Etomidate and midazolam for procedural sedation: prospective, randomized trial

Pharmacological agents for procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department and intensive care unit: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials

BACKGROUND

We aimed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of various i.v. pharmacologic agents used for procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) in the emergency department (ED) and ICU. We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis to enable direct and indirect comparisons between available medications.

METHODS

We searched Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane, and PubMed from inception to 2 March 2023 for RCTs comparing two or more procedural sedation and analgesia medications in all patients (adults and children >30 days of age) requiring emergent procedures in the ED or ICU. We focused on the outcomes of sedation recovery time, patient satisfaction, and adverse events (AEs). We performed frequentist random-effects model network meta-analysis and used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to rate certainty in estimates.

RESULTS

We included 82 RCTs (8105 patients, 78 conducted in the ED and four in the ICU) of which 52 studies included adults, 23 included children, and seven included both. Compared with midazolam-opioids, recovery time was shorter with propofol (mean difference 16.3 min, 95% confidence interval [CI] 8.4-24.3 fewer minutes; high certainty), and patient satisfaction was better with ketamine-propofol (mean difference 1.5 points, 95% CI 0.3-2.6 points, high certainty). Regarding AEs, compared with midazolam-opioids, respiratory AEs were less frequent with ketamine (relative risk [RR] 0.55, 95% CI 0.32-0.96; high certainty), gastrointestinal AEs were more common with ketamine-midazolam (RR 3.08, 95% CI 1.15-8.27; high certainty), and neurological AEs were more common with ketamine-propofol (RR 3.68, 95% CI 1.08-12.53; high certainty).

CONCLUSION

When considering procedural sedation and analgesia in the ED and ICU, compared with midazolam-opioids, sedation recovery time is shorter with propofol, patient satisfaction is better with ketamine-propofol, and respiratory adverse events are less common with ketamine.

Practice Guidelines for Moderate Procedural Sedation and Analgesia 2018

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Comparison of sedative effectiveness of thiopental versus midazolam in reduction of shoulder dislocation

BACKGROUND

Various sedative drugs have been proposed to control anxiety and agitation in shoulder dislocation, but none of them has been diagnosed as the best sedative and relaxant agent. The study aimed to compare the sedative effectiveness of thiopental versus midazolam in reduction of shoulder dislocation.

METHODS

A randomized double-blind controlled trail was performed in 80 patients with shoulder dislocation recruited from the emergency department. Ten patients were excluded and 70 patients were enrolled in the study. Case group received intravenous thiopental 2 mg/kg+2 µg/kg fentanyl while control group received intravenous midazolam 0.1 mg/kg+2 µg/kg fentanyl. Number of times, patients and physician's satisfaction, difficulty of procedure, degree of muscle relaxation, time of sedation and complete recovery, number of patients with apnea episode, O2 saturation, patient's pain score and adverse events were all recorded.

RESULTS

Muscular tone had significant difference between the two groups (P-value=0.014) and thiopental was more muscle relaxant than midazolam. Replacement of shoulder dislocation in thiopental group was easier than midazolam group (P-value=0.043). There was no need to use multiple methods of reduction in either group. Before drug infusion the mean±SD VAS scores were 8.37±2.21 in the midazolam group (A) and 8.94±1.78 in the thiopental group (B); mean difference 0.57, 95% CI= -0.38 to 1.52. After completion of the procedure, the mean±SD VAS scores in group (A) and (B) were 3.20±1.30 vs. 3.65±1.30; mean difference -0.45, 95% CI= -1.07 to 0.16.

CONCLUSION

Thiopental might be more effective and relaxant than midazolam for reduction of shoulder dislocation.

Etomidate and Midazolam for Procedural Sedation in the Emergency Department of Queen Elizabeth Hospital: A Randomised Controlled Trial

Objective

The objective of the study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of intravenous etomidate against midazolam in procedures which required sedation and analgesia in our emergency department.

Methods

The study was conducted in the emergency department of Queen Elizabeth Hospital from 1st November 2005 to 30th June 2006. Adult patients who required procedural sedation and analgesia were recruited and randomised into two groups, in which either etomidate or midazolam was used as the sedative agent. Vital parameters and depth of sedation were closely monitored until they regained full consciousness.

Results

a total of 87 patients were recruited and randomised into study and control groups, of which 78 patients completed the study and were analysed – 36 patients were in the midazolam group whereas 42 patients were in the etomidate group. There was no statistical difference in mean age, mean weight and procedures between the two groups. Mean time for onset of action was 1.8 minutes for the etomidate group versus 3.4 minutes for the midazolam group (p=0.003). There were no significant differences in total procedure time, total length of stay, pain score, satisfaction score and adverse effects.

Conclusion

Etomidate achieved adequate depth of sedation for painful procedures in significantly shorter time than midazolam. There were no differences in procedure time, length of stay, pain relief and patient's satisfaction between the two drugs.

Comparison of ketamine/propofol (ketofol) and etomidate/fentanyl (etofen) combinations for procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department: An observational study

OBJECTIVES

The primary aim of this study was to report the vital signs, hemodynamic parameters and pain scores of the patients who have received procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) with either ketofol (combination of ketamine and propofol) or etofen (combination of etomidate and fentanyl) and compare the proportion of patients with airway or respiratory adverse events (AEs) requiring an intervention and calculate the relative risk of AEs with each combination.

METHODS

This study is a prospective observational study with survey analysis. All patients received procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) with either ketofol (combination of ketamine and propofol) or etofen (combination of etomidate and fentanyl) were prospectively observed. Vital and hemodynamic parameters and pain scores of the patients were recorded by automated equipment and visual analog scale (VAS) charts.

RESULTS

112 patients were enrolled, 55 received ketofol and 57 received etofen. All patients with a respiratory AE (n = 27) observed to receive a respiratory intervention. Respiratory AE rate and proportion of patient who required a respiratory intervention were significantly higher with ketofol (p = 0.0029). Overall AE rate, and rates of desaturation, emergence reaction were also significantly higher in ketofol group.

CONCLUSION

Etofen is a promising combination for the PSA of adult patients with lower respiratory AE and intervention rates and with better hemodynamic profile.

Procedural sedation in the emergency department

Procedural sedation options in the emergency department now allow for more effective and safer care and facilitate the delivery of orthopaedic care that would otherwise require operating room anesthesia. Traditional sedation agents, such as nitrous oxide, midazolam, fentanyl, and ketamine, have a persistent role. Etomidate and propofol are relatively recent additions that are highly effective. Combination regimens, such as ketamine-midazolam and ketamine-propofol, may be superior because they benefit from synergistic traits. Despite these sedation regimens, use of local blocks in adults continues to be effective, and intranasal delivery in children has emerged as a viable option. Orthopaedic surgeons should be aware of the appropriateness of different sedation regimens and other options for specific clinical scenarios.

Etomidate-remifentanil is more suitable for monitored anesthesia care during gastroscopy in older patients than propofol-remifentanil

Background

This prospective and randomized study was designed to compare safety, potential complications, and patient and examiner satisfaction of 2 anesthetic combinations – etomidate-remifentanil and propofol-remifentanil – in elderly patients undergoing diagnostic gastroscopy.

Material/Methods

A group of 720 patients, aged 60–80 years, scheduled for diagnostic gastroscopy under sedation were prospectively randomized. After 0.4–0.6 μg kg⁻¹ of remifentanil was infused, etomidate or propofol was administered. Patients in the etomidate group received doses of etomidate at 0.1–0.15 mg kg⁻¹ followed by 4–6 mg. Patients in the propofol group received doses of propofol at 1–2 mg kg⁻¹ followed by 20–40 mg. Physiological indexes were evaluated for the 715 of 720 patients that completed the treatment. The onset time, duration time, and discharge time were recorded. Physicians, anesthetists, and patients were surveyed to assess their satisfaction.

Results

Systolic pressure and diastolic pressure decreased significantly after the procedure in the propofol group (P<0.001). The average heart rate was significantly lower in the propofol group (P<0.05). No periods of desaturation (SpO₂ <95%) were observed in either group. The onset time was earlier in the etomidate group (P=0.00). All adverse events, with the exception of myoclonus, were greater in the propofol group, and physician and patient satisfaction in both groups was similar.

Conclusions

Etomidate-remifentanil administration for sedation and analgesia during gastroscopy resulted in more stable hemodynamic responses and less adverse events in older patients.

Etomidate--a review of robust evidence for its use in various clinical scenarios

Etomidate is an intravenous hypnotic with a favourable clinical profile in haemodynamic high-risk scenarios. Currently, there is an active debate about the clinical significance of the drug's side effects and its overall risk-benefit ratio. Etomidate-induced transient adrenocortical suppression is well documented and has been associated with increased mortality in sepsis. In surgical patients at risk of hypotensive complications, however, a review of current literature provides no robust evidence to contraindicate a single-bolus etomidate induction. Large randomised controlled trials as well as additional observational data are required to compare safety of etomidate and its alternatives.

Propofol and Etomidate are Safe for Deep Sedation in the Emergency Department

This study describes deep sedations performed for painful procedures completed in the emergency department at an academic tertiary care hospital during an 18-month period. One hundred consecutive cases were retrospectively reviewed to describe indications, complications, procedural lengths, medication dosing, and safety of these sedations. Propofol and etomidate were the preferred agents. We found that there were relatively few complications (10%), with only 2 of these (2%) being major complications. All complications were brief and did not adversely affect patient outcomes. This data further demonstrate the safety profile of deep sedation medications in the hands of emergency physicians trained in sedation and advanced airway techniques.

Intraarticular lidocaine versus intravenous procedural sedation with narcotics and benzodiazepines for reduction of the dislocated shoulder: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Anterior shoulder dislocations commonly present to the emergency department (ED). The time associated with procedural sedation for the reduction of anterior shoulder dislocations can be lengthy and may require use of additional personnel. Complications associated with intravenous (IV) medications for procedural sedation are well documented.

OBJECTIVES

The aim was to determine if intraarticular lidocaine (IAL) injection is as effective as IV procedural sedation with narcotics and benzodiazepines for reduction of anterior shoulder dislocations.

METHODS

This was a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The authors performed a PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane database search using key words: "shoulder dislocation" and "reduction" and retrieved every RCT published that compared the use of IV sedation to IAL as medication for reduction. Each manuscript was reviewed and the results of each was compared regarding medications used, success of reduction, complications, pain perceived, ease of reduction, and time spent in the ED.

RESULTS

Six Level 1 RCTs were identified. No studies showed a statistically significant difference in success rate between IAL versus IV sedation. The complication rate was significantly higher in the IV sedation groups (p < 0.001), and the total time spent in the ED was longer for the IV sedation group.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of IAL for reduction of anterior shoulder dislocations should be strongly considered as a first line therapy because it is effective and safe and may potentially reduce time spent in the ED.

[Procedural analgesia : concepts and practice]

The effect of severe pain and its hazardous stress-related cardiocirculatory consequences have been well documented for the perisurgical setting. Independently of surgical intervention however, even short and simple measures (e.g. thorax drain removal, repositioning a limb fracture) and longer diagnostic procedures such as MRI are potentially very painful or stressful to the patient. Though longer diagnostic procedures are frequently supported by systemic medication, short interventions regularly lack this aspect. Specific challenges result from the need to counteract sometimes great changes in pain intensity. Moreover procedural analgesia represents a multidisciplinary measure not restricted to anaesthesiology, as most of these measures are performed without anaesthesia. To avoid endangering the patient, the choice of drugs and patient monitoring have to meet certain professional and technical standards. Competence in respiratory management is of paramount importance. This paper outlines these requirements and serves as an orientation outside the anaesthesiological speciality.

Scope creep: when nursing practice moves beyond traditional boundaries: an evidence-based example using procedural sedation

The finite boundaries of the scope of nursing practice are constantly changing. One could expect that with new technology and advances in science, the interventions and assessments nurses perform will change over time. The practice of nursing is governed by nursing, however, it is often challenged by our partners in medicine, and frequently driven by time constraints or reimbursement issues. This article reviews a case example in which nurses were asked to expand their practice to assume responsibility for duties that were once traditionally performed by physicians. An evaluation of a practice problem using an evidence-based approach applying the PICO (population, intervention, comparison, outcome) method is explored. Proposed steps to minimize risk and staff moral distress are also described.

Procedural sedation for insertion of central venous catheters in children: comparison of midazolam/fentanyl with midazolam/ketamine

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of studies evaluating procedural sedation for insertion of central venous catheters (CVC) in pediatric patients in emergency departments or pediatric intensive care units (PICU). This study was designed to evaluate whether there is a difference in the total sedation time for CVC insertion in nonintubated children receiving two sedation regimens.

METHODS

Patients were prospectively randomized to receive either midazolam/fentanyl (M/F) or midazolam/ketamine (M/K) i.v. The Children's Hospital of Wiscosin Sedation Scale was used to score the sedation level.

RESULTS

Fifty seven patients were studied (28 M/F and 29 M/K). Group M/F received midazolam (0.24 +/- 0.11 mg.kg(-1)) and fentanyl (1.68 +/- 0.83 microg.kg(-1)) and group M/K received midazolam (0.26 +/- 0.09 mg.kg(-1)) and ketamine (1.40 +/- 0.72 mg.kg(-1)). The groups were similar in age, weight, risk classification time and sedation level. Median total sedation times for M/F and M/K were 97 vs 105 min, respectively (P = 0.67). Minor complications occurred in 3.5% (M/F) vs 20.7% (M/K) (P = 0.03). M/F promoted a greater reduction in respiratory rate (P = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study of nonventilated children in PICU undergoing central line placement, M/F and M/K provided a clinically comparable total sedation time. However, the M/K sedation regimen was associated with a higher rate of minor complications. A longer period of study is required to assess the efficacy and safety of these sedative agents for PICU procedures in nonintubated children.

The Utility of Supplemental Oxygen During Emergency Department Procedural Sedation and Analgesia With Midazolam and Fentanyl: A Randomized, Controlled Trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To determine whether supplemental oxygen reduces the incidence of hypoxia by 20% in study patients receiving midazolam and fentanyl for emergency department procedural sedation and analgesia.

METHODS

Patients were randomized to receive either supplemental oxygen or compressed air by nasal cannula at 2 L per minute. Physicians were blinded to the gas used and end-tidal carbon dioxide (ETCO2) data. Respiratory depression was defined a priori as oxygen saturation less than 90%, ETCO2 level greater than 50 mm Hg, an absolute change from baseline of 10 mm Hg, or loss of the ETCO2 waveform.

RESULTS

Of the 80 patients analyzed, 44 received supplemental oxygen and 36 received compressed air. Twenty supplemental oxygen patients and 19 compressed air patients met at least 1 criterion for respiratory depression. Six supplemental oxygen patients and 5 compressed air patients experienced hypoxia (P=.97; effect size 0%; 95% confidence interval -15% to +15%). Fourteen patients in each group met ETCO2 criteria for respiratory depression but were not hypoxic. Physicians identified respiratory depression in 8 of 11 patients who became hypoxic and 0 of 28 patients who met ETCO2 criteria for respiratory depression but who did not become hypoxic. There were no adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Supplemental oxygen did not reduce (or trend toward reducing) the incidence of hypoxia in patients moderately sedated with midazolam and fentanyl. However, our lower-than-expected rate of hypoxia limits the power of this comparison. Blinded capnography frequently identified respiratory depression undetected by the treating physicians.