Influence of audiovisual distraction on the feeling of stress, analgesic sedation and patient satisfaction during electrophysiological ablation procedures on the heart

Abstract

Abstract Background Distraction using audiovisual stimuli has mostly been researched in a paediatric population with the results showing an inhibiting effect on stress and anxiety as well as the subjective perception of pain. Purpose We designed a study to test if audiovisual distraction may reduce the level of sedatives and analgesics by reducing anxiety and stress during electrophysiological intervention (EP). Methods We conducted a clinical intervention pilot study that was carried out in a randomized controlled manner. Consecutive 70 patients undergoing EP with subsequent ablation were randomized 1:1 to control (CTL) or intervention group (AVD). In addition to standardized sedation, all patients in AVD group received audiovisual glasses. Feeling of fear and stress was assessed through blood pressure changes. The patient satisfaction was assessed with Client Satisfaction Questionnaire, ZUF-8. Numeric scale (NRS) was used to quantify the perceived pain during the procedure. The difference between the subjective estimated duration of the procedure and the actual duration of the procedure was compared. Results The study included predominantly male patients (58.6%) with a mean age of 56 years. Technical aptitude was well balanced between both groups with the majority of patients in both groups owning a smartphone or a tablet (86.1% vs 85.7% for CTL and AVD respectively, p=0.92), and majority of patients in both groups using a computer, laptop or tablet on a weekly basis (58% vs 57.1% for CTL and AVD group respectively, p=0.97). The baseline feelings of anxiety were well balanced within both groups (Figure 1). Our analysis revealed no significant difference between the mean blood pressure values of the CTL and AVD groups (systolic: 135 vs. 141 mmHg; p = 0.32; diastolic: 74 vs. 72 mmHg; p = 0.45). Patient satisfaction score was comparable in both groups (26.5 vs. 26.8 points, p = 0.36). Average response for perceived pain using NRS scale as well as perceived procedure duration was similar between the groups (Figure 2). AVD group required a lower dose of Midazolam than CTL group (0.005 mg/kg/h vs 0.007 mg/kg/h, p = 0.07). Majority of patients (31.4%) in AVD group stated: "The audiovisual glasses made me feel distracted at times." 10% of the AVD patients stated: "The audiovisual glasses made me feel completely distracted and more relaxed." Conclusion The use of audiovisual glasses has no influence on the patients’ feelings of anxiety and stress during EP. The use of audiovisual glasses can temporarily induce distraction during EP, while they do not seem to be sufficient in reducing pain intensity during ablation therapy. Patients undergoing EP do not seem to be the target patient group for AVD use.