Medical University of South Carolina
Charleston, South Carolina, 29425, United States
NCT Number: NCT02697448
Comparison of propofol and sevoflurane as a primary anesthetic for cardiac ablation of atrial fibrillation
Looking for future studies?
Notify Me18 year–80 year
All sexes
Interventional
Not applicable
Charleston, South Carolina, 29425, United States
A side effect of some volatile anesthetics, such as isoflurane and desflurane, is enhanced automaticity, accounting for secondary atrial pacemakers. Volatile anesthetics also have varying effects on the AV node and His-Pukinje system. These agents also prolong the QT interval and, for this reason, volatile anesthetics as a group have at times been avoided for atrial fibrillation ablation due to the fear that they may affect the efficacy of the ablation and increase recurrence. However, sevoflurane does not have the effects shown for other volatile anesthetics cardiac conduction. At this point there has not been a study comparing propofol, a non volatile anesthetic typically used in these cases, to sevoflurane, a volatile anesthetic, to determine if volatile anesthetics should be avoided during these procedures. This study will challenge the existing belief that sevoflurane increases the length of time to ablate atrial fibrillation and also decreases the efficacy of the ablation.
Healthy volunteers accepted: No
Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
Participant receives propofol as anesthetic for cardiac ablation.
Participant receives sevoflurane as anesthetic for cardiac ablations.
Time frame: 1 day
The duration of the procedure in minutes.
Time frame: Procedure end time to time of extubation
The time from procedure end to the time the patient is extubated, in minutes. A longer extubation time is a worse outcome.
Time frame: Post-Op Day 1
Post-Operative Pain was measured on a Numeric Rating Scale of 0-10, and assessed on Post-Op Day 1 by asking the patient to rate their pain while resting. Zero meant no pain, and 10 meant worst pain imaginable. A higher number is a worse outcome.
Time frame: Time of procedure end to post-op day 1
On Post-Op Day 1, patients were asked if they had experienced any nausea of vomiting since their procedure by answering "yes" or "no".
Time frame: Post-Op Day 1
Patients were asked on Post-Op Day 1 to rate how alert they felt on a numeric rating scale from 0-10. Zero meant very groggy, and 10 meant back to normal alertness. The higher the number, the better the outcome.
Time frame: 2 weeks post-op, 3 months post-op, and 6 months post-op.
This outcome examines the association between treatment group and postoperative time with recurrence of atrial fibrillation in the first 6 months following the procedure. The numbers reported reflect whether or not the participant experienced an atrial fibrillation in the specified time period.
Medical University of South Carolina
Other
OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.
View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.
Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.
NCT05820295
Arrhythmias, Cardiac, Atrial Fibrillation
New York, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT05993897
Arrhythmias, Cardiac, Atrial Fibrillation
Aswān, Aswan Governorate, Egypt
View Trial DetailsNCT05357690
Arrhythmias, Cardiac, Atrial Fibrillation
Rochester, Minnesota, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT05164718
Arrhythmias, Cardiac, Atrial Fibrillation
Drammen, Norway
View Trial Details