Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36129031›Full record

Trial reportJournal of the American Heart Association2022

Comparison of Bolus Dosing of Methohexital and Propofol in Elective Direct Current Cardioversion.

Elijah H Beaty, Rohesh J Fernando, Marie L Jacobs, Gillian G Winter, Catalina Bulla, Matthew J Singleton, Neel J Patel, Natalie S Bradford, Prashant D Bhave, Roger L Royster

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 33% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Elijah H BeatySection on Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine Wake Forest School of Medicine Winston-Salem NC.ORCID 0000-0002-6087-8427
Rohesh J FernandoDepartment of Anesthesiology Wake Forest School of Medicine Winston-Salem NC.ORCID 0000-0003-0104-3291
Marie L JacobsWake Forest School of Medicine Winston-Salem NC.ORCID 0000-0003-3396-1417
Gillian G WinterSection on Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine Wake Forest School of Medicine Winston-Salem NC.ORCID 0000-0002-8134-2250
Catalina BullaHospital Medicine Cleveland Clinic Florida, Indian River Hospital Vero Beach FL.ORCID 0000-0001-8993-9273
Matthew J SingletonWellSpan Cardiology WellSpan Health York PA.ORCID 0000-0002-7266-0951
Neel J PatelSection on Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine Wake Forest School of Medicine Winston-Salem NC.
Natalie S BradfordSection on Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine Wake Forest School of Medicine Winston-Salem NC.
Prashant D BhaveSection on Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine Wake Forest School of Medicine Winston-Salem NC.ORCID 0000-0003-0664-7828
Roger L RoysterDepartment of Anesthesiology Wake Forest School of Medicine Winston-Salem NC.ORCID 0000-0003-1885-6889
Wake Forest University · USCleveland Clinic Florida · USWellSpan Health · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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;

Indexed as

MethohexitalPropofolElectric CountershockHumansHypoxiaProspective StudiesMethohexitalPropofolatrial fibrillationelectric countershockmethohexitalpropofolprospective studies

Identifiers

PMID36129031
PMCPMC9673741
OpenAlexW4296708716

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.