Painful Recall in Elective Electrical Cardioversion with Propofol and the Need for Additional Analgesia.

INTRODUCTION: Electrical cardioversion (ECV) is a short but painful procedure for treating cardiac dysrhythmias. There is a wide variation regarding the medication strategy to facilitate this procedure. Many different sedative techniques for ECV are described. Currently, the optimal medication strategy to prevent pain in ECV has yet to be established. The role for additional analgesic agents to prevent pain during the procedure remains controversial, and evidence is limited. METHODS: We conducted a prospective multicenter study to determine the incidence of painful recall in ECV with propofol as a sole agent for sedation, in order to assess the indication for additional opioids. In all patients, sedation was induced with propofol titrated till loss of eyelash reflex and nonresponsiveness to stimuli, corresponding to Ramsay Sedation Score level 5-6. ECV was performed with extracardiac biphasic electrical shocks. The primary outcome was painful recall of the procedure, defined as numeric pain rating scale (NRS) ≥ 1. NRS ≥ 4 is considered inadequately treated pain. Secondary outcome parameters were pain at the side of the defipads and muscle pain after ECV. RESULTS: A total of 232 patients were enrolled in this study. Six patients were excluded due to missing data or violation of study protocol. Three patients reported recall of the procedure, and one patient (0.4%) reported recall of severe pain during the procedure with NRS 7. Two patients (0.9%) reported recall of mild pain with NRS 1-3. Complete amnesia was observed in 223 patients (98.7%), with NRS 0. The mean of the total dose of propofol was 1.1 mg/kg. Fifteen patients (6.6%) experienced pain at the side of the defipads, and six patients (2.7%) complained of muscle pain after the procedure. CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective multicenter study, propofol as a sole agent provided good conditions for ECV with a low incidence of recall. Effective sedation and complete amnesia was achieved in 98.7% of the patients, 0.4% of patients reported recall of severe pain during the procedure, and 0.9% of patients experienced mild pain during the ECV.

A prospective validation of the HEART score for chest pain patients at the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: The focus of the diagnostic process in chest pain patients at the emergency department is to identify both low and high risk patients for an acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The HEART score was designed to facilitate this process. This study is a prospective validation of the HEART score. METHODS: A total of 2440 unselected patients presented with chest pain at the cardiac emergency department of ten participating hospitals in The Netherlands. The HEART score was assessed as soon as the first lab results and ECG were obtained. Primary endpoint was the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) within 6 weeks. Secondary endpoints were (i) the occurrence of AMI and death, (ii) ACS and (iii) the performance of a coronary angiogram. The performance of the HEART score was compared with the TIMI and GRACE scores. RESULTS: Low HEART scores (values 0-3) were calculated in 36.4% of the patients. MACE occurred in 1.7%. In patients with HEART scores 4-6, MACE was diagnosed in 16.6%. In patients with high HEART scores (values 7-10), MACE occurred in 50.1%. The c-statistic of the HEART score (0.83) is significantly higher than the c-statistic of TIMI (0.75)and GRACE (0.70) respectively (p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: The HEART score provides the clinician with a quick and reliable predictor of outcome, without computer-required calculating. Low HEART scores (0-3), exclude short-term MACE with >98% certainty. In these patients one might consider reserved policies. In patients with high HEART scores (7-10) the high risk of MACE may indicate more aggressive policies.

The role of coronary endothelial function testing in patients suspected for angina pectoris.

Coronary vasomotor function plays an important role in onset and progression of coronary artery disease. Suwaidi [Circulation 101 (2000) 948] and Schächinger [Circulation 101 (2000) 1899] demonstrated that vasomotor dysfunction has a significant impact on events in patients with minimal coronary artery disease. Endothelial specific testing can be performed in coronary as well as peripheral arteries. However, non-coronary tests have a low correlation with the coronary vasomotor response, as assessed by acetylcholine. In large clinical prospective placebo-controlled trials, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and lipid-lowering drugs reduce morbidity and mortality after myocardial infarction or myocardial infarction-induced heart failure. The same drugs restore endothelial dysfunction after myocardial infarction, as was demonstrated in small experimental and clinical studies. Recent studies in patients with coronary artery disease showed a relation with endothelial dysfunction and the occurrence of adverse coronary events. For this reason, it is important to develop methods to evaluate endothelial function.

Safety evaluation of routine intracoronary acetylcholine infusion in patients undergoing a first diagnostic coronary angiogram.

BACKGROUND: Recent findings imply prognostic significance of intracoronary acetylcholine infusion for endothelial function testing. We evaluated whether routine use of this test in coronary angiography patients is safe. METHODS: Patients undergoing a first diagnostic coronary angiography were selected to receive intracoronary acetylcholine for endothelial function evaluation. The relation between adverse reactions during infusion and risk factors was analyzed with a logistic regression model. Included in the multiple logistic regression model were the variables with a univariate P value < 0.20. RESULTS: Adverse reactions occurred in 16% (49/299) of the patients. This included two life-threatening events caused by occlusive spasm and flow limitation in the left coronary artery. Other adverse events were chest pain (n = 38), AV block or sinus bradycardia (n = 10), dyspnea (n = 3). Adverse reactions were more likely to occur in patients younger than 60 years of age (relative risk, 5.6 [2.2-14.3]). CONCLUSION: Intracoronary acetylcholine infusion is safe, but may lead to serious adverse reactions. Care should be taken especially in patients younger than 60 years of age. Routine use of acetylcholine infusion can thus only be justified if it has important prognostic significance. This has to be proven further in large prospective studies.