A randomized controlled trial of ketamine/propofol versus propofol alone for emergency department procedural sedation

Association of ketamine use during procedural sedation with oxygen desaturation and healthcare utilisation: a multicentre retrospective hospital registry study

BACKGROUND

We investigated the effects of ketamine on desaturation and the risk of nursing home discharge in patients undergoing procedural sedation by anaesthetists.

METHODS

We included adult patients who underwent procedures under monitored anaesthetic care between 2005 and 2021 at two academic healthcare networks in the USA. The primary outcome was intraprocedural oxygen desaturation, defined as oxygen saturation <90% for ≥2 consecutive minutes. The co-primary outcome was a nursing home discharge.

RESULTS

Among 234,170 included patients undergoing procedural sedation, intraprocedural desaturation occurred in 5.6% of patients who received ketamine vs 5.2% of patients who did not receive ketamine (adjusted odds ratio [ORadj] 1.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.15-1.29, P<0.001; adjusted absolute risk difference [ARDadj] 1%, 95% CI 0.7-1.3%, P<0.001). The effect was magnified by age >65 yr, smoking, or preprocedural ICU admission (P-for-interaction <0.001, ORadj 1.35, 95% CI 1.25-1.45, P<0.001; ARDadj 2%, 95% CI 1.56-2.49%, P<0.001), procedural risk factors (upper endoscopy of longer than 2 h; P-for-interaction <0.001, ORadj 2.91, 95% CI 1.85-4.58, P<0.001; ARDadj 16.2%, 95% CI 9.8-22.5%, P<0.001), and high ketamine dose (P-for-trend <0.001, ORadj 1.61, 95% CI, 1.43-1.81 for ketamine >0.5 mg kg-1). Concomitant opioid administration mitigated the risk (P-for-interaction <0.001). Ketamine was associated with higher odds of nursing home discharge (ORadj 1.11, 95% CI 1.02-1.21, P=0.012; ARDadj 0.25%, 95% CI 0.05-0.46%, P=0.014).

CONCLUSIONS

Ketamine use for procedural sedation was associated with an increased risk of oxygen desaturation and discharge to a nursing home. The effect was dose-dependent and magnified in subgroups of vulnerable patients.

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.

Focal Pulsed Field Ablation for Atrial Arrhythmias: Efficacy and Safety under Deep Sedation

Focal pulsed field ablation (PFA) is a novel technique for treating cardiac arrhythmias. It has demonstrated positive results in initial studies and has a good safety profile. In recent studies, PFA was often utilized for first-time pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) and was performed under general anesthesia. In our study, we assessed the feasibility, safety, acute procedural efficacy, and efficiency of focal PFA under deep sedation in patients, 80% of whom had undergone at least one left atrial ablation previously. We treated 30 patients (71 ± 7, 46% male) using the CENTAURI system for various atrial arrhythmias, including atrial fibrillation, typical and atypical atrial flutter, and focal atrial tachycardia. The average procedure and fluoroscopy times were 122 ± 43 min and 9 ± 7 min, respectively. A total of 83.33% of patients received additional line ablations beyond PVI, specifically targeting the posterior box and anterior mitral line. All ablations were successfully performed in deep sedation with only one major and one minor complication observed. The major complication was a vasospasm of the right coronary artery during ablation of the cavotricuspid isthmus, which was treated successfully with intracoronary nitroglycerin. All patients could be discharged in sinus rhythm. Moreover, adenosine appears effective in identifying dormant conduction in some patients after focal PFA. In conclusion, focal PFA is an effective approach for complex left atrial ablations under deep sedation, offering both high efficacy and efficiency with a reliable safety profile. Studies on long-term outcomes are needed.

Assessment of Optic Nerve Sheath Diameter in Patients Undergoing Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Double-Blinded Comparison of Propofol and Ketofol Anesthesia

BACKGROUND

ERCP is an endoscopic procedure for the diagnosis and treatment of biliopancreatic system diseases. An increase in intra-abdominal pressure due to the insufflation of air to the intestinal lumen may be transmitted to ICP through the course of ERCP. In this prospective, randomized, controlled double-blinded study, we aimed to assess the ICP change using ultrasonography measurement of ONSD in patients undergoing ERCP comparing the effects of propofol and ketofol anesthesia.

MATERIAL/METHODS

One hundred and nine patients undergoing ERCP under propofol or ketofol anesthesia were enrolled in the study. Ultrasonography measurement of ONSD was performed before (T0) and immediately after induction of anesthesia (T1), during sphincterotomy (T2), at the end of procedure (T3), and after the patient is fully awake (T4).

RESULTS

Comparison of ONSD values and ONSD alteration between groups showed no statistically significant difference (P > 0.05). Both groups showed significantly greater changes from T0 to T2 compared with values from T0 to T1, T3, and T4, respectively (P = 0,000). T0 to T3 alteration was also significantly greater than T0 to T1 and T4 change in both groups (P = 0,000).

CONCLUSIONS

ERCP procedure increases intracranial pressure most prominently during sphincterotomy both under propofol or ketofol anesthesia. Further studies are needed to investigate the impact of this phenomenon on adverse clinical outcomes.

Assessing the safety of deep sedation in outpatient pediatric oral health care

BACKGROUND

Children are the patient subgroup with the lowest error tolerance regarding deep sedation (DS)-supported care. This study assessed the safety of DS-supported pediatric dental treatment carried out in an outpatient setting through retrospective review of patient charts.

METHODS

An automated script was developed to identify charts of pediatric patients who underwent DS-supported dental procedures from 2017 through 2019 at a dental clinic. Charts were assessed for the presence of sedation-related adverse events (AEs). A panel of experts performed a second review and confirmed or refuted the designation of AE (by the first reviewer). AEs were classified with the Tracking and Reporting Outcomes of Procedural Sedation system.

RESULTS

Of the 175 DS cases, 19 AEs were identified in 15 cases (8.60%). Using the Tracking and Reporting Outcomes of Procedural Sedation classification system, 7 (36.84%) events were related to the airway and breathing category, 9 (47.37%) were related to sedation quality (including a dizzy patient who fell at the checkout desk and sustained a head laceration), and 3 (15.79%) were classified as an allergy.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests an AE (whether relatively minor or of potentially major consequence) occurs in 1 of every 12 DS cases involving pediatric patients, performed at an outpatient dental clinic. Larger studies are needed, in addition to root cause analyses.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

As dentists increasingly pivot in the use of DS services from in-hospital to outpatient settings, patients expect comparable levels of safety. This work helps generate evidence to drive targeted efforts to improve the safety and reliability of pediatric outpatient sedation.

Effects of intra-operative administration of subanesthetic s-ketamine on emergence from sevoflurane anesthesia: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND

Ketamine is administered in the perioperative period for its benefits in analgesia, anti-agitation and anti-depression when administered at a small dose. However, it is not clear whether the intra-operative administration of ketamine would affect emergence under sevoflurane anesthesia. To investigate this effect, we designed this trial.

METHODS

In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, we enrolled 44 female patients aged 18-60 who were scheduled to elective laparoscopic gynecological surgeries. All patients were randomly assigned to saline or s-ketamine group. In s-ketamine group, patients received 0.125 mg/kg s-ketamine 30 min after the start of surgery. In saline group, patients were administered the same volume of saline. Sevoflurane and remifentanil were used to maintain general anesthesia. The primary outcome was emergence time. We also assessed postoperative agitation, cognitive function, and delirium. In addition, we collected and analyzed prefrontal electroencephalogram (EEG) during and after general anesthesia.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in emergence time between s-ketamine group and saline group (10.80 ± 3.77 min vs. 10.00 ± 2.78 min, P = 0.457). Neither postoperative agitation (4 [3, 4] vs. 4 [3, 4], P = 0.835) nor cognitive function (25.84 ± 2.69 vs. 25.55 ± 2.19, P = 0.412) differed between groups. No postoperative delirium was observed in either group. Subanesthetic s-ketamine resulted in active EEG with decreased power of slow (-0.35 ± 1.13 dB vs. -1.63 ± 1.03 dB, P = 0.003), delta (-0.22 ± 1.11 dB vs. -1.32 ± 1.09 dB, P = 0.011) and alpha (-0.31 ± 0.71 dB vs. -1.71 ± 1.34 dB, P = 0.0003) waves and increased power of beta-gamma bands (-0.30 ± 0.89 dB vs. 4.20 ± 2.08 dB, P < 0.0001) during sevoflurane anesthesia, as well as an increased alpha peak frequency (-0.16 ± 0.48 Hz vs. 0.31 ± 0.73 Hz, P = 0.026). EEG patterns did not differ during the recovery period after emergence between groups.

CONCLUSION

Ketamine administered during sevoflurane anesthesia had no apparent influence on emergence time in young and middle-aged female patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery. Subanesthetic s-ketamine induced an active prefrontal EEG pattern during sevoflurane anesthesia but did not raise neurological side effects after surgery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2100046479 (date: 16/05/2021).

Ketamine-propofol (ketofol) in procedural sedation: a narrative review

Sedation methods for dental treatment are increasingly explored. Recently, ketofol, which is a combination of ketamine and propofol, has been increasingly used because the advantages and disadvantages of propofol and ketamine complement each other and increase their effectiveness. In this review, we discuss the pharmacology of ketamine and propofol, use of ketofol in various clinical situations, and differences in efficacy between ketofol and other sedatives.

Ketofol for Procedural Sedation and Analgesia in the Pediatric Population

ABSTRACT

The combination of ketamine and propofol, commonly referred to as ketofol, is sometimes used for procedural sedation and analgesia in the pediatric emergency department. This article reviews the pharmacology, dosing, and indications, as well as adverse effects and contraindications of ketamine, propofol, and ketofol.

Implementation of a protocol using ketamine-propofol ('ketofol') in a 1 to 4 ratio for procedural sedation in adults at a university hospital emergency department - report on safety and effectiveness

Objectives: To test the feasibility of an evidence-based protocol for procedural sedation in adults at our emergency department, using a mixture of ketamine and propofol ('ketofol') in a 1 to 4 ratio. We hypothesize that the protocol is safe and effective and can facilitate procedural sedation.Methods: During 14 months, adults in need of procedural sedation at our university hospital emergency department were included in a prospective convenience sample study. Patients with important comorbidity were discussed with the anaesthesiology department for feasibility of sedation in the emergency department setting. Outcome measures were procedural success, respiratory and hemodynamic events, vomiting, agitation or hallucinations, recall and physician's satisfaction.Results: Sixty-one patients between 18 and 89 years were included. All but one procedure were successful. Six respiratory events were registered in 6 patients (9.8%). These consisted of airway obstruction alleviated by airway repositioning and without influence on vital signs except for one brief episode of desaturation. Neither hemodynamic events nor vomiting were reported. Five patients (8.2%) experienced pleasant hallucinations and one patient (1.6%) became agitated upon awakening but recovered rapidly without medication. Three patients (4.9%) had recall and physician satisfaction rate was 93.4%.Conclusion: A feasibility trial of an implemented protocol for ketofol procedural sedation in adults showed only minor respiratory events, a low incidence of agitation or hallucinations, minimal recall and a high success and physician satisfaction rate. Despite a non-consecutive and limited sample used, ketofol in a 1 to 4 ratio appears safe and effective for use in the emergency department.

Comparison of drugs used for intubation of pediatric trauma patients

PURPOSE

Rapid sequence intubation (RSI) drugs, such as propofol, affect clinical outcomes, but this has not been examined in the pediatric population. This descriptive study compares the outcomes associated with intubation drugs used in pediatric traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review and descriptive analysis of intubated TBI patients, ages 0-17, admitted to Children's Hospital London Health Sciences Centre (LHSC) from January 2006-December 2016 was performed.

RESULTS

Out of 259 patients intubated, complete data was available for 107 cases. Average injury severity score was 28; 46 were intubated at LHSC, 55 at primary care site, and 6 on scene. Intubation attempts were recorded in 87 of 107 paper charts. First-pass intubation success rate was 88.5%. Propofol (n = 21), midazolam (n = 31), etomidate (n = 13), and ketamine (n = 7) were the most commonly used intubation drugs. Paralytics were used in 50% of patients. Following use of propofol, Pediatric Adjusted Shock Index was increased as a result of worsening hypotension. Mean total hospital length of stay was 21 days with 7.5 days in ICU. Survival was 87%.

CONCLUSION

Great variability exists in the use of induction agents and paralytics for RSI. Propofol was commonly used and is potentially associated with poorer clinical outcomes.

TYPE OF STUDY

Retrospective.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Procedural Sedation Using a Propofol-Ketamine Combination (Ketofol) vs. Propofol Alone in the Loop Electrosurgical Excision Procedure (LEEP): A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: Although the loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) is a brief procedure, it can cause severe pain and discomfort to patients in the absence of adequate sedation. An admixture of ketamine with propofol (ketofol), may reduce patient movement due to insufficient sedation while providing hemodynamic and respiratory stability. This study evaluated the ability of two ratios of a propofol–ketamine combination, compared with propofol alone, to reduce patient movement during procedural sedation for LEEPs. Methods: One hundred and twenty women scheduled for a LEEP were randomly assigned to three groups. Anesthesia was induced with 1 mg/kg propofol (group P), 1 mg/kg propofol and 0.33 mg/kg ketamine (group K1), or 1 mg/kg propofol and 0.66 mg/kg ketamine (group K2). The primary outcome was the incidence of adduction motion in the lower extremities during the procedure. The requirements for respiratory interventions, changes in vital signs, sedation score, additional anesthetic usage, and surgeon and patient satisfaction were also evaluated. Results: The incidence of adduction motion was significantly lower in groups K1 and K2 than in group P (overall p-value <0.001) but did not differ significantly in groups K1 and K2. Group K2 needed more jaw thrust maneuvers than group K1. Additional propofol usage was lower and surgeon satisfaction scores higher in groups K1 and K2 than in group P. Conclusion: A propofol–ketamine combination is more effective than propofol alone in reducing procedural interference during LEEPs. However, increasing the dose of ketamine showed no additional benefit.

Comparison of Ketamine-Propofol and Ketamine-Thiopental on Bispectral Index Values during Monitored Anesthesia Care (MAC) in Minor Traumatic Orthopedic Surgery; A Randomized, Double-Blind, Clinical Trial

Objective:

To compare the effects of ketamine-propofol and ketamine-thiopental on bispectral index values during monitored anesthesia care in minor orthopedic surgeries.

Methods:

This randomized double-blind clinical trial was performed on 90 patients undergoing minor orthopedic surgeries. Participants were randomly allocated to either groups of propofol or thiopental. Bispectral index (BIS), non-invasive arterial blood pressure, SpO2, and electrocardiogram were monitored every 5 minutes. Patients in propofol group received a bolus dose of 0.5 mg/kg ketamine, plus 0.5 mg/kg propofol. In thiopental group, patients received a bolus dose of 0.5 mg/kg ketamine, plus 50-75 mg thiopental. After the surgery, recovery duration, patients’ pain score (VAS) and any intra-operative recall or awareness were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 19.0

Results:

BIS was lower in ketamin-propofol group (p< 0.001). Mean arterial blood pressure, heart rate and O2 saturation showed a significant difference between two groups (p< 0.001), which were lower in ketamin–propofol group. VAS score was higher in ketamin-thiopental group (p< 0.001). Both groups were similar in intra-operative recall/awareness.

Conclusion:

Ketamine-propofol combination deliver a better control over monitored anesthesia during surgery, providing lower BIS, higher O2 saturation and lower heart rate and arterial blood pressure in patients undergoing minor traumatic orthopedic surgeries.

Clinical trial registration:

IRCT6N 2016032320258

Guidelines for Monitoring and Management of Pediatric Patients Before, During, and After Sedation for Diagnostic and Therapeutic Procedures

The safe sedation of children for procedures requires a systematic approach that includes the following: no administration of sedating medication without the safety net of medical/dental supervision, careful presedation evaluation for underlying medical or surgical conditions that would place the child at increased risk from sedating medications, appropriate fasting for elective procedures and a balance between the depth of sedation and risk for those who are unable to fast because of the urgent nature of the procedure, a focused airway examination for large (kissing) tonsils or anatomic airway abnormalities that might increase the potential for airway obstruction, a clear understanding of the medication's pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic effects and drug interactions, appropriate training and skills in airway management to allow rescue of the patient, age- and size-appropriate equipment for airway management and venous access, appropriate medications and reversal agents, sufficient numbers of appropriately trained staff to both carry out the procedure and monitor the patient, appropriate physiologic monitoring during and after the procedure, a properly equipped and staffed recovery area, recovery to the presedation level of consciousness before discharge from medical/dental supervision, and appropriate discharge instructions. This report was developed through a collaborative effort of the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry to offer pediatric providers updated information and guidance in delivering safe sedation to children.

Comparison of effects of propofol and ketofol (Ketamine-Propofol mixture) on emergence agitation in children undergoing tonsillectomy

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare the effect of propofol and ketofol (ketamine-propofol mixture) on EA in children undergoing tonsillectomy.

METHOD

In this randomized clinical trial, 87 ASA class I and II patients, aged 3-12 years, who underwent tonsillectomy, were divided into two groups to receive either propofol 100 µg/kg/min (group p, n=44) or ketofol : ketamine 25 µg/kg/min + propofol 75 µg/kg/min (group k, n= 43). Incidence and severity of EA was evaluated using the Pediatric Anesthesia Emergence Delirium (PAED) scales on arrival at the recovery room, and 10 and 30 min after that time.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference in demographic data between the two groups. In the ketofol group, the need for agitation treatment and also mean recovery duration were lower than in the propofol group (30 and 41%, and 29.9 and 32.7 min), without statistically significant difference (P value=0.143 and P value=0.187). Laryngospasm or bronchospasm occurred in 2 patients in each group and bleeding was observed in only one individual in the ketofol group.

CONCLUSION

Infusion of ketofol in children undergoing tonsillectomy provides shorter recovery time and lower incidence of EA despite the non significant difference with propofol.

Using Ketamine and Propofol for Procedural Sedation of Adults in the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Purpose: Ketamine-propofol combination (ketofol) is being used to provide a safe and effective procedural sedation (PS) in emergency department (ED) and may theoretically have beneficial effects since using lower doses of each drug may result in a reduction of the adverse events of both agents while maintaining optimal conditions for performing procedures. This systematic review was conducted to evaluate the efficacy, advantages and disadvantages of these two drugs for PS.

Methods: The PRISMA statement was used for this systematic review. We searched the databases of PubMed, Scopus, ProQuest, Medline (Ovid) from 1990 to August 2017 for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in which the study population aged ≥18 and was referred to ED. Full-texts of the studies performed in adults that were published in English were reviewed for inclusion. Both authors independently evaluated all studies. Five articles were eligible for the meta-analysis based on their common outcomes.

Results: The total number of subjects was 1250, of which 635 were treated with propofol and 615 were treated with ketofol. Although two of the five studies showed a better quality of sedation with ketofol, the other three did not find any significant difference between propofol and ketofol. This systematic review found a lower incidence of respiratory adverse effects in ketofol group than propofol group.

Conclusion:Ketamine/propofol mixture (ketofol) has less respiratory adverse effects than propofol alone in ED procedural sedation.

Propofol versus Ketofol for Sedation of Pediatric Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Pulmonary Valve Implantation: A Double-blind Randomized Study

OBJECTIVE

The study was done to compare propofol and ketofol for sedation of pediatric patients scheduled for elective pulmonary valve implantation in a catheterization laboratory.

DESIGN

This was a double-blind randomized study.

SETTING

This study was conducted in Prince Sultan Cardiac Centre, Saudi Arabia.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The study included 60 pediatric patients with pulmonary regurge undergoing pulmonary valve implantation.

INTERVENTION

The study included sixty patients, classified into two groups (n = 30). Group A: Propofol was administered as a bolus dose (1-2 mg/kg) and then a continuous infusion of 50-100 μg/kg/min titrated as needed. Group B: Ketofol was administered 1-2 mg/kg and then infusion of 20-60 μg/kg/min. The medication was prepared by the nursing staff and given to anesthetist blindly.

MEASUREMENTS

The monitors included heart rate, mean arterial blood pressure, respiratory rate, temperature, SPO2and PaCO2, Michigan Sedation Score, fentanyl dose, antiemetic medications, and Aldrete score.

MAIN RESULTS

The comparison of heart rate, mean arterial pressure, respiratory rate, temperature, SPO2and PaCO2, Michigan Sedation Score, and Aldrete score were insignificant (P > 0.05). The total fentanyl increased in Group A more than Group B (P = 0.045). The required antiemetic drugs increased in Group A patients more than Group B (P = 0.020). The durations of full recovery and in the postanesthesia care unit were longer in Group A than Group B (P = 0.013, P < 0.001, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The use of propofol and ketofol is safe and effective for sedation of pediatric patients undergoing pulmonary valve implantation in a catheterization laboratory. However, ketofol has many advantages more than the propofol. Ketofol has a rapid onset of sedation, a rapid recovery time, decreased incidence of nausea and vomiting and leads to rapid discharge of patients from the postanesthesia care unit.

Dexmedetomidine versus ketofol sedation for outpatient diagnostic transesophageal echocardiography: A randomized controlled study

Background

Moderate sedation is required for out-patient transesophageal echocardiography (TEE). Our objective was to compare the effect of Ketofol and dexmedetomidine for outpatient procedural sedation in diagnostic TEE with a hypothesis that Ketofol would be as effective as dexmedetomidine. Patients and.

Methods

Fifty adult patients of age group 18-60 years with atrial septal defect, rheumatic valvular heart disease undergoing diagnostic TEE in the outpatient echocardiography laboratory were randomized into two groups, group D and group KF. GROUP D: Dexmedetomidine infusion -200 μg in 20 ml normal saline. GROUP KF: Ketofol infusion: (ketamine: propofol, 1mg: 3 mg in 20 ml syringe). Loading dose of drug at 1ml/kg/hour IV till Ramsay sedation score (RSS) ≥ 3 achieved followed by maintenance infusion at 0.05 ml/kg/hour till end of procedure.

Results

The primary outcome - time to achieve Ramsay sedation score ≥ 3 was significantly lesser with Ketofol as compared to Dexmedetomidine 260[69] seconds vs 460 [137], (p value<0.05).

Conclusion

In out-patient setting, ketofol is favourable over dexmedetomidine for sedation regimen for diagnostic TEE as lesser time is taken to achieve optimal sedation with lesser hemodynamic perturbations, post procedure complications and better cardiologist satisfaction.

Ketamine-based anesthesia improves electroconvulsive therapy outcomes: a randomized-controlled study

BACKGROUND

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a common and debilitating condition that can be challenging to treat. Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is currently the therapeutic gold standard for treatment-resistant MDD. We tested our hypothesis that ketamine-based anesthesia for ECT results in superior improvement in treatment-resistant MDD outcomes compared with propofol-based anesthesia.

METHODS

Patients with treatment-resistant MDD were enrolled in a randomized clinical trial with assignment to ketamine- or propofol-based anesthesia arms. Using a modified intention-to-treat analysis, we compared the median number of ECT treatments required to achieve a 50% reduction (primary outcome) and a score ≤ 10 (secondary outcome) on the Montgomery-Asberg depression rating scale (MADRS) between anesthesia groups.

RESULTS

The study was terminated as significant results were found after the first planned interim analysis with 12 patients in each of the ketamine (intervention) and propofol (control) groups. All ketamine patients achieved at least a 50% MADRS reduction after a median of two ECT treatments whereas ten propofol patients (83%) achieved the same outcome after a median of four ECT treatments. All ketamine patients and seven propofol patients (58%) achieved MDD remission (MADRS ≤ 10). Log rank tests showed that both time-to-50% reduction and remission differed significantly between groups. Adverse events and recovery time were similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this early-terminated small-sized study, ketamine-based anesthesia compared with propofol-based anesthesia provided response and remission after fewer ECT sessions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01935115). Registered 4 September 2013.

Adverse Events With Ketamine Versus Ketofol for Procedural Sedation on Adults: A Double-blind, Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVES

The goal of our study was to compare the frequency and severity of recovery reactions between ketamine and ketamine-propofol 1:1 admixture ("ketofol").

METHODS

We performed a multicentric, randomized, double-blind trial in which adult patients received emergency procedural sedations with ketamine or ketofol. Our primary outcome was the proportion of unpleasant recovery reactions. Other outcomes were frequency of interventions required by these recovery reactions, rates of respiratory or hemodynamic events, emesis, and satisfaction of patients as well as providers.

RESULTS

A total of 152 patients completed the study, 76 in each arm. Compared with ketamine, ketofol determined a 22% reduction in recovery reactions incidence (p < 0.01) and less clinical and pharmacologic interventions required by these reactions. There was no serious adverse event in both groups. Rates in hemodynamic or respiratory events as well as satisfaction scores were similar. Significantly fewer patients experienced emesis with ketofol, with a threefold reduction in incidence compared with ketamine.

CONCLUSION

We found a significant reduction in recovery reactions and emesis frequencies among adult patients receiving emergency procedural sedations with ketofol, compared with ketamine.

Intensivist-based deep sedation using propofol for pediatric outpatient flexible bronchoscopy

AIM

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of sedating pediatric patients for outpatient flexible bronchoscopy.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted for all children, age 17 years or under who underwent flexible bronchoscopy under deep sedation in an outpatient hospital-based setting. Two sedation regimens were used; propofol only or ketamine prior to propofol. Patients were divided into three age groups; infants (less than 12 mo), toddlers (1-3 years) and children (4-17 years). Demographics, indication for bronchoscopy, sedative dosing, sedation and recovery time and adverse events were reviewed.

RESULTS

Of the total 458 bronchoscopies performed, propofol only regimen was used in 337 (74%) while propofol and ketamine was used in 121 (26%). About 99% of the procedures were successfully completed. Children in the propofol + ketamine group tend to be younger and have lower weight compared to the propofol only group. Adverse events including transient hypoxemia and hypotension occurred in 8% and 24% respectively. Median procedure time was 10 min while the median discharge time was 35 min. There were no differences in the indication of the procedure, propofol dose, procedure or recovery time in either sedative regimen. When compared to other age groups, infants had a higher incidence of hypoxemia.

CONCLUSION

Children can be effectively sedated for outpatient flexible bronchoscopy with high rate of success. This procedure should be performed under vigilance of highly trained providers.

Sedation and analgesia for procedures in the pediatric emergency room

OBJECTIVE

Children and adolescents often require sedation and analgesia in emergency situations. With the emergence of new therapeutic options, the obsolescence of others, and recent discoveries regarding already known drugs, it became necessary to review the literature in this area.

DATA SOURCES

Non-systematic review in the PubMed database of studies published up to December 2016, including original articles, review articles, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. References from textbooks, publications from regulatory agencies, and articles cited in reviews and meta-analyses through active search were also included.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Based on current literature, the concepts of sedation and analgesia, the necessary care with the patient before, during, and after sedoanalgesia, and indications related to the appropriate choice of drugs according to the procedure to be performed and their safety profiles are presented.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of sedoanalgesia protocols in procedures in the pediatric emergency room should guide the professional in the choice of medication, the appropriate material, and in the evaluation of discharge criteria, thus assuring quality in care.

Comparison between chloral hydrate and propofol-ketamine as sedation regimens for pediatric auditory brainstem response testing

Introduction

The use of diagnostic auditory brainstem response testing under sedation is currently the “gold standard” in infants and young children who are not developmentally capable of completing the test.

Objective

The aim of the study is to compare a propofol-ketamine regimen to an oral chloral hydrate regimen for sedating children undergoing auditory brainstem response testing.

Methods

Patients between 4 months and 6 years who required sedation for auditory brainstem response testing were included in this retrospective study. Drugs doses, adverse effects, sedation times, and the effectiveness of the sedative regimens were reviewed.

Results

73 patients underwent oral chloral hydrate sedation, while 117 received propofol-ketamine sedation. 12% of the patients in the chloral hydrate group failed to achieve desired sedation level. The average procedure, recovery and total nursing times were significantly lower in the propofol-ketamine group. Propofol-ketamine group experienced higher incidence of transient hypoxemia.

Conclusion

Both sedation regimens can be successfully used for sedating children undergoing auditory brainstem response testing. While deep sedation using propofol-ketamine regimen offers more efficiency than moderate sedation using chloral hydrate, it does carry a higher incidence of transient hypoxemia, which warrants the use of a highly skilled team trained in pediatric cardio-respiratory monitoring and airway management.

Risk Factors for Adverse Events in Emergency Department Procedural Sedation for Children

IMPORTANCE

Procedural sedation for children undergoing painful procedures is standard practice in emergency departments worldwide. Previous studies of emergency department sedation are limited by their single-center design and are underpowered to identify risk factors for serious adverse events (SAEs), thereby limiting their influence on sedation practice and patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the incidence and risk factors associated with sedation-related SAEs.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This prospective, multicenter, observational cohort study was conducted in 6 pediatric emergency departments in Canada between July 10, 2010, and February 28, 2015. Children 18 years or younger who received sedation for a painful emergency department procedure were enrolled in the study. Of the 9657 patients eligible for inclusion, 6760 (70.0%) were enrolled and 6295 (65.1%) were included in the final analysis.

EXPOSURES

The primary risk factor was receipt of sedation medication. The secondary risk factors were demographic characteristics, preprocedural medications and fasting status, current or underlying health risks, and procedure type.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Four outcomes were examined: SAEs, significant interventions performed in response to an adverse event, oxygen desaturation, and vomiting.

RESULTS

Of the 6295 children included in this study, 4190 (66.6%) were male and the mean (SD) age was 8.0 (4.6) years. Adverse events occurred in 736 patients (11.7%; 95% CI, 6.4%-16.9%). Oxygen desaturation (353 patients [5.6%]) and vomiting (328 [5.2%]) were the most common of these adverse events. There were 69 SAEs (1.1%; 95% CI, 0.5%-1.7%), and 86 patients (1.4%; 95% CI, 0.7%-2.1%) had a significant intervention. Use of ketamine hydrochloride alone resulted in the lowest incidence of SAEs (17 [0.4%]) and significant interventions (37 [0.9%]). The incidence of adverse sedation outcomes varied significantly with the type of sedation medication. Compared with ketamine alone, propofol alone (3.7%; odds ratio [OR], 5.6; 95% CI, 2.3-13.1) and the combinations of ketamine and fentanyl citrate (3.2%; OR, 6.5; 95% CI, 2.5-15.2) and ketamine and propofol (2.1%; OR, 4.4; 95% CI, 2.3-8.7) had the highest incidence of SAEs. The combinations of ketamine and fentanyl (4.1%; OR, 4.0; 95% CI, 1.8-8.1) and ketamine and propofol (2.5%; OR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.2-3.8) had the highest incidence of significant interventions.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The incidence of adverse sedation outcomes varied significantly with type of sedation medication. Use of ketamine only was associated with the best outcomes, resulting in significantly fewer SAEs and interventions than ketamine combined with propofol or fentanyl.

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 Outside of the Operating Room Using Ketamine in 22,645 Children: A Report From the Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium

OBJECTIVE

Most studies of ketamine administered to children for procedural sedation are limited to emergency department use. The objective of this study was to describe the practice of ketamine procedural sedation outside of the operating room and identify risk factors for adverse events.

DESIGN

Observational cohort review of data prospectively collected from 2007 to 2015 from the multicenter Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium.

SETTING

Sedation services from academic, community, free-standing children's hospitals and pediatric wards within general hospitals.

PATIENTS

Children from birth to 21 years old or younger.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Describe patient characteristics, procedure type, and location of administration of ketamine procedural sedation. Analyze sedation-related adverse events and severe adverse events. Identify risk factors for adverse events using multivariable logistic regression. A total of 22,645 sedations performed using ketamine were analyzed. Median age was 60 months (range, < 1 mo to < 22 yr); 72.0% were American Society of Anesthesiologists-Physical Status less than III. The majority of sedations were performed in dedicated sedation or radiology units (64.6%). Anticholinergics, benzodiazepines, or propofol were coadministered in 19.8%, 57.9%, and 35.4%, respectively. The overall adverse event occurrence rate was 7.26% (95% CI, 6.92-7.60%), and the frequency of severe adverse events was 1.77% (95% CI, 1.60-1.94%). Procedures were not completed in 39 of 19,747 patients (0.2%). Three patients experienced cardiac arrest without death, all associated with laryngospasm.

CONCLUSIONS

This is a description of a large prospectively collected dataset of pediatric ketamine administration predominantly outside of the operating room. The overall incidence of severe adverse events was low. Risk factors associated with increased odds of adverse events were as follows: cardiac and gastrointestinal disease, lower respiratory tract infection, and the coadministration of propofol and anticholinergics.

Guidelines for Monitoring and Management of Pediatric Patients Before, During, and After Sedation for Diagnostic and Therapeutic Procedures: Update 2016

The safe sedation of children for procedures requires a systematic approach that includes the following: no administration of sedating medication without the safety net of medical/dental supervision, careful presedation evaluation for underlying medical or surgical conditions that would place the child at increased risk from sedating medications, appropriate fasting for elective procedures and a balance between the depth of sedation and risk for those who are unable to fast because of the urgent nature of the procedure, a focused airway examination for large (kissing) tonsils or anatomic airway abnormalities that might increase the potential for airway obstruction, a clear understanding of the medication's pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic effects and drug interactions, appropriate training and skills in airway management to allow rescue of the patient, age- and size-appropriate equipment for airway management and venous access, appropriate medications and reversal agents, sufficient numbers of staff to both carry out the procedure and monitor the patient, appropriate physiologic monitoring during and after the procedure, a properly equipped and staffed recovery area, recovery to the presedation level of consciousness before discharge from medical/dental supervision, and appropriate discharge instructions. This report was developed through a collaborative effort of the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry to offer pediatric providers updated information and guidance in delivering safe sedation to children.

A comparison between the effects of propofol-fentanyl with propofol-ketamine for sedation in patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography outside the operating room

Background

The efficient and secure techniques of anesthesia and sedation have always been needed for. One of these procedures is endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), due to its painfulness and long duration, has high sensitivity. We compare the effects of propofol–fentanyl (PF) with propofol–ketamine (PK) to sedate patients undergoing ERCP.

Methods

In this clinical trial, patients were divided into two groups of 49 people. A group received a pharmaceutical combination of PK, and another group received a pharmaceutical combination of PF. Vital signs of patients, Ramsey Sedation Score, and pain of patients were assessed. The total dosage of used propofol was also recorded.

Results

There was no significant difference seen in the patients' hemodynamic characteristics in both groups. Pain at the end of surgery and an hour after it in the PK group was less that was not statistically significant. By Ramsey Sedation Score also significant differences were not seen between groups (p = 0.68). By using total dose of propofol used also a significant difference was not observed between the two groups (p = 0.36). Rate of apnea in PK group was 32% and in the PF group was 63%, which this difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

A comparison between the two drugs combination shows that although in terms of hemodynamic and sedation criteria both groups were similar, but because of the lower amount of pain and apnea in the PK group, this combination may generally in the ERCP procedure is more efficient and safer.

Efficacy Outcome Measures for Procedural Sedation Clinical Trials in Adults: An ACTTION Systematic Review

Successful procedural sedation represents a spectrum of patient- and clinician-related goals. The absence of a gold-standard measure of the efficacy of procedural sedation has led to a variety of outcomes being used in clinical trials, with the consequent lack of consistency among measures, making comparisons among trials and meta-analyses challenging. We evaluated which existing measures have undergone psychometric analysis in a procedural sedation setting and whether the validity of any of these measures support their use across the range of procedures for which sedation is indicated. Numerous measures were found to have been used in clinical research on procedural sedation across a wide range of procedures. However, reliability and validity have been evaluated for only a limited number of sedation scales, observer-rated pain/discomfort scales, and satisfaction measures in only a few categories of procedures. Typically, studies only examined 1 or 2 aspects of scale validity. The results are likely unique to the specific clinical settings they were tested in. Certain scales, for example, those requiring motor stimulation, are unsuitable to evaluate sedation for procedures where movement is prohibited (e.g., magnetic resonance imaging scans). Further work is required to evaluate existing measures for procedures for which they were not developed. Depending on the outcomes of these efforts, it might ultimately be necessary to consider measures of sedation efficacy to be procedure specific.

Outcome of pediatric procedural sedation & analgesia in a tertiary care hospital in Pakistan

Background and Objective:

Procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) is pharmacologically induced state which allows patients to tolerate painful procedures while maintaining protective reflexes. It is the standard of care but there is limited data from Pakistan. Our objective was to assess the safety of the procedural sedation and analgesia in pediatric population at a tertiary care setting.

Methods:

A retrospective notes and record review was conducted at the Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi over 4 years from April 2010 to August 2014. Patients were between ages 6 months to 16 years and were in low risk category. The combination of Ketamine and Propofol were used. Data collected on the standardized hospital PSA form. All procedures were performed by two trained persons.

Results:

A total of 3489 diagnostic and therapeutic procedures were performed. Satisfactory level of sedation was achieved for 3486 (99%) of procedures. Adverse events occurred in 21 (0.6%) patients including: 12 (0.3%) episodes of hypoxia, 07 (0.2%) episodes of apnea, 02 (0.06%) episodes of post sedation hallucination. No major events were noted.

Conclusion:

Procedural sedation & analgesia for children using Propofol and Ketamine is found safe and effective in our setting.

Propofol-Based Procedural Sedation with or without Low-Dose Ketamine in Children

Objective Examine comparative dosing, efficacy, and safety of propofol alone or with an initial, subdissociative dose of ketamine approach for deep sedation. Background Propofol is a sedative-hypnotic agent used increasingly in children for deep sedation. As a nonanalgesic agent, use in procedures (e.g., bone marrow biopsies/aspirations, renal biopsies) is debated. Our intensivist procedural sedation team sedates using one of two protocols: propofol-only (P-O) approach or age-adjusted dose of 0.25 or 0.5 mg/kg intravenous ketamine (K + P) prior to propofol. With either approach, an initial induction dose of 1 mg/kg propofol is recommended and then intermittent dosing throughout the procedure to achieve adequate sedation to safely and effectively perform the procedure. Approach: Retrospective evaluation of 754 patients receiving either the P-O or K + P approach to sedation. Results A total of 372 P-O group patients and 382 K + P group. Mean age (7.3 ± 5.5 years for P-O; 7.3 ± 5.4 years for K + P) and weight (30.09 ± 23.18 kg for P-O; 30.14 ± 24.45 kg for K + P) were similar in both groups (p = NS). All patients successfully completed procedures with a 16% combined incidence of hypoxia (SPO2 < 90%). Procedure time was 3 minutes longer for K + P group than P-O group (18.68 ± 15.13 minutes for K + P; 15.11 ± 12.77 minutes for P-O; p < 0.01), yet recovery times were 5 minutes shorter (17.04 ± 9.36 minutes for K + P; 22.17 ± 12.84 minutes for P-O; p < 0.01). Mean total dose of propofol was significantly greater in P-O than in K + P group (0.28 ± 0.20 mg/kg/min for K + P; 0.40 ± 0.26 mg/kg/min for P-O; p < 0.0001), and might explain the shorter recovery time. Conclusion Both sedation approaches proved to be well tolerated and equally effective. Addition of ketamine was associated with reduction in the recovery time, probably explained by the statistically significant decrease in the propofol dose.

Ketamine-Propofol Versus Propofol Alone for Procedural Sedation in the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Propofol is an agent commonly used for procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) in the emergency department (ED), but it can cause respiratory depression and hypotension. The combination of ketamine-propofol (K-P) is an alternative that theoretically provides a reduction in adverse events compared to propofol. The primary objective of this review was to determine if K-P has a lower frequency of adverse respiratory events in patients undergoing PSA in the ED than propofol alone. Secondary objectives were to compare the proportion of overall adverse events, sedation time, procedure time, and recovery time between K-P and propofol.

METHODS

Electronic searches of Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and CINAHL were conducted and reference lists were hand-searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English comparing the use of K-P to propofol alone for PSA in the ED were included.

RESULTS

Six RCTs were included with a combined total of 932 patients (K-P = 520, propofol = 412). Five RCTs reported the proportion of adverse respiratory events; the pooled estimate revealed fewer adverse respiratory events with K-P compared to propofol (29.0% vs. 35.4%; risk ratio [RR] = 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.68 to 0.99). There was no significant difference with respect to the proportion of overall adverse events (38.8% vs. 42.5%; RR = 0.88; 95% CI = 0.75 to 1.04). Procedure time was similar when the groups were compared.

CONCLUSIONS

The premise of combining ketamine with propofol is based on the many synergies that theoretically exist between these two agents. In this study, K-P had a lower frequency of adverse respiratory events in patients undergoing PSA in the ED compared to propofol alone.

The effect of ketamine on hypoventilation during deep sedation with midazolam and propofol: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Hypoventilation is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in patients having procedures under sedation. Few clinical strategies have been evaluated to reduce intraoperative hypoventilation during surgical procedures under deep sedation.

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective of this investigation was to examine the effect of ketamine on hypoventilation in patients receiving deep sedation for surgery with midazolam and propofol.

DESIGN

The study was a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial.

SETTING

Intraoperative.

PATIENTS

Healthy women undergoing breast surgery.

INTERVENTION

Randomised to receive ketamine (0.5 mg kg bolus, followed by an infusion of 1.5 μg kg min) or isotonic saline.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Duration of hypercapnia measured continuously with a transcutaneous carbon dioxide (TCO2) monitor.

RESULTS

Fifty-four participants were recruited. Patient and surgical characteristics were similar between the study groups. The median percentage of the sedation time with TCO2 more than 6.7 kPa in participants in the ketamine group, 1.2% (95% confidence interval, CI, 0 to 83), was less than that in the isotonic saline group (65%, 95% CI, 0 to 88; P = 0.01). Severe hypoventilation (TCO2 >8.0 kPa) was also less in the ketamine group, median 0% (95% CI, 0 to 11.7) compared with 28% (95% CI, 0 to 79.3; P = 0.0002) for the isotonic saline group. The ketamine group required less airway manoeuvres (chin lift) to keep the SaO2 greater than 95% median (95% CI) [0 (0 to 3) compared with 3 (0 to 16) in the isotonic saline group] (P = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

Ketamine decreased the duration and severity of hypercapnia in patients undergoing deep sedation with propofol. The addition of ketamine may reduce hypoventilation and adverse effects in patients having procedures under sedation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01535976.

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.

Emergency department evaluation and treatment of acute hip and thigh pain

Although the incidence of hip fractures is decreasing, the overall prevalence continues to increase because of an aging population. People older than 65 suffer fractures at a rate of 0.6% per year--2% per year for persons older than 85. One in 5 patients suffering a hip fracture will die within a year. Additionally, the emergency physician must consider entities such as avascular necrosis, compartment syndrome, and muscular disruption. This article reviews patterns and complications of acute hip and thigh injuries and clinically relevant diagnostic, anesthetic, and treatment options that facilitate timely, appropriate, and effective emergency department management.

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.

Sedation with the Combination of Ketamine and Propofol in a Pediatric ED: A Retrospective Case Series Analysis

BACKGROUND

Literature to date has suggested advantages of sedation with the combination of ketamine and propofol over ketamine alone or propofol alone. However, there is a paucity of data regarding sedation with the combination of ketamine and propofol in pediatric emergency medicine.

METHODS

A retrospective case series analysis of children who underwent sedation with the combination of ketamine and propofol in a pediatric emergency department was conducted. Study covariates were extracted from the emergency department medical records.

RESULTS

Four hundred twenty-nine patients, 297 males and 132 females, with a median age of 6.8 years (interquartile range, 3.9-10.9 years), underwent sedation by pediatric emergency physicians. Serious adverse events during sedation (SAEDS) were recorded in 52 procedures (12.1%), which included 39 hypoxic events (9.1%), 12 apneic events (2.8%), and 1 laryngospasm (0.2%). All SAEDS were managed successfully, and no child underwent intubation because of an adverse reaction or required hospitalization. Multivariate logistic regression analysis did not reveal any association between age, weight, fasting time, analgesic medication provided before sedation, length of procedure, capnography use, dosages of medications, and the presence of SAEDS.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the largest reported series of sedation with the combination of ketamine and propofol in pediatric emergency medicine. Findings suggest that sedation with the combination of ketamine and propofol can be safely performed by a skilled emergency physician.

Management of anesthetic emergencies and complications outside the operating room

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Anesthesia outside the operating room is commonly uncomfortable and risky. In this setting, anesthetic emergencies or complications may occur. This review aims to report the most recent updates regarding the management of prehospital anesthesia, anesthesia in the trauma and emergency rooms, and anesthesia for endoscopy and interventional radiology.

RECENT FINDINGS

After tracheal intubation failure, airway control of outpatients could be achieved by pharmacologically assisted laryngeal mask insertion. Management of traumatic injured patients is best guided in the frame of checklists. Monitoring sedation in this setting is challenging notably because of the threat of haemodynamic instability. Unfortunately, BIS monitoring cannot be recommended to guide sedation in this setting. Ketamine can be used to prevent hypotension during prehospital anesthesia or procedural sedation, especially as its neuroprotective effects have been recently best understood. Target-controlled infusion propofol administration with small concentration increments is adapted to prevent hypotension and hypoxaemia during sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy and interventional radiology. Target-controlled infusion remifentanil administration is also adapted to many procedures.

SUMMARY

Anesthesia outside the operating room requires careful monitoring to avoid side-effects and education of nonanaesthetists when they are involved. A useful tool is to continuously improve the protocols and checklists to make anesthesia in this setting safer.