Premium
Age Effect on Efficacy and Side Effects of Two Sedation and Analgesia Protocols on Patients Going through Cardioversion: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Author(s) -
Parlak Mine,
Parlak Ismet,
Erdur Bulent,
Ergin Ahmet,
Sagiroglu Emel
Publication year - 2006
Publication title -
academic emergency medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.221
H-Index - 124
eISSN - 1553-2712
pISSN - 1069-6563
DOI - 10.1197/j.aem.2005.12.013
Subject(s) - medicine , propofol , midazolam , sedation , anesthesia , bolus (digestion) , randomization , randomized controlled trial , apnea , cardioversion , clinical trial , atrial fibrillation , surgery
Background:Cardioversion (CV), a painful procedure, requires sedation and analgesia. Although several sedation agents currently are in use for CV, data on age‐specific efficacy and side effects of midazolam and propofol have been limited.Objectives:To compare the efficacy and side effects of midazolam and propofol in patients of two different age groups, younger than 65 years and 65 years and over, who were going through CV.Methods:Seventy consented patients with CV indications caused by atrial fibrillation were included in this clinical trial. The participants were placed into four groups by using a stratified randomization method: patients aged younger than 65 years who were receiving midazolam ( n = 12) or propofol ( n = 11) and patients 65 years and over who were receiving midazolam ( n = 25) or propofol ( n = 22). Medications were administered by slow intermittent bolus injections. During CV, time to reach Ramsay Sedation Scale level 5 (RSS‐5; induction time); time to reach RSS‐2 (recovery time); and side effects including desaturation, apnea, and changes in hemodynamic parameters were recorded by a person blinded to the patient treatment allocation.Results:Mean induction time was similar in all four groups. Mean recovery time (min ± SD) was shorter in both propofol groups when compared with both midazolam groups: 18.8 (± 4.06) and 40.33 (± 20.8) in the group younger than 65 years and 18.2 (± 5.12) and 54.2 (± 20.85) in the group 65 years or older, respectively (p < 0.001). Older participants in each medication group needed less medication than younger patients. There were no hemodynamic differences between the groups. Desaturation was higher in both midazolam groups as compared with individuals in the age‐matched propofol groups (both p < 0.05). Patient reactions were less in propofol groups with similar joules during CV procedures than were those in the midazolam groups.Conclusions:Propofol appears to be a better choice for CV sedation in elders because of its short recovery time, fewer side effects, and its more comfortable sedative effect.