Electrocardiographic Effects of Propofol versus Etomidate in Patients with Brugada Syndrome

Abstract

Background Brugada Syndrome is an inherited arrhythmogenic disease, characterized by the typical coved type ST-segment elevation in the right precordial leads from V1 through V3. The BrugadaDrugs.org Advisory Board recommends avoiding administration of propofol in patients with Brugada Syndrome. Since prospective studies are lacking, it was the purpose of this study to assess the electrocardiographic effects of propofol and etomidate on the ST- and QRS-segments. In this trial, it was hypothesized that administration of propofol or etomidate in bolus for induction of anesthesia, in patients with Brugada Syndrome, do not clinically affect the ST- and QRS-segments and do not induce arrhythmias. Methods In this prospective, double-blinded trial, 98 patients with established Brugada syndrome were randomized to receive propofol (2 to 3 mg/kg-1) or etomidate (0.2 to 0.3 mg/kg-1) for induction of anesthesia. The primary endpoints were the changes of the ST- and QRS-segment, and the occurrence of new arrhythmias upon induction of anesthesia. Results The analysis included 80 patients: 43 were administered propofol and 37 etomidate. None of the patients had a ST elevation greater than or equal to 0.2 mV, one in each group had a ST elevation of 0.15 mV. An ST depression up to −0.15mV was observed eleven times with propofol and five with etomidate. A QRS-prolongation of 25% upon induction was seen in one patient with propofol and three with etomidate. This trial failed to establish any evidence to suggest that changes in either group differed, with most percentiles being zero (median [25th, 75th], 0 [0, 0] vs. 0 [0, 0]). Finally, no new arrhythmias occurred perioperatively in both groups. Conclusions In this trial, there does not appear to be a significant difference in electrocardiographic changes in patients with Brugada syndrome when propofol versus etomidate were administered for induction of anesthesia. This study did not investigate electrocardiographic changes related to propofol used as an infusion for maintenance of anesthesia, so future studies would be warranted before conclusions about safety of propofol infusions in patients with Brugada syndrome can be determined. Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic What This Article Tells Us That Is New

Sex-Related Differences in Cardiac Channelopathies

“…38 In a series of 57 high-risk BrS patients undergoing ICD implantation, the injection of a single bolus propofol for induction of anesthesia was safe, with no adverse events noticed during the procedure or the recovery phase. 94 The authors however, cautioned about the potential of higher risk for BrS-related arrhythmias associated with the use of higher doses of propofol and longer infusions. 94 Arrhythmic events during labour seem to be very rare.…”

“…94 The authors however, cautioned about the potential of higher risk for BrS-related arrhythmias associated with the use of higher doses of propofol and longer infusions. 94 Arrhythmic events during labour seem to be very rare. In some IAS, such as LQT1, LQT2 and CPVT, arrhythmias are more likely to be provoked by increased heart rate during exertion.…”

Medication unmasked Brugada syndrome and cardiac arrest in a COVID-19 patient

“…12 Conflictingly, more recent studies have demonstrated safe use of propofol in patients with BrS. 13 It is unlikely that hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin contributed. Neither drug has been described to exacerbate BrS, and QTc was normal on all ECGs.…”

A fatal adverse event upon adenotonsillectomy in a child. Are Brugada syndrome and propofol real accomplices?

“…Nevertheless, the conclusion of "a small risk of fatal ventricular arrhythmias in the postoperative period in patients who receive propofol anaesthesia" is not confirmed by prospective clinical trials. 10,11…”