Observational studyTurkish journal of medical sciences2026
Impact of two sedation protocols on cardiac electrophysiology during spinal anesthesia.
Observational study in Turkish journal of medical sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/aim: Perioperative factors such as anesthetic drugs, central blocks, surgical stress, pain, and anxiety can affect cardiac electrophysiology and increase the risk of arrhythmias. Arrhythmia susceptibility can be assessed using ventricular markers such as the QT interval (QT), heart rate-corrected QT interval (QTc), QT dispersion (QTd), time between peak and end of T wave (Tp-e), cardiac electrophysiologic balance index (iCEB), and heart rate-corrected index of cardiac electrophysiologic balance (iCEBc), obtained from noninvasive electrocardiography (ECG) data. This study compared the effects of propofol and dexmedetomidine sedation on these parameters in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty performed under spinal anesthesia. Materials and methods: This prospective, observational clinical study was conducted at Ankara Bilkent City Hospital between March and August 2023, and included patients scheduled for elective total knee arthroplasty. Patients were divided into two groups based on the clinician's preference: group P received propofol infusion, and group D received dexmedetomidine. All patients underwent spinal anesthesia. The primary outcome was the comparison of iCEB and iCEBc values between the two groups. Secondary outcomes included comparisons of QT, QTc, QTd, and Tp-e values. Results: A total of 74 participants were enrolled, and 70 were included in the final analysis (35 per group). No significant differences were found in demographic data, local anesthetic dose, spinal interventions, sensory block level, or bispectral index values (p > 0.05). QTc increased in both groups after spinal anesthesia; however, group P exhibited significantly higher values at t1 and t15 compared with group D (p = 0.004 and p = 0.046, respectively). iCEBc returned to baseline at t10 in group D and t45 in group P. A significant iCEBc increase from t0 to t1 was observed in group P but not in group D. Conclusion: Compared with propofol, dexmedetomidine sedation under spinal anesthesia was associated with differences in ECG-derived indices related to repolarization duration, homogeneity, repolarization-depolarization balance, and transmural distribution. These findings should be interpreted within the context of the study's observational design and the use of ECG-derived markers rather than clinical arrhythmic endpoints.
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.