4.2 Article

Anesthetic Management of Patients Undergoing Pulmonary Vein Isolation for Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation Using High-Frequency Jet Ventilation

Journal

JOURNAL OF CARDIOTHORACIC AND VASCULAR ANESTHESIA
Volume 26, Issue 3, Pages 433-438

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1053/j.jvca.2011.11.011

Keywords

high-frequency jet ventilation; atrial fibrillation; catheter ablation; pulmonary vein isolation; general anesthesia

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: The aim of this study was to describe anesthetic management and perioperative complications in patients undergoing pulmonary vein isolation for the treatment of atrial fibrillation under general anesthesia using high-frequency jet ventilation. The authors also identified variables associated with longer ablation times in this patient cohort. Design: A retrospective observational study. Setting: The electrophysiology laboratory in a major university hospital. Participants: One hundred eighty-eight consecutive patients undergoing pulmonary vein isolation under general anesthesia with high-frequency jet ventilation. Interventions: High-frequency jet ventilation was used as the primary mode of ventilation under general anesthesia. Measurements and Main Results: High-frequency jet ventilation was performed successfully throughout the ablation procedure in 175 cases of the study cohort. The remaining 13 patients had to be converted to conventional positive-pressure ventilation because of high PaCO2 or low PaO2 on arterial blood gas measurements. Variables associated with a shorter ablation time included a higher ejection fraction (p = 0.04) and case volume performed by each electrophysiologist in the study group (p = 0.001). Conclusions: High-frequency jet ventilation is generally a safe technique that can be used in catheter ablation treatment under general anesthesia. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available