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 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.

The Storm Before the Calm: Ablation of Premature Ventricular Complex Trigger for Incessant Ventricular Fibrillation.

Ventricular tachycardia storm is associated with high mortality rates and is often refractory to treatment. Historically, few options for treatment have existed in cases when antiarrhythmic drugs fail. We report the case of a patient with incessant ventricular fibrillation (VF) in the postinfarction period that was triggered by premature ventricular contractions (PVCs) that persisted despite normal electrolytes, exclusion of ongoing ischemia, infusions of antiarrhythmic drugs, general anesthesia, full circulatory support with extracorporeal membranous oxygenation, and cardiac sympathetic denervation. Given that the VF appeared to be triggered consistently by a unifocal, short-coupled PVC (consistent with Purkinje fiber-mediated VF), we performed catheter ablation, after which point, the patient experienced no further PVCs or ventricular arrhythmia. This case serves as a reminder of three key teaching points. First, not all VF is created equal, with some cases being chiefly the result of a vulnerable substrate and others being best accounted for by frequent triggers. Second, examining the available electrocardiographic data and appropriately interpreting them can guide the selection of therapies up to and including catheter ablation for treatment-refractory VF. Third, full circulatory support greatly facilitates successful electroanatomic mapping and catheter ablation of unstable ventricular arrhythmias.

AngioVac Debulking in Endocarditis Patients with Large, Device-related Vegetations.

As the number and complexity of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices has increased, so too has the incidence of device-related infections. Such a rise requires that the focus be directed toward developing universal standards for infected lead removal. To date, no consensus currently exists regarding the optimal management of patients with large vegetations (diameter > 2 cm). In these individuals, medical therapy is universally ineffective and they are often too ill for surgical extraction; furthermore, transvenous lead extraction (TLE) carries with it a risk of large septic pulmonary emboli. We present a series of five cases in which the AngioVac thrombectomy system (AngioDynamics Inc., Latham, NY, USA) was used as an adjunct to TLE. Debridement of infected leads prior to percutaneous lead extraction was accomplished as either a bridge to or as concomitant therapy with laser lead removal at our institution. This study included three males and two females with an average age of 52 years. The sizes of vegetations removed from leads ranged from 1.5 cm to 3.9 cm in the largest dimension and the average diameter was 2.65 cm ± 1.1 cm. The vegetations were successfully debulked in all five patients. This suggests that TLE performed with assistance from the AngioVac system (AngioDynamics Inc., Latham, NY, USA) is a safe and effective alternative to open surgical lead removal in patients with large lead vegetations.