Procedural Sedation and Analgesia in the Emergency Department: What Are the Risks?

Severe pulmonary edema occurred during endobronchial ultrasound under monitored anesthesia care - A case report

BACKGROUND

Endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS) is widely used to diagnose lung cancer. Monitored anesthesia care (MAC) can enhance patient comfort and procedural conditions during EBUS. EBUS under MAC is usually safe but can lead to various complications.

CASE

A 34-year-old male who had increased sputum for two months showed an enlarged paratracheal lymph node and planned for lymph node biopsy by EBUS. During EBUS under MAC, an unexpected oxygen saturation decline required intervention. After intubation, copious frothy fluid was suctioned from the bronchi, and oxygenation was recovered. A narrowed trachea and the EBUS bronchoscope might have resulted in upper airway obstruction, and suction performed under these conditions might have caused pulmonary edema. The patient received non-invasive ventilation and high-flow nasal cannula and recovered without complications.

CONCLUSIONS

When there is an expected risk of upper airway obstruction during EBUS, careful preoperative evaluation and preparation are essential to prevent negative pressure pulmonary edema.

Efficacy and safety of remimazolam tosylate for sedation during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: study protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Gastrointestinal endoscopy has been associated with difficult experiences and can leave patients with an unpleasant impression. Propofol and midazolam are the most commonly used intravenous anesthetics for sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy. However, cardiac and pulmonary adverse events are the primary concerns associated with the use of these sedatives. Remimazolam tosylate is an ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine drug with a mild inhibitory effect on the respiratory and circulatory systems. These properties qualify remimazolam tosylate to be used as a replacement for propofol or midazolam as a sedative during gastrointestinal endoscopy. This study aims to describe the efficacy and safety of remimazolam tosylate as a sedative for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.

METHODS

A multicenter, randomized, single-blind, parallel-controlled, noninferiority clinical study will be conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of remimazolam tosylate as a sedative during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Participants (n = 1800) will be randomized to receive remimazolam tosylate at 0.15 mg/kg (experimental group 1), remimazolam tosylate at 0.2 mg/kg (experimental group 2), or propofol at 1.5 mg/kg (control group). Procedure success will be assessed and defined as the completion of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy without the administration of a rescue sedative agent or more than two top-up doses of the trial drug in any 5-min period after initial administration. Sedation quality will be evaluated using the Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation score. Adverse events will be recorded to evaluate safety.

DISCUSSION

This study will determine the optimal dosage of remimazolam tosylate during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and will describe its efficacy and safety. These findings may contribute to a more comfortable and safer experience for patients compared with that when the conventional sedative propofol is used.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04727034. Registered on February 18, 2021.

Remimazolam versus propofol for deep sedation/anaesthesia in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in elderly patients: A multicenter, randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Propofol is the most commonly used sedative in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures, but is associated with cardiorespiratory suppression, particularly in elderly patients. Remimazolam is a new short-acting GABA(A) receptor agonist with minimal impact on cardiorespiratory suppression, and may be a viable alternative in elderly patients undergoing endoscopic procedures.

METHODS

This multicenter, randomized controlled trial was conducted between September 2020 and September 2021. Elderly patients (65-85 years of age) scheduled to undergo upper gastrointestinal endoscopy were randomized in 1:1 ratio to receive remimazolam tosilate (300 mg/h) or propofol (3 g/h) in addition to 50-μg fentanyl, until the Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Scale (MOAA/S) reached ≤1. MOAA/S was maintained at 0 or 1 throughout the procedure using 2.5 mg remimazolam or 0.5 mg/kg propofol boluses in the two groups, respectively. The primary outcome was the rate of hypotension (defined as systolic blood pressure at ≤90 mmHg or > 30% decline vs. the baseline). Bradycardia was defined as heart rate ≤50 per minute; respiratory depression was defined as respiratory rate <8 per minute and/or SpO₂  < 90%.

RESULTS

A total of 400 patients (161 men and 239 women; 70.4 ± 4.6 years of age) were enrolled (200 patients per group). Average body mass index was 22.2 ± 2.4 kg/m² . The rate of hypotension was 36.5% in the remimazolam group and 69.6% in the propofol group (p < 0.001). The remimazolam group also had a lower rate of bradycardia (1.5% vs. 8.5%, p < 0.001), respiratory depression (4.5% vs. 10.0%, p < 0.05) and pain at the injection site (0% vs. 12.0%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Remimazolam was associated with a lower rate of hypotension in elderly patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy under deep sedation/anaesthesia than propofol.

Remimazolam tosilate compared with propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy in elderly patients: a prospective, randomized and controlled study

Background

Remimazolam tosilate (HR7056, RT), a novel ultrashort-acting benzodiazepine, can be used for procedural sedation and general anaesthesia. However, few studies have focused on the sedative effect of RT during gastrointestinal endoscopy in elderly patients. The purpose of this study is to compare the sedative effect of RT and propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy in elderly patients.

Methods

A total of 82 patients aged ≥65 years with an American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) grade I-II and a body mass index (BMI) of 18.0 to 30.0 kg/m² who were scheduled for gastrointestinal endoscopy from Jan 2021 to Aug 2021 were selected and randomly divided into a RT group and a propofol group. Alfentanil 5 μg/kg was used for analgesia in both groups. The RT group was given remimazolam tosilate 0.15 mg/kg with supplemental doses of 0.05 mg/kg as need, while the propofol group was given propofol 1.5 mg/kg with supplemental doses of 0.5 mg/kg. The supplemental doses were determined by the modified observational alertness/sedation assessment (MOAA/S) score and the patients’ body movements. Sedative effects, such as the time to loss of consciousness (LOC) (MOAA/S score ≤ 1), successful sedation in one dose, number of supplemental doses after successful induction, and recovery time, were evaluated. Sedation-related side effects, such as injection pain, haemodynamic events and respiratory depression, were also noted. Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), visual analogue scale (VAS) scores at rest, remedial analgesics, and dizziness or headache were recorded. In addition, patients’ satisfaction and physician’s satisfaction of the procedure were compared between the two groups.

Results

Data from 77 patients were analysed. The success rate of sedation in both groups was 100%. The time to LOC (MOAA/S score ≤ 1) in the RT group was longer than that in the propofol group (20.7 ± 6.1s vs. 13.2 ± 5.2s, P < 0.001). There were fewer patients in the RT group reporting injection pain than that in the propofol group (0/39 vs. 5/38, P = 0.025). Haemodynamic events and respiratory depression in the RT group were less frequent than those in the propofol group ((6/39 vs. 17/38, P = 0.005), (2/39 vs. 9/38, P = 0.026), respectively). The number of supplemental doses after successful induction in the RT group was greater than that in the propofol group (4/9/11/13/1/1 vs. 8/4/18/6/2/0 requiring 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 supplemental doses, P = 0.014). The characteristics of the patients enrolled, postoperative parameters of the patients, and patients’ and physician’s satisfaction of the procedure were comparable in the two groups.

Conclusions

Compared with propofol, RT can be safely and effectively used for gastrointestinal endoscopy sedation in elderly patients, and the incidence of sedation-related adverse reactions, especially haemodynamic events and respiratory depression, is lower. When RT is used, the number of supplemental doses after successful induction may increase slightly.

Trial registration

Chictr.org.cn ChiCTR2000040498. Retrospectively registered (date of registration: December 1, 2020).

Accuracy of Landmark-guided Glenohumeral Joint Injections as Assessed by Ultrasound in Anterior Shoulder Dislocations

Introduction

To determine the accuracy of landmark-guided shoulder joint injections (LGI) with point-of-care ultrasound for patients with anterior shoulder dislocations.

Methods

Patients with anterior shoulder dislocations who underwent LGI were enrolled at our tertiary-care and trauma center. LGI attempts were recorded by an ultrasound fellowship-trained ED physician who determined if they were placed successfully. Pain and satisfaction scores were recorded.

Results

A total of 34 patients with anterior shoulder dislocation and their treating ED physicians were enrolled. 41.1% of all LGI were determined to be misplaced (n=14). Patients with successful LGI had a greater decrease in mean pain scores post-LGI.

Conclusions

LGI had a substantial failure rate in our study. Using ultrasound-guidance to assist intra-articular injections may increase its accuracy and thus reduce pain and the need for subsequent procedural sedation.

Effect of remimazolam besylate compared with propofol on the incidence of delirium after cardiac surgery: study protocol for a randomized trial

Background

Delirium is an acute cognitive disorder that presents with fluctuation in cognition, apathy, and non-organized thinking, resulting in increased morbidity, mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, and total healthcare costs. In patients undergoing cardiac surgery, delirium also increases the risk of postoperative complications, such as respiratory insufficiency, sternum instability, and need for re-operation of the sternum. This study aims to understand the incidence of delirium in patients after cardiac surgery in patients sedated with remimazolam besylate versus propofol.

Methods

In this prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial, we aim to recruit 200 patients undergoing cardiac surgery between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2021, who will be randomized to receive either remimazolam besylate or propofol infusions postoperatively, until they are extubated. The primary outcome is the incidence of delirium within 5 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes include the time of delirium onset, duration of delirium, ICU length of stay, hospital length of stay, and mechanical ventilation time.

Discussion

The key objective of this study is to assess whether remimazolam besylate reduces the incidence of delirium in patients after cardiac surgery compared to propofol sedation. In this preliminary randomized controlled clinical trial, we will test the hypothesis that the use of remimazolam besylate lowers the incidence of delirium when compared to propofol in patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

Trial registration

chictr.org.cn ChiCTR2000038976. Registered on October 11, 2020

A Safety Evaluation of Midazolam use for Nasogastric Tube Placement

Objective:

Nasogastric tube (NGT) insertion is one of the most painful procedures in the emergency department (ED). A recent study determined that giving intravenous (IV) midazolam before NGT insertion decreased patients' pain; however, the sample size was insufficient to draw the conclusions on safety. We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients who received IV midazolam for NGT insertion to determine the frequency of adverse events.

Methods:

All patients treated at a Level 1 trauma center ED from June 2016 to June 2019 who received IV midazolam for NGT insertion were included. The medical records were screened for the following serious adverse events: hypoxia, respiratory suppression, excessive somnolence/sedation, hemodynamic instability, epistaxis, vomiting, and choking. Adverse events, patient demographics, chief complaint, diagnosis, disposition, number of midazolam administrations, dose per administration, and total dose were recorded for the analysis.

Findings:

Three out of 159 participants (2%) were identified as having an adverse event. In two cases, the adverse event was hypoxia, which was corrected with the administration of supplemental oxygen through nasal cannula. The third adverse event was somnolence noted in a patient who was also hypotensive and in atrial fibrillation around the time of midazolam administration.

Conclusion:

It is safe to premedicate patients with midazolam before NGT insertions. Patients with borderline oxygen saturation and those receiving opioid analgesics may warrant dose titration with close vital sign monitoring.

Safety and efficacy of remimazolam in high risk colonoscopy: A randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Procedural sedation of ASA III/IV patients has increased risk. Remimazolam (an ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine) has proven safe and efficient for outpatient colonoscopy sedation.

METHODS

A double-blind, randomized, multi-center, parallel group trial was performed, comparing remimazolam to placebo with an additional open-label arm for midazolam in procedural sedation of 79 ASA III/IV patients undergoing colonoscopy. This was the third of 3 Phase III trials for remimazolam in the procedural sedation program. The primary end point was the safety of remimazolam.

RESULTS

Of 79 patients randomized at 3 US sites, 77 underwent sedation and colonoscopy (31 received remimazolam, 16 placebo and 30 midazolam). Incidence and frequency of treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were comparable in all three treatment arms, and independent of ASA status. One TEAE leading to discontinuation and one serious TEAE were reported; both in the open label midazolam arm. The efficacy endpoint was achieved for remimazolam, placebo, and midazolam in 87.1%, 0%, and 13.3% of patients (p<0.00001 for remimazolam versus placebo and versus midazolam, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Remimazolam is safe and efficient in procedural sedation of high risk ASA patients undergoing colonoscopy, showing a safety profile comparable to that in low risk ASA.

Feline procedural sedation and analgesia: When, why and how

PRACTICAL RELEVANCE

Procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) describes the process of depressing a patient's conscious state to perform unpleasant, minimally invasive procedures, and is part of the daily routine in feline medicine. Maintaining cardiopulmonary stability is critical while peforming PSA.

CLINICAL CHALLENGES

Decision-making with respect to drug choice and dosage regimen, taking into consideration the cat's health status, behavior, any concomitant diseases and the need for analgesia, represents an everyday challenge in feline practice. While PSA is commonly perceived to be an uneventful procedure, complications may arise, especially when cats that were meant to be sedated are actually anesthetized.

AIMS

This clinical article reviews key aspects of PSA in cats while exploring the literature and discussing complications and risk factors. Recommendations are given for patient assessment and preparation, clinical monitoring and fasting protocols, and there is discussion of how PSA protocols may change blood results and diagnostic tests. An overview of, and rationale for, building a PSA protocol, and the advantages and disadvantages of different classes of sedatives and anesthetics, is presented in a clinical context. Finally, injectable drug protocols are reported, supported by an evidence-based approach and clinical experience.

Chloral Hydrate: Is It Still Being Used? Are There Safer Alternatives?

Using chloral hydrate carries a risk of adverse events and compounding errors, and much of the available literature recommends using alternative sedatives for pediatric patients. But evidence regarding the efficacy of chloral hydrate and of alternative agents is conflicting.

Comparison of ketamine-propofol mixture (ketofol) and midazolam-meperidine in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancretography (ERCP) for oldest old patients

Background and aim: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) requires moderate-to-deep conscious sedation. Combinations of ketamine and propofol (ketofol) and of midazolam and meperidine were analyzed using the bispectral index (BIS). There is no research on the use of ketofol on very elderly patients. The aim of this study is to use BIS and offer insight into the use and safety of ketofol sedation for oldest old patients undergoing ERCP.

Materials and methods: For the ERCP procedure, 168 patients aged 85+ years were enrolled in a 2-year retrospective single center study. Seventy-five patients received midazolam-meperidine (MM) sedation in 2016, while 75 patients received ketofol (KP) sedation in 2018.

The two groups were compared for patient data, procedure duration, Ramsay Sedation Score (RSS), heart rate (HR), blood pressure (BP), and pulse oximetry (SpO₂), BIS, facial pain score (FPS), time to achieve BIS, recovery time, and complications. The total amount of rescue medication was recorded.

Results: The two groups did not differ by patient data or procedure duration (p>0.05). Group KP had significantly higher systolic and diastolic BP, HR, and SpO₂ values and lower BIS scores than Group MM (p=0.0001). The two groups did not differ by time to achieve BIS scores (p>0.05). Group KP had significantly fewer complications and a shorter recovery time than Group MM (p<0.001).

Conclusion: Ketofol induced sedation results in more stable vital signs and fewer complications than the midazolam-meperidine sedation regimen during ERCP in oldest old patients, indicating that ketofol can be an alternative to midazolam-meperidine.

Iatrogenic emergency medicine procedure complications and associated trouble-shooting strategies

PURPOSE

The purpose of this paper is to provide a consolidated reference for the acute management of selected iatrogenic procedural injuries occurring in the emergency department (ED).

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

A literature search was performed utilizing PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar for studies through March of 2017 investigating search terms "iatrogenic procedure complications," "error management" and "procedure complications," in addition to the search terms reflecting case reports involving the eight below listed procedure complications.

FINDINGS

This may be particularly helpful to academic faculty who supervise physicians in training who present a higher risk to cause such injuries.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

Emergent procedures performed in the ED present a higher risk for iatrogenic injury than in more controlled settings. Many physicians are taught error-avoidance rather than how to handle errors when learning procedures. There is currently very limited literature on the error management of iatrogenic procedure complications in the ED.

Safety and Efficacy of Remimazolam Compared With Placebo and Midazolam for Moderate Sedation During Bronchoscopy

BACKGROUND

While the complexity of flexible bronchoscopy has increased, standard options for moderate sedation medications have not changed in three decades. There is a need to improve moderate sedation while maintaining safety. Remimazolam was developed to address shortcomings of current sedation strategies.

METHODS

A prospective, double-blind, randomized, multicenter, parallel group trial was performed at 30 US sites. The efficacy and safety of remimazolam for sedation during flexible bronchoscopy were compared with placebo and open-label midazolam.

RESULTS

The success rates were 80.6% in the remimazolam arm, 4.8% in the placebo arm (P < .0001), and 32.9% in the midazolam arm. Bronchoscopy was started sooner in the remimazolam arm (mean, 6.4 ± 5.82 min) compared with placebo (17.2 ± 4.15 min; P < .0001) and midazolam (16.3 ± 8.60 min). Time to full alertness after the end of bronchoscopy was significantly shorter in patients treated with remimazolam (median, 6.0 min; 95% CI, 5.2-7.1) compared with those treated with placebo (13.6 min; 95% CI, 8.1-24.0; P = .0001) and midazolam (12.0 min; 95% CI, 5.0-15.0). Remimazolam registered superior restoration of neuropsychiatric function compared with placebo and midazolam. Safety was comparable among all three arms, and 5.6% of the patients in the remimazolam group had serious treatment-emergent adverse events as compared with 6.8% in the placebo group.

CONCLUSIONS

Remimazolam administered under the supervision of a pulmonologist was effective and safe for moderate sedation during flexible bronchoscopy. In an exploratory analysis, it demonstrated a shorter onset of action and faster neuropsychiatric recovery than midazolam.

A phase IIb study comparing the safety and efficacy of remimazolam and midazolam in patients undergoing colonoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Remimazolam is an ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine currently being developed for procedural sedation and for induction and maintenance of anesthesia. This trial was the fourth study for procedural sedation. The aim was to compare the safety and efficacy profile of remimazolam and to refine suitable doses for subsequent phase III studies in this indication.

METHODS

This was a randomized, double-blind, parallel group, active controlled clinical trial with 162 male and female patients, aged 18 to 70, scheduled to undergo a routine colonoscopy. Patients were randomized to receive 1 of 3 remimazolam doses or midazolam for sedation. Supplemental oxygen and 100 μg of fentanyl was given before procedures were started, and the colonoscopy commenced as soon as suitable sedation had been achieved (Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation score ≤3). Top-up doses of the study drug and/or fentanyl were allowed to maintain suitable sedation and/or analgesia. Response was defined as sufficient sedation, no rescue sedative, and no ventilation required.

RESULTS

This study showed that a single dose of remimazolam or midazolam, followed by top-up doses to maintain suitable sedation, provided adequate sedation with a high success rate (>92%) for the remimazolam groups, compared with 75% for the midazolam group (P = .007). There was no requirement for mechanical ventilation in any group, and procedure failures were all due to use of rescue sedative.

CONCLUSIONS

The high success rates and good safety profile of remimazolam observed in this study warrants further investigation and confirmation in phase III trials. (

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01145222.).

Adverse events and outcomes of procedural sedation and analgesia in major trauma patients

Context:

Trauma patients requiring procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) may have increased risk of adverse events (AEs) and poor outcomes.

Aims:

To determine the incidence of AEs in adult major trauma patients who received PSA and to evaluate their postprocedural outcomes.

Settings and Design:

Retrospective analysis of adult patients (age >16) who received PSA between 2006 and 2014 at a Canadian academic tertiary care center.

Materials and Methods:

We compared the incidence of PSA-related AEs in trauma patients with nontrauma patients. Postprocedural outcomes including Intensive Care Unit admission, length of hospital stay, and mortality were compared between trauma patients who did or did not receive PSA.

Statistical Analysis Used:

Descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regression.

Results:

Overall, 4324 patients received PSA during their procedure, of which 101 were trauma patients (107 procedures). The majority (77%) of these 101 trauma patients were male, relatively healthy (78% with American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status [ASA-PS] 1), and most (85%) of the 107 procedures were orthopedic manipulations. PSA-related AEs were experienced by 45.5% of the trauma group and 45.9% of the nontrauma group. In the trauma group, the most common AEs were tachypnea (23%) and hypotension (20%). After controlling for age, gender, and ASA-PS, trauma patients were more likely than nontrauma patients to develop hypotension (odds ratio 1.79; 95% confidence interval 1.11-2.89).

Conclusion:

Although trauma patients were more likely than nontrauma patients to develop hypotension during PSA, their outcomes were not worse compared to trauma patients who did not have PSA.

Efficacy, safety and patient satisfaction of propofol for procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department: a prospective study

Objective:

We evaluated the efficacy, safety and patient satisfaction with the use of propofol for procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department (ED).

Methods:

All patients receiving propofol for procedural sedation and analgesia in the ED between December 1, 2003, and November 30, 2005, were prospectively assessed. Propofol was administered using a standardized protocol, which included an initial dose of 0.25–0.5 mg/kg followed by 10–20 mg/minute until sedated. Efficacy was evaluated using procedural success rate, recovery time and physician satisfaction. Adverse respiratory effects were defined as apnea for more than 30 seconds or an oxygen saturation of less than 90%. Hypotension was defined as systolic blood pressure &lt; 90 mm Hg or &gt; 20% decrease from baseline. Patient and physician satisfaction were determined using 5-point Likert scales.

Results:

Our study included 113 patients with a mean age of 50 (standard deviation [SD] 19) years; 62% were male. The most common procedures were orthopedic manipulation (44%), cardioversion (37%), and abscess incision and drainage (13%). The mean total propofol dose required was 1.6 (SD 0.9) mg/kg. Procedural success was achieved in 90% of cases and the mean patient recovery time was 7.6 (SD 3.4) minutes. No patient (0%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0%–3%) experienced apnea; however, 1 patient (1%, 95% CI 0%–5%) experienced emesis, which resulted in an oxygen saturation &lt;90%. Nine patients (8%, 95% CI 4%–15%) experienced hypotension and 7 (6%, 95% CI 3%–12%) experienced pain on injection. All patients were very satisfied (92%, 95% CI 85%–96%) or satisfied (8%, 95% CI 4%–15%), and 94% (95% CI 88%–98%) reported no recollection of the procedure. The majority of physicians were very satisfied (85%, 95% CI 77%–91%) or satisfied (6%, 95% CI 3%–12%) with the sedation and the conditions achieved.

Conclusion:

When administered as part of a standardized protocol, propofol appears to be a safe and effective agent for performing procedural sedation and analgesia in the ED, and is associated with high patient and physician satisfaction.

Procedural sedation and analgesia in a Canadian adult tertiary care emergency department: a case series

Objectives:

To examine the safety of emergency department (ED) procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) and the patterns of use of pharmacologic agents at a Canadian adult teaching hospital.

Methods:

Retrospective analysis of the PSA records of 979 patients, treated between Aug. 1, 2004, and July 31, 2005, with descriptive statistical analysis. This represents an inclusive consecutive case series of all PSAs performed during the study period.

Results:

Hypotension (systolic blood pressure ≤ 85 mm Hg) was documented during PSA in 13 of 979 patients (1.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.3%–2.3%), and desaturation (Sao2≤ 90) in 14 of 979 (1.4%; CI 0.1%–2.7%). No cases of aspiration, endotracheal intubation or death were recorded. The most common medication used was fentanyl (94.0% of cases), followed by propofol (61.2%), midazolam (42.5%) and then ketamine (2.7%). The most frequently used 2-medication combinations were propofol and fentanyl (P/F) followed by midazolam and fentanyl (M/F), used with similar frequencies 58.1% (569/979) and 41.0% (401/979) respectively. There was no significant difference in the incidence of hypotension or desaturation between the P/F and M/F treated groups. In these patients, 9.1% (90/979) of patients received more than 2 different drugs.

Conclusions:

Adverse events during ED PSA are rare and of doubtful clinical significance. Propofol/fentanyl and midazolam/fentanyl are used safely, and at similar frequencies for ED PSA in this tertiary hospital case series. The use of ketamine for adult PSA is unusual in our facility.

Endoscopic sedation: risk assessment and monitoring

Sedation for endoscopic procedures is done to increase patient comfort and endoscopic performance. Drugs used for sedation suppress respiratory and cardiovascular function, and while the degree of suppression may vary, it may be fatal in certain patients. The aim of this article is to provide an overview and brief summary of presedation risk assessment and monitoring during and after sedation in order to maintain patient safety.

The use of basic parameters for monitoring the haemodynamic effects of midazolam and ketamine as opposed to propofol during cardiac catheterization

OBJECTIVE

Our aim is to compare the haemodynamic and adverse effects of propofol versus the mixture of midazolam and ketamine as used in sedation for cardiac catheterization in children.

METHODS

In a prospective randomized trial, we divided patients needing sedation into 72 receiving a mixture of midazolam and ketamine and 42 receiving propofol. Their ages ranged from 6 months to 12 years, and 1 year to 16 years, respectively. We collected data relative to heart rate, mean arterial pressure, respiratory rate, peripheral saturations of oxygen, and adverse effects. We assessed cyanotic patients to establish any relationship between the haemodynamic data and peripheral arterial saturations of oxygen.

RESULTS

Demographic data, including age, gender, and weight, was not statistically different between the groups. In those receiving midazolam and ketamine, mean systemic arterial pressures before, and 30 minutes after, sedation were 64.3, with standard deviation of 9.8, and 62.5, with standard deviation of 10.2, millimetre of mercury (p equals to 0.237). Heart rates were 131.3, with standard deviation of 13.5, and 109.2, with standard deviation of 17.3 beats per minute, (p less than 0.001) whereas in those given propofol the comparable values were 71.2, with standard deviation of 14.4, and 53.6 with standard deviation of 9.7 millimetres of mercury (p less than 0.001), and 115.2, with standard deviation of 13.6, and 100.5 with standard deviation of 20.1 beats per minute (p less than 0.01), respectively. Mean systemic arterial pressures in the subgroups of cyanotic patients before and 30 minutes after sedation were 74.8, with standard deviation of 14.6, and 72.7, with standard deviation of 12.4 millimetres of mercury for those receiving midazolam and ketamine (p equals to 0.544), and heart rates were 119.3, with standard deviation of 12.2, and 104.6 with standard deviation of 16.1 beats per minute (p equals to 0.001). In those given propofol, the comparable values were 71.1 with deviation of 15.5 and 53.9 with deviation of 9.2 millimetres of mercury (p equals to 0.001), and 126.7 with deviation of 20.8 and 107.2 with deviation of 13.5 beats per minute (p equals to 0.001), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In cyanotic children, propofol used as a sedative agent during cardiac catheterization causes a decrease in mean arterial pressure and arterial desaturation. Ketamine produces more stable haemodynamic data in children with congenitally malformed hearts.

The effectiveness of a specially designed shoulder chair for closed reduction of acute shoulder dislocation in the emergency department: a randomised control trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to demonstrate the effectiveness of a specially designed chair for closed reduction of acute shoulder dislocations.

METHOD

This was a prospective, non-blinded randomised controlled trial conducted in a university affiliated emergency department (ED). The inclusion criteria were (1) age ≥18 years; (2) anterior or posterior shoulder dislocation without fracture of the surgical neck of the humerus; (3) patient who is able to communicate and cooperate. Participants were randomly assigned using a computer generated random number sequence into one of two groups--either the traditional practice group or Oxford chair group. Administration of intravenous sedation was only permitted in the traditional practice group due to the concerns of sedation use in the sitting position while unsupported on the chair. The primary outcome measure was length of ED stay. The secondary outcome measures were length of time for the procedure, successful reduction rate, levels of pain experienced by patients in different time periods before and after the reduction.

RESULT

Sixty eligible patients were recruited, 30 in each group. The median lengths of stay in the ED in Oxford chair group (n=30) and traditional method group (n=30) were 152 min and 173 min respectively (p=0.183). The median procedure time was 3 min for the Oxford chair group compared to 5 min in the traditional method group (p=0.179). The success rate for the Oxford chair method was 77% (23/30). There were no statistically or clinically significant differences of pain score at any point.

CONCLUSIONS

The chair method had a 77% success rate in reducing acute shoulder dislocations without sedation. There was no difference in pain level experienced by patients between the chair method and the traditional method. Patient factors, including patients who have had previous shoulder surgery and patients who have fracture dislocations, contribute to the reduced efficacy of the chair method. It remains possible that the chair method may reduce patient length of stay in the ED in uncomplicated patients.

Comparison of ketamine-low-dose midozolam with midazolam-fentanyl for orthopedic emergencies: a double-blind randomized trial

OBJECTIVE

Most of the fractures and dislocations are reduced in the emergency setting. Many drugs are available for procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department (ED); however, the adverse effects are still a common problem. The aim of our study was to compare the 2 drug combinations.

METHOD

We performed a prospective, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial of patients presenting to the ED after a traumatic event and required urgent reduction either for a fracture or dislocation. Patients were randomized to midazolam-fentanyl (MF) group or ketamine-low-dose midazolam (KM) group. Hypoxia, duration of hypoxia, need for oxygen, time to onset of sedation, recovery time, pain scores during reduction, and sedation depth were set as primary outcome measures and were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 498 patients who presented to ED with extremity injury and required closed reduction were assessed; 130 of them were approached for eligibility and 69 patients were excluded. The remaining 61 patients were randomized to either KM group (n = 31) or MF group (n = 30). Hypoxia and duration of hypoxia were significantly lower in the KM group compared with the MF group. Patients in the KM group reported significantly lower pain scores during reduction; however, adverse effects were higher compared with MF group.

CONCLUSION

Both drug combinations can be effectively used for procedural sedation and analgesia; however, with lower risk for hypoxia and lower pain scores, KM combination stands as a reasonable choice for orthopedic interventions in the emergency unit.

How best to approach endoscopic sedation?

Sedation is the drug-induced reduction of a patient's consciousness. The aim of sedation in endoscopic procedures is to increase the patient's comfort and to improve endoscopic performance, especially in therapeutic procedures. The most commonly used sedation regimen for conscious sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy is still the combination of benzodiazepines with opioids. However, the use of propofol has increased enormously in the past decade and several studies show advantages of propofol over the traditional regimes in terms of faster recovery time. It is important to be aware that the complication rate of endoscopies increases when sedation is used; therefore, a thorough risk evaluation before the procedure and monitoring during the procedure must be performed. In addition, properly trained staff and emergency equipment should be available. The best approach to sedation in endoscopy is to choose a sedation regimen for the individual patient, tailored according to the clinical risk assessment and the anxiety level of the patient, as well as to the type of planned endoscopic procedure.

Procedural Sedation and Analgesia in the Emergency Department

Patients present to the emergency department (ED) for a variety of reasons and some require diagnostic and therapeutic procedures for their conditions. In order for some of these procedures to be carried out successfully, the patient must be at a suppressed level of consciousness in order to tolerate the associated pain and anxiety. Medications administered to achieve these goals include analgesics and sedatives as they decrease the patient’s discomfort and awareness while allowing the patient to maintain their airway. However, medication selection and dosing is critical and should be tailored to each patient and procedure. Pharmacists have an opportunity to reduce medication errors during procedural sedation and analgesia (PSAA) as the majority of medication errors leading to adverse events occur during the ordering and administration steps of the medication use process. Common errors include drug-dosing, potential drug interactions, and administration of the wrong pharmacologic agent. Pharmacists in the ED can provide drug information and assist with drug selection and dosing; medication preparation; and monitoring of the patient and of the time intervals since medication administration relative to the duration of the procedure. Having a pharmacist present provides an extra layer of protection and reduces the likelihood for potential medication errors.

A blinded, randomized controlled trial to evaluate ketamine/propofol versus ketamine alone for procedural sedation in children

STUDY OBJECTIVE

The primary objective is to compare total sedation time when ketamine/propofol is used compared with ketamine alone for pediatric procedural sedation and analgesia. Secondary objectives include time to recovery, adverse events, efficacy, and satisfaction scores.

METHODS

Children (aged 2 to 17 years) requiring procedural sedation and analgesia for management of an isolated orthopedic extremity injury were randomized to receive either ketamine/propofol or ketamine. Physicians, nurses, research assistants, and patients were blinded. Ketamine/propofol patients received an initial intravenous bolus dose of ketamine 0.5 mg/kg and propofol 0.5 mg/kg, followed by propofol 0.5 mg/kg and saline solution placebo every 2 minutes, titrated to deep sedation. Ketamine patients received an initial intravenous bolus dose of ketamine 1.0 mg/kg and Intralipid placebo, followed by ketamine 0.25 mg/kg and Intralipid placebo every 2 minutes, as required.

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-six patients (67 ketamine/propofol, 69 ketamine) completed the trial. Median total sedation time was shorter (P=0.04) with ketamine/propofol (13 minutes) than with ketamine (16 minutes) alone (Δ -3 minutes; 95% confidence interval [CI] -5 to -2 minutes). Median recovery time was faster with ketamine/propofol (10 minutes) than with ketamine (12 minutes) alone (Δ -2 minutes; 95% CI -4 to -1 minute). There was less vomiting in the ketamine/propofol (2%) group compared with the ketamine (12%) group (Δ -10%; 95% CI -18% to -2%). All satisfaction scores were higher (P<0.05) with ketamine/propofol.

CONCLUSION

When compared with ketamine alone for pediatric orthopedic reductions, the combination of ketamine and propofol produced slightly faster recoveries while also demonstrating less vomiting, higher satisfaction scores, and similar efficacy and airway complications.

Emergency department procedural sedation practice in Cape Town, South Africa

Background

There are no general policies or protocols for procedural sedation in the emergency department and no literature on present practice in South Africa.

Aims

To investigate procedural sedation (PS) practice in adults in emergency departments (EDs) in Cape Town, South Africa.

Methods

A cross-sectional descriptive study was performed by interviewing all ED managers and ED doctors in Cape Town meeting the criteria (open 24 h a day, staffed by full-time doctors, seeing adult patients and doctors who practice primarily emergency medicine and have performed at least one PS in the last 3 months).

Results

Data were collected from 13 units (5 public, 8 private) and 76 clinicians (48 public, 28 private). PS facilities are generally good in the private sector, but poor in the public sector (lacking in equipment, staff and protocols). Monitoring of patients during PS is often substandard, with only two thirds of clinicians using a minimum of blood pressure and pulse oximetry monitors during PS. Commonly used drugs for PS included midazolam, morphine and propofol (91%, 80% and 28%, respectively). Propofol (use of which is increasing in the international ED) is more likely to be used by experienced clinicians and those in the private sector. Surprisingly, almost half of clinicians would like propofol used on themselves hypothetically, although the majority (62%) said they had no or limited knowledge of its use and were concerned with its safety.

Conclusions

The private sector is generally better serviced for PS than the public sector. Most ED clinicians use morphine and midazolam for PS. However, there is widespread awareness of propofol as an alternative and probably superior PS drug. Recommendations for improving PS include development of general protocols for PS, training of doctors at all levels and optimization of ED facilities and staffing.

Adverse events associated with ketamine for procedural sedation in adults

STUDY OBJECTIVES

Ketamine is widely used as a procedural sedation agent in pediatrics, where its safety and efficacy are supported by numerous studies. Emergency physicians use ketamine infrequently in adults, as it is believed to have a more significant side effect profile in this population. However, adult data on ketamine use in the emergency medicine literature are sparse. Our objective was to determine ketamine's adverse effect profile in adults when used for procedural sedation.

METHODS

We performed a literature review based on adverse effect research methodology recommendations. PubMed, EMBASE, TOXNET, and a variety of specialized databases were queried without regard to publication date or language. Experts were contacted to locate additional data. Inclusion criteria included adult study; ketamine used to facilitate the performance of painful procedures; dose of at least 1 mg/kg intravenous or at least 2 mg/kg intramuscular; original data and adverse events reported; spontaneously breathing patient, and no continuous cotherapies. Studies that met inclusion criteria were abstracted onto structured forms and their results qualitatively summarized.

RESULTS

Of the 5512 unique citations that were evaluated, 87 met criteria for inclusion. Most studies were performed in the 1970s and published in the anesthesia literature. Contexts, end points, and methodological quality varied widely across studies. Ketamine reliably produces conditions that facilitate the performance of painful procedures. Pharyngeal reflexes are generally preserved and cardiovascular tone stimulated, including a rise in blood pressure and myocardial oxygen demand. Laryngospasm and airway obstruction are reported, and though ketamine is a respiratory stimulant, a brief period of apnea around the time of injection is common. Reports of significant cardiorespiratory adverse events are rare, despite ketamine's frequent use in austere, poorly monitored settings. Dysphoric emergence phenomena occur in 10% to 20% of cases; sedating medications are effective in preventing and managing these reactions.

CONCLUSION

When ketamine is used for procedural sedation in adults, emergence phenomena occur in 10% to 20% of patients. Although providers must be prepared to recognize and manage airway obstruction, cardiorespiratory adverse events are rare and typically do not affect outcomes.

The National Emergency Department Safety Study: study rationale and design

The significance of medical errors is widely appreciated. Given the frequency and significance of errors in medicine, it is important to learn how to reduce their frequency; however, the identification of factors that increase the likelihood of errors poses a considerable challenge. The National Emergency Department Safety Study (NEDSS) sought to characterize organizational- and clinician-associated factors related to the likelihood of errors occurring in emergency departments (EDs). NEDSS was a large multicenter study coordinated by the Emergency Medicine Network (EMNet; www.emnet-usa.org). It was designed to determine if reports by ED personnel about safety processes are significantly correlated with the actual occurrence of errors in EDs. If so, staff reports can be used to accurately identify processes for safety improvements. Staff perceptions were assessed with a survey, while errors were assessed through chart review of three conditions: acute myocardial infarction, acute asthma, and reductions of dislocations under procedural sedation. NEDSS also examined the characteristics of EDs associated with the occurrence of errors. NEDSS is the first comprehensive national study of the frequency and types of medical errors in EDs. This article describes the methods used to develop and implement the study.

Knowledge of procedural sedation and analgesia of emergency medicine physicians

OBJECTIVES

Pediatric procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) is unique. The goals of this study were to examine emergency medicine (EM) physicians' baseline knowledge of general and pediatric PSA compared with that of other nonanesthesiologist physicians and to test effectiveness of a seminar required for credentialing in PSA.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, before and after interventional study of participants in a major university teaching hospital's PSA course. Analysis was conducted to determine: (1) performance of EM physicians on questions related to general and pediatric PSA compared with other participating physicians, and (2) effect of seminar on participants' knowledge of PSA.

RESULTS

The mean +/- SE PSA pretest score for EM physicians was higher than that of other physicians (63.7% +/- 1.1% vs 50.2% +/- 2.2%, P < 0.001), but not for the pediatric PSA pretest scores (54.8% +/- 1.7% vs 51.0% +/- 1.8%, P = 0.17). The EM practitioners performed worse on the pediatric versus the adult portion of the PSA pretest (55.2% +/- 1.8% vs 66.8% +/- 1.4%, P < 0.001). Practitioners trained in American Heart Association advanced life support classes performed better than the untrained (52.1 +/- 1.4 vs 41.6+/- 2.5, P < 0.001). Total and pediatric PSA test scores improved significantly after educational intervention in all practitioners.

CONCLUSIONS

The EM physicians have stronger knowledge about general PSA than other nonanesthesiologist physician participants, but not for pediatric PSA, thus providing a target for future interventions. This course on PSA improved practitioners' knowledge of general and pediatric PSA and can be used as an educational model for PSA training. Further study is needed to determine decay rates for this knowledge and impact on patient care.

Sedation practice in a Scottish teaching hospital emergency department

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a prospective survey in a teaching hospital emergency department to evaluate performance according to safe sedation principles, to establish the demographics of those sedated, and to review the drugs used and doses given to patients in the department. Any adverse events were reviewed for identification of preventable causes.

METHODS

Pre-sedation checklists, peri-procedural observations, and patient notes were reviewed for 101 cases from 4 December 2004 to 3 September 2005. There are departmental guidelines outlining the principles of safe sedation.

RESULTS

Emergency department procedural sedation was performed for a variety of acute conditions in patients aged from 7 to 91 years old. A variety of sedation agents were administered, morphine and midazolam being used most frequently. Drug administration, maximum sedation level, and time to recovery and discharge were recorded. Four adverse events were reported, none of which were clinically significant. Departmental guidelines were followed.

CONCLUSION

Emergency department sedation is a safe and effective procedure if appropriately trained practitioners follow the principles of safe sedation.

Aspiration pneumonitis requiring intubation after procedural sedation and analgesia: a case report

Emergency department (ED) procedural sedation and analgesia is widely and routinely performed; serious complications are rare. We describe the first reported case of aspiration during procedural sedation in the ED. Although our patient required endotracheal intubation and critical care admission, there was no adverse long-term outcome. Given that there were no apparent predisposing factors, we believe it is crucial for emergency physicians to routinely anticipate the possibility of such a complication during each sedation event.