JACC. Clinical electrophysiology · 2020
Stellate Ganglion Blockade With Continuous Infusion Versus Single Injection for Treatment of Ventricular Arrhythmia Storm.
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.
Sanghai Saket, Abbott Nicholas J, Dewland Thomas A, Henrikson Charles A, Elman Miriam R, Wollenberg Michael, Ivie Ryan, Gonzalez-Sotomayor Julio, Nazer Babak
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare the efficacy and safety of single-injection stellate ganglion block (SGB) with a novel continuous-infusion SGB procedure.
BACKGROUND: SGB for ventricular arrhythmia (VA) storm is typically performed with a single injection of local anesthetic agents.
METHODS: Eighteen patients underwent left-sided SGB (9 single injection and 9 continuous infusion). The number of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapies and sustained VAs/24 h were compared between the pre-SGB and post-SGB periods. Adverse effects of SGB and in-hospital outcomes were also compared.
RESULTS: The mean age was 61.1 ± 13.7 years. The presenting arrhythmia was ventricular tachycardia in 13 (72%) patients, ventricular fibrillation in 4 (22%), and both in 1 (6%). Single-injection SGB reduced VA/24 h by a median of 0.3 (interquartile range: 0.2 to 0.9), which was a 45% reduction (p = 0.008), resulting in 5 of 9 patients with no recurrent VA. Continuous-infusion SGB reduced VA/24 h by a median of 2.0 (interquartile range: 1.3 to 3.0), which was a 94% reduction (p = 0.004), resulting in 7 of 9 patients with no recurrent VA (p = 0.006 for comparison with single injection). Transient left arm weakness and voice hoarseness were each noted in 1 patient in both groups. Repeat SGB was required in 4 (44%) patients in the single-injection group. In-hospital outcomes were similar between the groups.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with VA storm, SGB performed via both continuous-infusion and single-injection approaches provided significant reductions in VA burden. Compared to single-injection SGB, continuous-infusion was associated with a greater reduction in VA burden and similar adverse events, without the need for repeat procedures.
BACKGROUND: SGB for ventricular arrhythmia (VA) storm is typically performed with a single injection of local anesthetic agents.
METHODS: Eighteen patients underwent left-sided SGB (9 single injection and 9 continuous infusion). The number of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapies and sustained VAs/24 h were compared between the pre-SGB and post-SGB periods. Adverse effects of SGB and in-hospital outcomes were also compared.
RESULTS: The mean age was 61.1 ± 13.7 years. The presenting arrhythmia was ventricular tachycardia in 13 (72%) patients, ventricular fibrillation in 4 (22%), and both in 1 (6%). Single-injection SGB reduced VA/24 h by a median of 0.3 (interquartile range: 0.2 to 0.9), which was a 45% reduction (p = 0.008), resulting in 5 of 9 patients with no recurrent VA. Continuous-infusion SGB reduced VA/24 h by a median of 2.0 (interquartile range: 1.3 to 3.0), which was a 94% reduction (p = 0.004), resulting in 7 of 9 patients with no recurrent VA (p = 0.006 for comparison with single injection). Transient left arm weakness and voice hoarseness were each noted in 1 patient in both groups. Repeat SGB was required in 4 (44%) patients in the single-injection group. In-hospital outcomes were similar between the groups.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with VA storm, SGB performed via both continuous-infusion and single-injection approaches provided significant reductions in VA burden. Compared to single-injection SGB, continuous-infusion was associated with a greater reduction in VA burden and similar adverse events, without the need for repeat procedures.