and propofol were 0.51 mg/kg and 0.84 mg/kg, respectively. There were no significant differences between methohexital and propofol in the time from end of injection to loss of conscious (1.4±1.8 versus 1.1±0.5 minutes; P=0.33) or the time to first shock (1.7±1.9 versus 1.4±0.5 minutes; P=0.31). Time intervals were significantly lower for methohexital compared with propofol in the time to eyes opening on command (5.1±2.5 versus 7.8±3.7 minutes; P=0.0005) as well as at the time to the ability to answer simple questions of age and name (6.0±2.6 versus 8.6±4.0 minutes; P=0.001). The methohexital group experienced less hypotension (8.1% versus 42.4%; P<0.001) and less hypoxemia (0.0% versus 15.2%; P=0.005), had lower need for jaw thrust/chin lift (16.2% versus 42.4%; P=0.015), and had less pain on injection compared with propofol using the visual analog scale (7.2±9.7 versus 22.4±28.1; P=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: In this model of fixed bolus dosing, methohexital was associated with faster recovery, more stable hemodynamics, and less hypoxemia after elective DCCV compared with propofol. It can be considered as a preferred agent for sedation for DCCV. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct; Unique identifier: NCT04187196. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-09-21 /pmc/articles/PMC9673741/ /pubmed/36129031 http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.122.026198 Text en © 2022 The Authors. Published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wiley. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes. |
spellingShingle | Original Research Beaty, Elijah H. Fernando, Rohesh J. Jacobs, Marie L. Winter, Gillian G. Bulla, Catalina Singleton, Matthew J. Patel, Neel J. Bradford, Natalie S. Bhave, Prashant D. Royster, Roger L. Comparison of Bolus Dosing of Methohexital and Propofol in Elective Direct Current Cardioversion |
title | Comparison of Bolus Dosing of Methohexital and Propofol in Elective Direct Current Cardioversion |
title_full | Comparison of Bolus Dosing of Methohexital and Propofol in Elective Direct Current Cardioversion |
title_fullStr | Comparison of Bolus Dosing of Methohexital and Propofol in Elective Direct Current Cardioversion |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Bolus Dosing of Methohexital and Propofol in Elective Direct Current Cardioversion |
title_short | Comparison of Bolus Dosing of Methohexital and Propofol in Elective Direct Current Cardioversion |
title_sort | comparison of bolus dosing of methohexital and propofol in elective direct current cardioversion |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9673741/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36129031 http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.122.026198 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT beatyelijahh comparisonofbolusdosingofmethohexitalandpropofolinelectivedirectcurrentcardioversion AT fernandoroheshj comparisonofbolusdosingofmethohexitalandpropofolinelectivedirectcurrentcardioversion AT jacobsmariel comparisonofbolusdosingofmethohexitalandpropofolinelectivedirectcurrentcardioversion AT wintergilliang comparisonofbolusdosingofmethohexitalandpropofolinelectivedirectcurrentcardioversion AT bullacatalina comparisonofbolusdosingofmethohexitalandpropofolinelectivedirectcurrentcardioversion AT singletonmatthewj comparisonofbolusdosingofmethohexitalandpropofolinelectivedirectcurrentcardioversion AT patelneelj comparisonofbolusdosingofmethohexitalandpropofolinelectivedirectcurrentcardioversion AT bradfordnatalies comparisonofbolusdosingofmethohexitalandpropofolinelectivedirectcurrentcardioversion AT bhaveprashantd comparisonofbolusdosingofmethohexitalandpropofolinelectivedirectcurrentcardioversion AT roysterrogerl comparisonofbolusdosingofmethohexitalandpropofolinelectivedirectcurrentcardioversion |