A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Patient-Controlled and Physician-Controlled Sedation in the Emergency Department

Patient-Controlled Versus Clinician-Controlled Sedation With Propofol: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis With Trial Sequential Analyses

BACKGROUND

Sedation with propofol is frequently used to facilitate diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. Propofol can be administrated by the patient (patient-controlled sedation [PCS]) or by a clinician (clinician-controlled sedation [CCS]). We aimed to compare these 2 techniques.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, and trial registries were searched up to October 2017 for randomized controlled trials comparing PCS with CCS with propofol. The primary end points were the risks of presenting at least 1 episode of oxygen desaturation, arterial hypotension, and bradycardia, and the risk of requiring a rescue intervention (pharmacologic therapies or physical maneuvers) for sedation-related adverse events. Secondary end points were the dose of propofol administrated, operator and patient satisfaction, and the risk of oversedation. A random-effects model and an α level of .02 to adjust for multiple analyses were used throughout. Trial sequential analyses were performed for primary outcomes. Quality of evidence was assessed according to the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system.

RESULTS

Thirteen trials (1103 patients; median age, 47 years; American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-III) describing various diagnostic and therapeutic procedures with propofol sedation were included. PCS had no impact on the risk of oxygen desaturation (11 trials, 31/448 patients [6.9%] with PCS versus 46/481 [9.6%] with CCS; risk ratio, 0.74 [98% confidence interval, 0.35-1.56]) but decreased the risk of requiring a rescue intervention for adverse events (11 trials, 29/449 patients [6.5%] with PCS versus 74/482 [15.4%] with CCS; risk ratio, 0.45 [98% confidence interval, 0.25-0.81]). For both outcomes, Trial sequential analyses suggested that further trials were unlikely to change the results, although the quality of evidence was graded very low for all primary outcomes. For the risk of arterial hypotension and bradycardia, the required sample size for a definitive conclusion had not been reached. Analysis of secondary outcomes suggested that PCS decreased the risk of oversedation and had no impact on propofol dose administrated, or on operator or patient satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

PCS with propofol, compared with CCS with propofol, had no impact on the risk of oxygen desaturation, but significantly decreased the risk of rescue interventions for sedation-related adverse events. Further high-quality trials are required to assess the risks and benefits of PCS.

Procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department

Procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) is a core part of modern emergency department (ED) care allowing the rapid provision of important procedures. The safe delivery of a PSA service requires an appropriately staffed and equipped environment backed up by an ongoing system of training, audit and review. Topics covered in this review include: the evidence relating to the agents used; patient care before, during and after the procedure; the outcomes of ED PSA; and, the special considerations relating to PSA in children.

Alfentanil and patient-controlled propofol sedation - facilitate gynaecological outpatient surgery with increased risk of respiratory events

BACKGROUND

Widespread use of patient-controlled sedation (PCS) demands simplicity and a predictable outcome. We evaluated patients' safety and ease of use of PCS for gynaecological outpatient procedures.

METHODS

In a prospective double-blind study, 165 patients were randomized to use propofol or propofol with alfentanil as PCS combined with local anaesthetic for pain control. Data on cardiopulmonary function, consciousness, and need for interventions were collected at baseline and every fifth minute. The surgeons' evaluation of the ease and the duration of the procedure were recorded.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty-five patients used PCS for the entire procedure, 76 patients propofol, and 79 patients propofol/alfentanil. Fifteen procedures in the propofol group were limited or could not be done, compared with four in the propofol/alfentanil group (P = 0.02). The duration of surgery was not affected. The addition of alfentanil affected respiratory function compared with the propofol group: five patients compared with none were manually ventilated (P = 0.03), and two thirds, compared with a quarter, were given supplementary oxygen as their saturation decreased below 90% (P < 0.001). Overall cardiovascular stability was maintained. The propofol group had deeper conscious sedation as measured by the bispectral index (P = 0.03), but all patients could be roused. In the propofol/alfentanil group, five patients became apnoeic and could not be roused.

CONCLUSIONS

PCS using propofol alone supports patients' safety, as the addition of alfentanil increased the need for specific interventions to maintain respiratory stability. However, alfentanil increases the feasibility of the procedure, as complementary doses of propofol were not required.

Stratification of sedation risk--a challenge to the sedation continuum

We detail the limitations of the current paradigm of the sedation continuum - a tool ubiquitous to all sedation care settings and now a quarter century old. Definitions in this existing taxonomy are based on patient responsiveness to verbal and/or tactile stimuli, and the inherent subjectivity of this focus has both challenged the reliable assessment of adverse event risk and precluded clear delineation of sedation boundaries, e.g., what is the dividing line between moderate and deep sedation? We present the rationale to support a broadening of this sedation continuum precept to include an objective mechanism to predict the ongoing risk of serious adverse events, and then propose sequential steps for the development of such a restructured framework. This process, while ambitious, would yield a clear and consistent language to facilitate quality assurance, provide an objective framework for standardized sedationist training and credentialing, and permit inclusion into computerized decision-support algorithms to facilitate more precise sedative delivery. It is important to clearly delineate this goal now to permit design and initiation of the requisite research.