Trial reportBMC anesthesiology2024
Electrophysiological differences of randomized deep sedation with dexmedetomidine versus propofol.
Trial report in BMC anesthesiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03844841 (DExmEdetomidine Sedation Versus Propofol SEDATION FOR Catheter ABLATION of Atrial Fibrillation Under a Cardiologist Supervision), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
DExmEdetomidine Sedation Versus Propofol SEDATION FOR Catheter ABLATION of Atrial Fibrillation Under a Cardiologist Supervision: A Randomized Controlled Pilot STUDY
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Anaesthetic Techniques for Cardiac Ablation-A Scoping Review.Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica · 2026Article
- NT-proBNP as a Predictor of Atrial Fibrillation Recurrence After Cryoballoon, Radiofrequency and Pulsed-Field Ablation.Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 2026Article
- Characteristics, pathophysiological mechanisms, and ablation outcomes of patients with de novo left atrial flutter compared with patients with postablation left atrial flutter.Heart rhythm O2 · 2026Article
- Transient sinoatrial node dysfunction after pulsed-field pulmonary vein ablation: an image case report.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Hemolysis Induced by Pulsed-Field Ablation of Atrial Arrhythmias: A Comparative Analysis of Current Systems.Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDexmedetomidine and propofol are common sedatives in intensive care units and for interventional procedures. Both may compromise sinus node function and atrioventricular conduction. The objective of this prospective, randomized study is to compare the effect of dexmedetomidine with propofol on sinus node function and atrioventricular conduction.
methodsIn a tertiary care center in Switzerland we included from September 2019 to October 2020 160 patients (65 ± 11 years old; 32% female) undergoing first ablation for atrial fibrillation by cryoballoon ablation or by radiofrequency ablation. Patients were randomly assigned to deep sedation with dexmedetomidine (DEX group) versus propofol (PRO group). A standard electrophysiological study was performed after pulmonary vein isolation with the patients still deeply sedated and hemodynamically stable.
resultsEighty patients each were randomized to the DEX and PRO group. DEX group patients had higher baseline sinus cycle length (1022 vs. 1138 ms; p = 0.003) and longer sinus node recovery time (SNRT400; 1597 vs. 1412 ms; p = 0.042). However, both corrected SNRT and normalized SNRT did not differ. DEX group patients had longer PR interval (207 vs. 186 ms; p = 0.002) and AH interval (111 vs. 95 ms, p = 0.008), longer Wenckebach cycle length of the atrioventricular node (512 vs. 456 ms; p = 0.005), and longer atrioventricular node effective refractory period (390 vs. 344 ms; p = 0.009). QRS width and HV interval were not different. An arrhythmia, mainly atrial fibrillation, was induced in 33 patients during the electrophysiological study, without differences among groups (20% vs. 15%, p = 0.533).
conclusionsDexmedetomidine has a more pronounced slowing effect on sinus rate and suprahissian AV conduction than propofol, but not on infrahissian AV conduction and ventricular repolarization. These differences need to be taken into account when using these sedatives.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov number NCT03844841, 19/02/2019.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.