Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 2018
Arrhythmia induction using isoproterenol or epinephrine during electrophysiology study for supraventricular tachycardia.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Patel Parin J, Segar Rachel, Patel Jyoti Kandlikar, Padanilam Benzy J, Prystowsky Eric N
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Electrophysiology study (EPS) is an important part of the diagnosis and workup for supraventricular tachycardia (SVT). Provocative medications are used to induce arrhythmias, when they are not inducible at baseline. The most common medication is the β1-specific agonist, isoproterenol, but recent price increases have resulted in a shift toward the nonspecific agonist, epinephrine.
OBJECTIVE: We hypothesize that isoproterenol is a better induction agent for SVT during EPS than epinephrine.
METHODS: We created a retrospective cohort of 131 patients, who underwent EPS and required medication infusion with either isoproterenol or epinephrine for SVT induction. The primary outcome was arrhythmia induction.
RESULTS: Successful induction was achieved in 71% of isoproterenol cases and 53% of epinephrine cases (P = 0.020). Isoproterenol was significantly better than epinephrine for SVT induction during EPS (odds ratio [OR], 2.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.14-4.85; P = 0.021). There was no difference in baseline variables or complications between the two groups. Other variables associated with successful arrhythmia induction included a longer procedure duration and atrioventricular nodal re-entry tachycardia as the clinical arrhythmia. In a multivariable model, isoproterenol remained significantly associated with successful induction (OR, 2.57; 95% CI, 1.002-6.59; P = 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Isoproterenol was significantly better than epinephrine for SVT arrhythmia induction. However, epinephrine was safe and successfully induced arrhythmias in the majority of patients who received it. Furthermore, when atropine was added in epinephrine-refractory cases, in a post hoc analysis there was no difference in arrhythmia induction between medications. Cost savings could thus be significant without compromising safety.
OBJECTIVE: We hypothesize that isoproterenol is a better induction agent for SVT during EPS than epinephrine.
METHODS: We created a retrospective cohort of 131 patients, who underwent EPS and required medication infusion with either isoproterenol or epinephrine for SVT induction. The primary outcome was arrhythmia induction.
RESULTS: Successful induction was achieved in 71% of isoproterenol cases and 53% of epinephrine cases (P = 0.020). Isoproterenol was significantly better than epinephrine for SVT induction during EPS (odds ratio [OR], 2.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.14-4.85; P = 0.021). There was no difference in baseline variables or complications between the two groups. Other variables associated with successful arrhythmia induction included a longer procedure duration and atrioventricular nodal re-entry tachycardia as the clinical arrhythmia. In a multivariable model, isoproterenol remained significantly associated with successful induction (OR, 2.57; 95% CI, 1.002-6.59; P = 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Isoproterenol was significantly better than epinephrine for SVT arrhythmia induction. However, epinephrine was safe and successfully induced arrhythmias in the majority of patients who received it. Furthermore, when atropine was added in epinephrine-refractory cases, in a post hoc analysis there was no difference in arrhythmia induction between medications. Cost savings could thus be significant without compromising safety.