• Elizabeth Bessadas Penna Firme, Ismar Lima Cavalcanti, Louis Barrucand, Alexandra Rezende Assad, and Nubia Verçosa Figueiredo.
• Post-Graduate Program in Surgical Sciences, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro – RJ, Brazil. bessadaspf@superig.com.br
• Rev Col Bras Cir. 2012 Dec 1; 39 (6): 462-8.

ObjectiveTo compare deep sedation with general anesthesia for curative ablation of atrial fibrillation.MethodsWe conducted a prospective, randomized study with 32 patients, aged between 18 and 65 years, ASA 2 and 3, BMI d" 30 kg/m2, divided into two groups: deep sedation (G1) and general anesthesia (G2). All patients received intravenous midazolam (0.5 mg / kg). G1 received propofol (1mg/kg) and O2 by facemask, followed by continuous infusion of propofol (25-50mg/kg/min) and remifentanil (0.01-0.05 mg / kg / min). G2 received propofol (2mg/kg) and laryngeal mask with built-in drain tube, followed by continuous infusion of propofol (60-100mg/kg/min) and remifentanil (0.06 to 0.1g/kg/min). We compared heart rate, invasive blood pressure, arterial blood gases, complications and recurrence (outcome) in three months.ResultsG1 patients had arterial blood gas with higher PaCO2 levels and lower pH (p = 0.001) and higher incidence of cough. There was a decrease in Mean Arterial Pressure (MAP) and Heart Rate (HR) in G2. Except cough, complications and recurrence were similar in both groups.ConclusionBoth techniques can be used for the curative ablation of atrial fibrillation. General anesthesia provided smaller respiratory changes and greater immobility of the patient.

15 keywords...

hide…