Propofol sedation by emergency physicians for elective pediatric outpatient procedures

Lower-Dose Propofol Use for MRI: A Retrospective Review of a Pediatric Sedation Team's Experience

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to evaluate, in children undergoing procedural sedation for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans, whether lower doses of propofol than previously published permitted a high rate of successful MRI completion, whether lower dosages result in a more rapid recovery, and whether age or behavioral diagnosis increases propofol requirements.

METHODS

After institutional review board approval, we retrospectively reviewed the pediatric sedation team's sedation database of children receiving propofol infusion for MRI scans between 2007 and 2016. Data collected included propofol induction dose (in milligrams per kilogram), propofol infusion dose (in micrograms per kilogram per hour), total propofol dose (in milligrams per kilogram and in milligrams per kilogram per hour), and the number of administered ancillary sedative medications. Additional data included the American Society of Anesthesiologist status, sedation duration, recovery duration, and successful completion of MRI. Dosing data were also stratified by age.

RESULTS

A total of 2354 patients met inclusion criteria. Eight percent of patients received propofol infusion alone, 79% received midazolam before their propofol induction, and 13% received a combination of propofol and other drugs. Mean induction dose was 2.2 + 0.9 mg/kg, mean infusion dose was 93.5 + 29.0 μg/kg per minute, and total mean dose was 9.0 + 3.0 mg/kg per hour. Mean recovery time was 44 minutes, and 99.3% of the scans were completed with good images. We noted an increase requirement in the mean induction dose and total dose in children younger than 1 year.

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol infusion doses lower than commonly reported permit successful completion of scans and similar recovery times in a single institution. Younger children require more propofol for successful procedural sedation.

Independent risk factors for adverse events associated with propofol-based pediatric sedation performed by anesthesiologists in the radiology suite: a prospective observational study

This study aimed to identify the types and frequencies of adverse events, as well as the risk factors for respiratory complications related to pediatric sedation. This single-center, prospective, observational study was conducted in a radiology suite at a tertiary university hospital for 2 years. Patients aged under 18 years, who underwent sedation solely by anesthesiologists for computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging scans, were eligible for inclusion. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were carried out to identify the risk factors of adverse events, including respiratory complications, related to the propofol-based sedation. We further performed a sensitivity test with 1-to-5 propensity score matching analysis to assess the robustness of our findings. Among 2569 children, 3.9% experienced respiratory problems related to the sedation. After 1-to-5 propensity matching analysis, cardiac and neurologic comorbidities, crying before sedation, a history of snoring or upper respiratory infection, and prolonged duration of sedation were independently associated with the occurrence of adverse respiratory events.Conclusions: Our protocol for pediatric sedation demonstrates a high success rate and low likelihood of fatal complications, but proactive management prior to propofol-based sedation is critical to prevent adverse respiratory events in children. What is Known: • Propofol-based pediatric sedation is associated with adverse events necessarily even though performed by professional anesthesiologists solely. What is New: • Cardiac and neurologic comorbidities, crying before sedation, a history of snoring or upper respiratory infection, and prolonged duration of sedation were independently associated with the occurrence of respiratory adverse events. • Proactive management prior to sedation is critical to preventing adverse respiratory events for pediatrics.

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.

Evaluation of methohexital as an alternative to propofol in a high volume outpatient pediatric sedation service

BACKGROUND

Propofol is a preferred agent for many pediatric sedation providers because of its rapid onset and short duration of action. It allows for quick turn around times and enhanced throughput. Occasionally, intravenous (IV) methohexital (MHX), an ultra-short acting barbiturate is utilized instead of propofol.

OBJECTIVE

Describe the experience with MHX in a primarily propofol driven outpatient sedation program and to see if it serves as an acceptable alternative when propofol is not the preferred pharmacologic option.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review from 2012 to 2015 of patients receiving IV MHX as their primary sedation agent. Data collected included demographics, reason for methohexital use, dosing, type of procedure, success rate, adverse events (AE), duration of the procedure, and time to discharge.

RESULTS

Methohexital was used in 240 patient encounters. Median age was 4years (IQR 2-7), 71.8% were male, and 80.4% were ASA-PS I or II. Indications for MHX use: egg+soy/peanut allergy in 93 (38.8%) and mitochondrial disorder 9 (3.8%). Median induction bolus was 2.1mg/kg (IQR, 1.9-2.8), median maintenance infusion was 4.5mg/kg/h (IQR, 3.0-6.0). Hiccups 15 (6.3%), secretions requiring intervention 14 (5.8%), and cough 12 (5.0%) were the most commonly occurring minor AEs. Airway obstruction was seen in 28 (11.6%). Overall success rate was 94%. Median time to discharge after procedure completion was 40.5min (IQR 28-57).

CONCLUSION

Methohexital can be used with a high success rate and AEs that are not inconsistent with propofol administration. Methohexital should be considered when propofol is not a preferred option.

Emergency Procedural Sedation With Propofol in Older Teenagers: Any Cause for Concern?

INTRODUCTION

Propofol is a standard for adult emergency department procedural sedation (EDPS). Use in pediatric patients remains controversial. Our primary objective was to investigate whether adverse events occurred more frequently in teenage pediatric patients receiving propofol for EDPS.

METHODS

This retrospective study examines records from the Halifax Procedural Sedation Registry, collected between January 1, 2006 and May 31, 2013. Patients undergoing EDPS using propofol were divided into those aged 16 to 19 years (teenagers), 20 to 65 years (adults), and older than 65 years (seniors). The primary outcomes were the incidences of hypotension and hypoxia.

RESULTS

Four thousand sixty-three EDPSs were included in the analysis, of which 230 involved teenagers, 2853 adults (mean age, 43.0 years), and 980 seniors (mean age, 77.1). The teenage group was significantly less likely to develop hypotension or hypoxia. These differences were confirmed on multivariate analysis. Patients in the teenage group received higher doses of propofol per kilogram/minute than the other groups. No other differences met statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

Teenage patients receiving EDPS with propofol had a lower incidence of adverse events, and both received and tolerated larger adjusted doses of medication than older patients. Satisfaction and duration of EDPS were similar. Concerns about propofol use in younger patients have not been supported by this study. We believe that these findings support the use of propofol for EDPS in older teenagers.

Emergency department procedural sedation and analgesia: A Canadian Community Effectiveness and Safety Study (ACCESS)

Objectives:

To determine the effectiveness and safety of procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) in a Canadian community emergency department (ED) staffed primarily by family physicians and to assess the role of capnometry monitoring in PSA.

Methods:

One hundred and sixty (160) consecutive procedural sedation cases were reviewed from the ED of a rural hospital in Huntsville, Ont. The ED is mainly staffed by family physicians who have received in-house training in PSA. Safety and effectiveness measures were extrapolated from a standardized PSA form by a blinded research assistant.

Results:

The mean age of the patient population was 33.6 years (standard deviation = 23.6). Fifty-four percent of the patients were male, and 33% of the cases were pediatric. PSA medications included propofol (84%), fentanyl (51%) and midazolam (15%), and the procedural success rate was 95.6%. The adverse event (AE) rate was 18% and included apnea (10%), inadequate sedation (3%), bradycardia (2%), desaturation (1%), hypotension (1%) and bag-valve-mask use (1%). In those aged ≥65 years there was a greater incidence of apnea. There were no episodes of emesis and there were no intubations. A modified jaw thrust manoeuvre was used in 23% of the cases. In the 64% of cases where capnometry was used, there was no association between its use and any AE measures.

Conclusion:

Procedural sedation was safe and effective in our environment. Capnometry recording did not appear to alter outcomes, although the data are incomplete.

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 < 90 mm Hg or > 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 <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.

Use of ambulatory anesthesia with manually assisted ventilation for tympanic membrane regeneration therapy in children

PURPOSE

To present the utility of ambulatory anesthesia using manually assisted ventilation via a facemask for tympanic membrane (TM) regeneration therapy in children.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study included 10 children (age 4-11years) in whom the duration of perforation before treatment exceeded 6months and who were followed for at least 1year after treatment between December 2009 and December 2012. Under ambulatory anesthesia using manually assisted ventilation via a facemask, TM regenerative therapy with atelocollagen combined with basic fibroblast growth factor was performed in children who could not tolerate the procedure under local anesthesia alone.

RESULTS

All of the children completed the TM regenerative therapy under ambulatory anesthesia in less than 5min. Complete closure was achieved in nine (81.8%) ears after 1year of postoperative follow-up.

CONCLUSION

TM regenerative therapy can be performed under local anesthesia in less than 5min without a skin incision. However, local anesthesia is often insufficient in small children undergoing this procedure. Therefore, ambulatory anesthesia using manually assisted ventilation via a facemask is appropriate to complete this procedure safely in small children.

Pediatric procedural sedation with propofol using a higher initial bolus dose

OBJECTIVES

We sought to describe the doses of propofol used for sedation in our pediatric emergency department, along with the range of procedures performed under propofol sedation. We also planned to describe clinically important physiologic changes seen and physician satisfaction with propofol at the doses observed.

METHODS

This was a prospective observational case series. Physicians completed a data collection form after the propofol sedation. The physicians were asked to report physiologic changes that occurred during sedation and rate their satisfaction with propofol as a sedation agent on a 100-mm visual analog scale.

RESULTS

Eight hundred eighty-six sedation events were reported. The median initial dose of propofol given was 2.0 mg/kg and the median total dose was 3.6 mg/kg. Propofol was used for a wide range of procedures. The most common physiologic change was desaturation/hypoxia (desaturation to <90% in 7.2%). No deaths, unplanned intubations, or surgical airway placements were reported. Treating physicians reported a median satisfaction score of 97 mm.

CONCLUSIONS

A 2-mg/kg initial bolus dose of propofol for pediatric sedation was well tolerated and useful for a wide range of procedures. Physicians should expect to find a high level of satisfaction with this dose.

Percutaneous closure of atrial septal defects in spontaneously breathing children under deep sedation: a feasible and safe concept

Interventional cardiac catheterization in children and adolescents is traditionally performed with the patient under general anesthesia and endotracheal intubation. However, percutaneous closure of atrial septum defect (ASD) without general anaesthesia is currently being attempted in a growing number of children. The study objective was to evaluate the success and complication rate of percutaneous ASD closure in spontaneously breathing children under deep sedation. Retrospective single centre cohort study of consecutive children undergoing percutaneous ASD closure at a tertiary care pediatric cardiology centre. Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) and percutaneous ASD closure were performed with the patient under deep sedation with intravenous bolus of midazolam and ketamine for induction and propofol continuous infusion for maintenance of sedation in spontaneously breathing children. One hundred and ninety-seven patients (median age 6.1 years [minimum 0.5; maximum 18.8]) underwent TEE and ASD balloon sizing. Percutaneous ASD closure was attempted in 174 patients (88 %), and device implantation was performed successfully in 92 %. To achieve sufficient deep sedation, patients received a median ketamine dose of 2.7 mg/kg (0.3; 7) followed by a median propofol continuous infusion rate of 5 mg/kg/h (1.1; 10.7). There were no major cardiorespiratory complications associated with deep sedation, and only two patients (1 %) required endotracheal intubation due to bronchial obstruction immediately after induction of sedation. Seventeen patients (8 %) had minor respiratory complications and required frequent oral suctioning or temporary bag-mask ventilation. TEE and percutaneous ASD closure can be performed safely and successfully under deep sedation in spontaneously breathing children of all ages.

Is procedural sedation with propofol acceptable for complex imaging? A comparison of short vs. prolonged sedations in children

BACKGROUND

Concerns exist in the community of non-anesthesiologist sedation providers regarding the appropriateness of prolonged sedations using propofol for outpatient procedures.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate interventions required, completion rate and resource use in prolonged vs. short sedations using propofol in outpatients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We reviewed retrospectively 213 children sedated with propofol by a non-anesthesiologist sedation service. Cohorts were composed a priori of children sedated for ≥1 h and <1 h. Comparisons were made regarding need for interventions, sedation duration, sedation completion to discharge time, and procedural completion rate.

RESULTS

Most sedations were for MRI (87.5% short vs. 94.5% prolonged) with no statistically significant difference in overall need for interventions (75.2% prolonged vs. 65.4% short) nor completion to discharge times (30.7 ± 11.5 min [prolonged] vs. 30.3 ± 11.7 min [short]) between both groups. One child failed to complete the intended scan. No one required endotracheal intubation or unplanned admission.

CONCLUSION

Prolonged outpatient sedations with propofol conducted by appropriately trained non-anesthesiology sedation providers appears effective for imaging procedures with no increase in interventions or increased resource burden compared to short sedations. This information can assist all stakeholders in determining scope of practice and guidelines for moderately longer pediatric sedations with propofol.

Sedation-assisted Orthopedic Reduction in Emergency Medicine: The Safety and Success of a One Physician/One Nurse Model

Introduction

Much of the emergency medical research on sedation-assisted orthopedic reductions has been undertaken with two physicians––one dedicated to the sedation and one to the procedure. Clinical practice in community emergency departments (EDs), however, often involves only one physician, who both performs the procedure and simultaneously oversees the crendentialed registered nurse who administers the sedation medication and monitors the patient. Although the dual-physician model is advocated by some, evidence in support of its superiority is lacking.

Methods:

In this electronic health records review we describe sedation-assisted closed reductions of major joints and forearm fractures in three suburban community EDs. The type of procedure and sedation medication, need for specialty assistance, success rates, and intervention-requiring adverse events are reported.

Results:

During the 18-month study period, procedural sedation was performed 457 times on 442 patients undergoing closed reduction for shoulder dislocations (n = 111), elbow dislocations (n = 29), hip dislocations (n = 101), and forearm fractures (n = 201). In the vast majority of this cohort (98.4% [435/442]), a single emergency physician simultaneously managed both the procedural sedation and the initial orthopedic reduction without the assistance of a second physician. The reduction was successful or satisfactory in 96.6% (425/435; 95% confidence interval [CI], 95.8–98.8%) of these cases, with a low incidence of intervention-requiring adverse events (2.8% [12/435]; 95% CI, 1.5–4.8%).

Conclusion:

Sedation-assisted closed reduction of major joint dislocations and forearm fractures can be performed effectively and safely in the ED using a one physician/one nurse model. A policy that requires a separate physician (or nurse anesthetist) to administer medications for all sedation-assisted ED procedures appears unwarranted. Further research is needed to determine which specific clinical scenarios might benefit from a dual-physician approach.

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

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

Procedural sedation for diagnostic imaging in children by pediatric hospitalists using propofol: analysis of the nature, frequency, and predictors of adverse events and interventions

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the nature, frequency, and predictors of adverse events during the use of propofol by pediatric hospitalists.

STUDY DESIGN

We reviewed 1649 charts of patients sedated with propofol by pediatric hospitalists at St Louis Children's Hospital between January 2005 and September 2009.

RESULTS

Hospitalists were able to complete 1633 of the 1649 sedations reviewed (99%). Major complications included 2 patients with aspiration and 1 patient intubated to complete the study. We observed a 74% reduction in the number of patients with respiratory events and airway interventions from 2005 to 2009. Predictors of respiratory events were history of snoring (OR, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.52-3.80), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification of ASA 3 (OR, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.22-4.33), age >12 years (OR, 4.01; 95% CI, 2.02-7.98), premedication with midazolam (OR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.15-2.98), and use of adjuvant glycopyrrolate (OR, 4.70; 95% CI, 2.35-9.40). All except ASA 3 status were also predictors for airway intervention. There was a decline in the prevalence of all of these predictors over the study years (P < .05) except for use of glycopyrrolate.

CONCLUSION

Our pediatric hospitalists implemented a successful propofol sedation program that realized a 74% reduction in respiratory events and airway interventions between 2005 and 2009. Decreased prevalence of the predictors of adverse events that we identified likely contributed to this reduction.

Clinical implications of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of procedural sedation agents in children

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Procedural sedation has become the standard of care for managing pain and anxiety in children in the emergency department.

RECENT FINDINGS

Numerous articles have been published on pediatric procedural sedation with, however, little in-depth discussion of the pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of the sedation agents utilized.

SUMMARY

We review the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the pediatric procedural sedation pharmacopeia from a clinical perspective with emphasis on the practical implications for drug titration and dosing.

Ketamine/propofol versus midazolam/fentanyl for procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department: a randomized, prospective, double-blind trial

OBJECTIVES

The authors performed a prospective, double-blinded, randomized trial with emergency department (ED) patients requiring procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) for repair of deep traumatic lacerations and reduction of bone fractures, to compare the ketamine/propofol (ketofol) combination with the midazolam/fentanyl (MF) combination.

METHODS

Sixty-two patients scheduled for PSA who presented between January 2009 and June 2009 were enrolled prospectively. Thirty-one were randomly assigned to the ketofol group, and 31 were assigned to the MF group.

RESULTS

The median starting doses were 0.75 mg/kg of both ketamine and propofol (interquartile range [IQR] = 0.75 to 1.5 mg/kg), 0.04 mg/kg midazolam (IQR = 0.04 to 0.06 mg/kg), and 2 μg/kg fentanyl (IQR = 2 to 3 μg/kg). There were no significant differences in sedation time between the groups. There were no differences in physician satisfaction (p = 0.065). Perceived pain in the ketofol group, as measured by the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), was significantly lower than in the MF group (median ketofol = 0, IQR = 0-1 vs. median MF = 3, IQR = 1-6; p < 0.001). Only one patient in each group required bag-mask ventilation, and neither of them were intubated.

CONCLUSIONS

The ketamine/propofol combination provides adequate sedation and analgesia for painful procedures and appears to be a safe and useful technique in the ED.

The efficacy and value of emergency medicine: a supportive literature review

Study objectives

The goal of this study was to identify publications in the medical literature that support the efficacy or value of Emergency Medicine (EM) as a medical specialty and of clinical care delivered by trained emergency physicians. In this study we use the term "value" to refer both to the "efficacy of clinical care" in terms of achieving desired patient outcomes, as well as "efficiency" in terms of effective and/or cost-effective utilization of healthcare resources in delivering emergency care. A comprehensive listing of publications describing the efficacy or value of EM has not been previously published. It is anticipated that the accumulated reference list generated by this study will serve to help promote awareness of the value of EM as a medical specialty, and acceptance and development of the specialty of EM in countries where EM is new or not yet fully established.

Methods

The January 1995 to October 2010 issues of selected journals, including the EM journals with the highest article impact factors, were reviewed to identify articles of studies or commentaries that evaluated efficacy, effectiveness, and/or value related to EM as a specialty or to clinical care delivered by EM practitioners. Articles were included if they found a positive or beneficial effect of EM or of EM physician-provided medical care. Additional articles that had been published prior to 1995 or in other non-EM journals already known to the authors were also included.

Results

A total of 282 articles were identified, and each was categorized into one of the following topics: efficacy of EM for critical care and procedures (31 articles), efficacy of EM for efficiency or cost of care (30 articles), efficacy of EM for public health or preventive medicine (34 articles), efficacy of EM for radiology (11 articles), efficacy of EM for trauma or airway management (27 articles), efficacy of EM for using ultrasound (56 articles), efficacy of EM faculty (34 articles), efficacy of EM residencies (24 articles), and overviews and editorials of EM efficacy and value (35 articles).

Conclusion

There is extensive medical literature that supports the efficacy and value for both EM as a medical specialty and for emergency patient care delivered by trained EM physicians.

Procedural sedation with propofol: a retrospective review of the experiences of an emergency medicine residency program 2005 to 2010

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study is to evaluate the types and rates of adverse events associated with the use of propofol for procedural sedation by physicians from our emergency medicine residency program and compare those adverse event rates with those rates already published for all moderate and deep sedatives for procedural sedation, including propofol.

METHODS

This study was a retrospective chart review of all 215 procedural sedations performed with propofol in our emergency department (ED) from June 2005 to December 2010. The mean patient age was 29 years (SD, 22.1 years; range, 1-91 years). Adverse events were compiled and examined from chart data and compared with similar published studies on adverse event rates using propofol.

RESULTS

Of the 215 patients, 10 (4.65%) experienced adverse events related to procedural sedation with propofol. Our frequency of adverse events was not statistically different from the published rate for all moderate and deep sedatives (P = .407). Of all the adverse events, hypotension was the most common, occurring in 5 (2.33%) of the 215 patients. Of the 215 patients, 3 (1.40%) experienced brief hypoxia, with 2 (0.93%) of 3 patients requiring jaw thrust airway repositioning. Two (0.93%) of the 215 patients developed brief apnea that required brief bag valve mask-assisted ventilation. No patient required any advanced airway management. All 215 patients recovered completely from the procedural sedation and were discharged from the ED in stable and improved condition.

CONCLUSIONS

The adverse event rates from our study correlate with those of numerous earlier as well as recently published studies of moderate and deep sedatives, including propofol. The disciplined use of propofol by emergency physicians should continue to provide ED patients with the best available management options and care while additional focused and larger scale research is conducted to definitively confirm the premise that emergency physicians can continue to safely perform procedural sedation with propofol.

Procedural pain management: a position statement with clinical practice recommendations

The American Society for Pain Management Nursing (ASPMN) has developed a position statement and clinical practice recommendations related to procedural preparation and comfort management. Procedures potentially produce pain and anxiety, both of which should be assessed and addressed before the procedure begins. This position statement refers to "comfort management" as incorporating the management of pain, anxiety, and any other discomforts that may occur with procedures. It is the position of ASPMN that nurses and other health care professionals advocate and intervene based on the needs of the patient, setting, and situation, to provide optimal comfort management before, during, and after procedures. Furthermore, ASPMN does not condone procedures being performed without the implementation of planned comfort assessment and management. In addition to outlining this position with supporting evidence, this paper reviews the ethical considerations regarding procedural comfort management and provides recommendations for nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic management during all phases of the procedure. An appendix provides a summary of this position statement and clinical practice recommendations.

Pediatric sedation: a global challenge

Pediatric sedation is a challenge which spans all continents and has grown to encompass specialties outside of anesthesia, radiology and emergency medicine. All sedatives are not universally available and local and national regulations often limit the sedation practice to specific agents and those with specific credentials. Some specialties have established certification and credentials for sedation delivery whereas most have not. Some of the relevant sedation guidelines and recommendations of specialty organizations worldwide will be explored. The challenge facing sedation care providers moving forward in the 21st century will be to determine how to apply the local, regional and national guidelines to the individual sedation practices. A greater challenge, perhaps impossible, will be to determine whether the sedation community can come together worldwide to develop standards, guidelines and recommendations for safe sedation practice.

Intrathecal clonidine decreases propofol sedation requirements during spinal anesthesia in infants

BACKGROUND

Propofol is a popular agent for providing procedural sedation in pediatric population during lumbar puncture and spinal anesthesia. Adjuvants like clonidine and fentanyl are administered intrathecally to prolong the duration of spinal anesthesia and to provide postoperative analgesia. We studied the propofol requirement after intrathecal administration of clonidine or fentanyl in infants undergoing lower abdominal surgeries.

METHODS

Sixty-five ASA I infants undergoing elective lower abdominal surgery under spinal anesthesia were assigned into four groups in this prospective randomized double-blinded study. Group B received bupivacaine based on body weight (<5 kg = 0.5 mg kg(-1); 5-10 kg = 0.4 mg kg(-1)). Group BC received 1 microg kg(-1) of clonidine with bupivacaine, group BF received 1 microg kg(-1) of fentanyl with bupivacaine, and patients in group BCF received 1 microg kg(-1) each of clonidine and fentanyl with bupivacaine. A bolus of 2-3 mg kg(-1) of propofol bolus was administered for lumbar puncture. Sedation was assessed using a six-point sedation score (0-5) and a five-point reactivity score (0-4) which was based on a behavioral score. After achieving a sedation and reactivity score of 3-4, the patients were placed lateral in knee chest position and lumbar puncture performed and test drug administered. Further intraoperative sedation was maintained with an infusion of 25-50 microg kg(-1) min(-1) of propofol infusion.

RESULTS

The mean +/- SD infusion requirement of propofol decreased from 35.5 +/- 4.5 in group B to 33.4 +/- 5.4 microg kg(-1) min(-1) in group BF and further decreased to 16.7 +/- 6.2 microg kg(-1) min(-1) and 14.8 +/- 4.9 microg kg(-1) min(-1) in group BC and BCF, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between BC and BCF groups. The mean sedation and reactivity scores were higher in groups BC and BCF when compared to groups B and BF.

CONCLUSION

Our study show that the requirement of propofol sedation reduces with intrathecal adjuvants. The reduction was significant with the addition of clonidine and clonidine-fentanyl combination as opposed to bupivacaine alone or with fentanyl. There was no significant difference in propofol infusion requirement with the use of bupivacaine alone or with fentanyl.

Professional skills and competence for safe and effective procedural sedation in children: recommendations based on a systematic review of the literature

Objectives. To investigate which skills and competence are imperative to assure optimal effectiveness and safety of procedural sedation (PS) in children and to analyze the underlying levels of evidence. Study Design and methods. Systematic review of literature published between 1993 and March 2009. Selected papers were classified according to their methodological quality and summarized in evidence-based conclusions. Next, conclusions were used to formulate recommendations. Results. Although the safety profiles vary among PS drugs, the possibility of potentially serious adverse events and the predictability of depth and duration of sedation define the imperative skills and competence necessary for a timely recognition and appropriate management. The level of effectiveness is mainly determined by the ability to apply titratable PS, including deep sedation using short-acting anesthetics for invasive procedures and nitrous oxide for minor painful procedures, and the implementation of non-pharmacological techniques. Conclusions. PS related safety and effectiveness are determined by the circumstances and professional skills rather than by specific pharmacologic characteristics. Evidence based recommendations regarding necessary skills and competence should be used to set up training programs and to define which professionals can and cannot be credentialed for PS in children.

Sedation trends in the 21st century: the transition to dexmedetomidine for radiological imaging studies

Sedation for radiological imaging studies encompasses the majority of all sedation-related procedures outside of the intensive care unit. This review will follow the evolution of pediatric sedation for radiological imaging studies in North America as well as the transition of sedation services from the oversight of radiologists to those of other providers. The evolving options for sedation agents will be reviewed, with attention given to examining the advantages, limitations, and risks of replacing the standard sedatives with dexmedetomidine.

A prospective case series of pediatric procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department using single-syringe ketamine-propofol combination (ketofol)

OBJECTIVES

This study evaluated the effectiveness, recovery time, and adverse event profile of intravenous (IV) ketofol (mixed 1:1 ketamine-propofol) for emergency department (ED) procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) in children.

METHODS

Prospective data were collected on all PSA events in a trauma-receiving, community teaching hospital over a 3.5-year period, from which data on all patients under 21 years of age were studied. Patients receiving a single-syringe 1:1 mixture of 10 mg/mL ketamine and 10 mg/mL propofol (ketofol) were analyzed. Patients received ketofol in titrated aliquots at the discretion of the treating physician. Effectiveness, recovery time, caregiver and patient satisfaction, drug doses, physiologic data, and adverse events were recorded.

RESULTS

Ketofol PSA was performed in 219 patients with a median age of 13 years (range = 1 to 20 years; interquartile range [IQR] = 8 to 16 years) for primarily orthopedic procedures. The median dose of medication administered was 0.8 mg/kg each of ketamine and propofol (range = 0.2 to 3.0 mg/kg; IQR = 0.7 to 1.0 mg/kg). Sedation was effective in all patients. Three patients (1.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.0% to 3.0%) had airway events requiring intervention, of which one (0.4%; 95% CI = 0.0% to 1.2%) required positive pressure ventilation. Two patients (0.9%; 95% CI = 0.0% to 2.2%) had unpleasant emergence requiring treatment. All other adverse events were minor. Median recovery time was 14 minutes (range = 3 to 41 minutes; IQR = 11 to 18 minutes). Median staff satisfaction was 10 on a 1-to-10 scale.

CONCLUSIONS

Pediatric PSA using ketofol is highly effective. Recovery times were short; adverse events were few; and patients, caregivers, and staff were highly satisfied.

Procedural sedation and analgesia research

The study of procedural sedation and analgesia has experienced significant development recently. As specific procedural sedation and analgesia agents have been developed and introduced into clinical practice, safety and efficacy studies have been conducted. The principle difficulty in conducting these studies has been the relatively low frequency of traditional outcome measures. As procedural sedation and analgesia research has expanded, measurement techniques have been refined to allow for precise comparisons between smaller groups of subjects to improve the capacity to compare these procedures. We have used capnography, bispectral EEG analysis, and subject perceptions of pain and recall as surrogate predictors of adverse events in order to compare agents and procedural techniques in procedural sedation and analgesia.

Safety of propofol sedation for pediatric outpatient procedures

Propofol sedation is used more frequently in pediatric procedures because of its ability to provide varying sedation levels. The authors evaluated all outpatient pediatric procedures using propofol sedation over a 6-year period. All sedation was provided by pediatric intensivists at a single institution. In all, 4716 procedures were recorded during the study period; 15% of procedures were associated with minor complications, whereas only 0.1% of procedures were associated with major complications. Significantly more major complications associated with propofol occurred during bronchoscopy (P = .001). Propofol administered by a pediatric intensivist is a safe sedation technique in the pediatric outpatient setting.

Pediatric procedural sedation by a dedicated nonanesthesiology pediatric sedation service using propofol

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the success and dosing requirements of propofol in children for prolonged procedural sedation by a nonanesthesiology-based sedation service.

METHODS

The pediatric sedation service at this institution uses propofol as its preferred sedative, and the local guideline suggests using 3 mg/kg for induction and 5 mg kg(-1) h(-1) for maintenance sedation. Doses can be adjusted as needed to individualize successful sedation. A retrospective analysis of patients sedated for 30 minutes or longer was conducted. Patients were stratified into 4 cohorts based on age (<1 year [n = 16], 1-2 years [n = 85], 3-7 years [n = 54], and >7 years [n = 55]) and dosing patterns, success, and adverse effects were investigated.

RESULTS

Two hundred forty-nine patients met the inclusion criteria. Mean age was 4.8 years (SD, 4.1). The mean induction dose was 3.2 mg/kg (range, 0.9-9.7), and the mean maintenance infusion was 5.2 mg kg(-1) h(-1) (range, 0.14-21.3). No differences were seen in the induction doses in the different age cohorts, yet the SD was largest in the youngest cohort compared to any other. Although no differences were seen in maintenance rates by age, the greatest SD for dosing was seen in the oldest cohort. For all ages, all sedations were successful (100%) and unanticipated adverse effects rare (<1%).

CONCLUSIONS

Although it seems that the mean dosing of propofol does not vary significantly with age, there is greater variability in induction dosage for those younger than 1 year and in maintenance dosing for those 7 years or older. The results and general dosing parameters may assist pediatric subspecialists in using propofol for prolonged procedural sedation.

Profiling adverse respiratory events and vomiting when using propofol for emergency department procedural sedation

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the rate of adverse respiratory events and vomiting among ED patients undergoing procedural sedation with propofol.

METHODS

This was a prospective, observational series of patients undergoing procedural sedation. Titrated i.v. propofol was administered via protocol. Fasting status was recorded.

RESULTS

Four hundred patients undergoing sedation were enrolled. Of these 282 (70%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 66-75%) had eaten or drunken within 6 and 2 h, respectively. Median fasting times from a full meal, snack or drink were 7 h (interquartile range [IQR] 5-9 h), 6 h (IQR 4-8 h) and 4 h (IQR 2-6 h), respectively. Overall a respiratory event occurred in 86 patients (22%, 95% CI 18-26%). An airway intervention occurred in 123 patients (31%, 95% CI 26-35%). In 111 cases (90%, 95% CI 60-98%) basic airway manoeuvres were all that was required. No patients were intubated. Two patients vomited (0.5%, 95% CI 0.0-1.6%), one during sedation, one after patient became conversational. One patient developed transient laryngospasm (0.25%, 95% CI 0-1.2%) unrelated to vomiting. There were nil aspiration events (0%, 95% CI 0-0.74%).

CONCLUSIONS

Seventy per cent of patients undergoing ED procedural sedation are not fasted. No patient had a clinically evident adverse outcome. Transient respiratory events occur but can be managed with basic airway interventions making propofol a safe alternative for emergency physicians to provide emergent procedural sedation.

Ketamine-propofol combination sedation for fracture reduction in the pediatric emergency department

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the time of onset and recovery from and the efficacy and safety of intravenous ketamine-propofol sedation for reduction of forearm fractures in the pediatric emergency department setting.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective, observational pilot study.

METHODS

Children presenting to an urban pediatric emergency department requiring sedation for closed reduction of forearm fractures received ketamine 0.5 mg/kg and propofol 1 mg/kg. We measured time intervals from drug administration to reduction, recovery, and attainment of discharge criteria, and obtained ratings of depth of sedation, pain, and ease of reduction. A follow-up survey elicited patient recall, parental satisfaction, and delayed complications. Complications were recorded during the procedure and by chart review.

RESULTS

Reduction was successful in 19 of 20 patients with one requiring open reduction. Median time intervals measured from initiation of ketamine injection were 5 minutes to reduction completion, 10 minutes to first purposeful response, and 38 minutes to suitability for discharge. Three patients recalled reduction or casting, but in no case was reduction reported to be the most painful aspect of visit. Emergency physicians and orthopedic residents rated sedation and ease of reduction favorably. Complications included mild hypoxia, vomiting, and transient ataxia. No apnea, hemodynamic compromise, dysphoria, or injection pain occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

In this pilot study, the combination of ketamine and propofol provided effective sedation with rapid recovery and no clinically significant complications for children requiring closed reduction of forearm fractures.

Propofol sedation: intensivists' experience with 7304 cases in a children's hospital

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to determine the safety profile of propofol as a deep-sedation agent in a primarily outpatient program consisting of pediatric critical care physicians and specifically trained nurses with oversight provided by anesthesiology. One hypothesis was investigated: adverse events and/or airway interventions are more likely to occur in children with an abnormal airway score.

METHODS

A 36-month dual-site prospective, observational, clinical study was conducted in a single center with interchangeable providers operating within the guidelines of a single sedation program. A total of 7304 propofol sedations for 4464 unique patients who ranged in age from 1 month to 21 years were studied; >97% of the children were >1 year of age.

RESULTS

The following adverse reactions were identified, and a descriptive statistical analysis of the data were performed: mild oxygen desaturation (85%-90%), 1.73%; serious oxygen desaturation (<85%), 2.9%; laryngospasm, 0.27%; regurgitation without aspiration, 0.05%; regurgitation with aspiration, 0.01%; bronchospasm, 0.15%; and hypotension, 31.4%. Interventions required included oral airway, 0.96%; nasal trumpet, 1.57%; rescue breaths for >1 minute, 0.37%; intubation, 0.03%; volume requirement of >40 mL/kg per hour, 0.11%; sedation-induced ward or PICU admission, 0.04%; cardiac arrest medications, 0%; and aborted sedation or procedure, 0%. We devised an airway score to identify at-risk patients. Patients with an abnormal airway score were significantly more likely to: have oxygen desaturation (13.1% vs 4.3%); require an oral airway (5.9% vs 0.8%); and require a nasal trumpet (13.9% vs 1.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol has an acceptable safety profile for deep sedation when used in the context of a program with critical care physicians, specifically trained nurses, and anesthesiology oversight. A preprocedure airway score can assist in identifying patients who may require airway interventions.

Comparison of propofol with pentobarbital/midazolam/fentanyl sedation for magnetic resonance imaging of the brain in children

OBJECTIVE

Propofol and pentobarbital, alone or combined with other agents, are frequently used to induce deep sedation in children for MRI. However, we are unaware of a previous comparison of these 2 agents as part of a randomized, controlled trial. We compared the recovery time of children after deep sedation with single-agent propofol with a pentobarbital-based regimen for MRI and considered additional variables of safety and efficacy.

METHODS

This prospective, randomized trial at a tertiary children's hospital enrolled 60 patients 1 to 17 years old who required intravenous sedation for elective cranial MRI. Patients were assigned randomly to receive a loading dose of propofol followed by continuous intravenous infusion of propofol or to receive sequential doses of midazolam, pentobarbital, and fentanyl until a modified Ramsay score of >4 was attained. A nurse who was blind to group assignment assessed discharge readiness (Aldrete score > 8) and administered a follow-up questionnaire. We compared recovery time, time to induction of sedation, total sedation time, quality of imaging, number of repeat-image sequences, adverse events, caregiver satisfaction, and time to return to presedation functional status.

RESULTS

The groups were similar in age, gender, race, American Society of Anesthesiology physical status class, and frequency of cognitive impairment. No sedation failure or significant adverse events were observed. Propofol offered significantly shorter sedation induction time, recovery time, total sedation time, and time to return to baseline functional status. Caregiver satisfaction scores were also significantly higher in the patients in the propofol group.

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol permits faster onset and recovery than, and comparable efficacy to, a pentobarbital/midazolam/fentanyl regimen for sedation of children for MRI.

Clinical Practice Advisory: Emergency Department Procedural Sedation With Propofol

We present an evidence-based clinical practice advisory for the administration of propofol for emergency department procedural sedation. We critically discuss indications, contraindications, personnel and monitoring requirements, dosing, coadministered medications, and patient recovery from propofol. Future research questions are considered.

The use of a pediatric emergency medicine-staffed sedation service during imaging: a retrospective analysis

HYPOTHESIS

A sedation service staffed by pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) physicians can sedate children during imaging, with a low adverse event risk and minimal sedation failures.

DESIGN/METHODS

We reviewed 1042 PEM-administered sedations during a 12-month period, collecting data regarding demographics, presedation evaluation, medications used, sedation length, adverse events, corrective measures, and postsedation disposition. Successful image completion without patient awakening defined effective sedation. Minor adverse events included hypoxia (<93%), malaligned airway, self-resolving transient bradycardia, and atypical reactions to sedation agents. Cardiorespiratory incidents requiring resuscitation were considered major events.

RESULTS

Of 923 sedation episodes, 92 (10.0%) experienced adverse events; 7 (0.76%) were major. Sedation failed in 17 (1.8%). No sedation resulted in an increased level of care or permanent injury.

CONCLUSIONS

A PEM-staffed sedation service provided sedation to children undergoing imaging with a low adverse event risk, minimal failures, and no residual morbidity. However, all sedating clinicians should possess critical airway skills.

Pediatric sedation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Pediatric sedation continues to evolve. It is an area of practice that involves a variety of pediatric subspecialties, the practitioners of many of which are not fully aware of what is being done by others involved in this care. The purpose of this review is to consider the current status of pediatric sedation in general and to discuss the most recent literature concerning this practice. Specifically we will discuss the use of new medications for pediatric sedation, issues concerning fasting status, issues surrounding the effectiveness of sedation, and discharge criteria after sedation.

RECENT FINDINGS

Propofol sedation is growing rapidly outside of the operating room environment. Emergency-medicine and intensive-care providers are regularly employing propofol for procedural sedation and reporting its effective use in their hands. Also in the emergency-medicine field, evidence is emerging that fasting status is not a particularly important factor in the genesis of critical events during sedation. Anesthesiologists are evaluating the use of dexmedetomidine for sedation of children and new reports describe the advantages of deep sedation and anesthesia over moderate sedation for painful procedures. Finally an important study shows that a patient's condition on discharge after sedation can be improved through the implementation of specific criteria using objective scoring techniques.

SUMMARY

Anesthesiologists and those outside of anesthesiology are employing new potent sedative hypnotic agents to accomplish effective pediatric sedation. At the same time, the consensus-generated sedation guidelines--particularly with respect to fasting guidelines--are being questioned. All of this is occurring in the face of mounting evidence that sedation depth needs to be adequate to provide optimal operating conditions and patient satisfaction. Regardless of sedation method used, recovery criteria need to be carefully considered in order to optimize patient safety.

Pediatric Procedural Sedation in the Community Emergency Department: results from the ProSCED registry

OBJECTIVES

Emergency department procedural sedation practices for children have been reported for pediatric tertiary care centers. This report describes these same practice patterns and outcomes for community hospital-based general emergency physicians (EPs) in their treatment of pediatric patients.

METHODS

The Procedural Sedation in the Community Emergency Department registry is a prospective observational database composed of consecutive EP-directed procedural sedation cases in community hospitals. Information on sedation cases is collected at the time of the patient encounter and entered into an Internet-accessed database.

RESULTS

A total of 1028 procedural sedations were performed on 977 patients at 14 study sites, with 341 procedures performed in 339 patients younger than 21 years. The most common specified pediatric procedures performed included laceration repairs (n = 86, 25%), shoulder relocations (n = 78, 23%), and fracture care of the upper extremity (n = 56, 16%). Medications used included ketamine (n = 141, 41%), midazolam (n = 10, 32%), etomidate (n = 54, 16%), fentanyl (n = 51, 15%), and propofol (n = 47, 14%). Complications were reported in 2 cases (0.6%), 1 episode of apnea requiring a reversal agent and 1 episode of hypoxia responsive to supplemental oxygen. Of procedures attempted, 339 (99.4%) were successfully completed. Emergency physicians both directed the sedation and performed the procedure in 252 cases (74%), whereas in another 69 cases (20%), they directed the sedation for another physician performing the procedure. In 20 cases (5.8%), the EP directed sedation for a painless diagnostic study.

CONCLUSIONS

Community EPs in the Procedural Sedation in the Community Emergency Department registry deliver safe and effective pediatric sedation using a broad selection of agents.

The Effect of the Assignment of a Pre-Sedation Target Level on Procedural Sedation Using Propofol

The goal of this study was to determine if there is a difference in the achieved depth of sedation, the rate of respiratory depression, procedural difficulty, or patient perceived pain or recall between patients randomized to a pre-procedural target sedation level of moderate or deep procedural sedation using propofol during the reduction of fractures and dislocations in the Emergency Department (ED). This was a randomized, prospective study of adults undergoing procedural sedation (PS) with propofol for fracture or dislocation reduction in the ED between July 2003 and March 2004. Patients were randomized to a target sedation level of moderate or deep, using American Society of Anesthesiologists' definitions. Doses, vital signs, nasal end tidal CO(2) (ETCO(2)), pulse oximetry, and bispectral EEG analysis (BIS) scores were recorded. Respiratory depression was defined as a change in ETCO(2) >10, an oxygen saturation of <90% at any time, or an absent ETCO(2) waveform at any time. After the procedure, patients were asked if they perceived any pain or had any recall of the procedure. Physicians were asked to rate the difficulty of completing the reduction using a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS). Respiratory depression rates were compared with chi-square tests, BIS and VAS scores were compared with t tests. Seventy-five patients were enrolled, 39 randomized to the target of moderate PS and 36 to the target of deep PS. No significant complications were noted. There were 25/36 (69%) of the patients assigned to the deep sedation target group who actually achieved a deep level of sedation and 21/39 (54%) of the patients assigned to the moderate sedation target group who actually achieved a moderate level of sedation (p = 0.40). Respiratory depression was seen in 19/39 (49%) patients with the moderate PS target and 18/36 (50%) with the deep PS target (p = 0.91). The mean minimum recorded BIS score was 67.7 (95% confidence interval [CI] 62.2-73.3) for the moderate PS target group and 59.2 (95% CI 55.1-64.2) for the deep PS target group (p = 0.03). There were 12/39 (31%) in the moderate PS target group and 4/36 (11%) in the deep PS target group who reported pain with or recall of the procedure (p = 0.04). The mean physician VAS for procedural difficulty was 34.0 (95% CI 23.7-44.3) for the moderate PS group and 28.8 (95% CI 18.4-39.2) for the deep PS group (p = 0.46). In this study, the assignment of a pre-procedural target sedation level of moderate or deep PS did not influence the level of sedation achieved, the rate of respiratory depression, the occurrence of complications, the time to return of baseline mental status, or the success of the procedure. It does not seem that the assignment of a pre-procedural target sedation level is an effective means of changing the outcome of ED PS.

Procedural sedation and analgesia research: state of the art

The authors review the current state of procedural sedation and analgesia research and clinical practice in adults and children, discuss the limitations in research methodology, and propose future areas of investigation.

A Prospective Evaluation of “Ketofol” (Ketamine/Propofol Combination) for Procedural Sedation and Analgesia in the Emergency Department

STUDY OBJECTIVE

We evaluate the effectiveness and consider the safety of intravenous ketamine/propofol combination ("ketofol") in the same syringe for procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

A prospective case series of consecutive ketofol procedural sedation and analgesia events in the ED of a trauma-receiving community teaching hospital from July 2005 to February 2006 was studied. Patients of all ages, with any comorbid conditions, were included. Ketofol (1:1 mixture of ketamine 10 mg/mL and propofol 10 mg/mL) was administered intravenously at the discretion of the treating physician by using titrated aliquots. The presence or absence of adverse events was documented, as were procedural success, recovery time, and physician, nurse, and patient satisfaction. Physiologic data were recorded with established hospital procedural sedation and analgesia guidelines.

RESULTS

One hundred fourteen procedural sedation and analgesia events using ketofol were performed for primarily orthopedic procedures. The median dose of medication administered was ketamine at 0.75 mg/kg and propofol at 0.75 mg/kg (range 0.2 to 2.05 mg/kg each of propofol and ketamine; interquartile range [IQR] 0.6 to 1.0 mg/kg). Procedures were successfully performed without adjunctive sedatives in 110 (96.5%) patients. Three patients (2.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.6% to 7.5%) had transient hypoxia; of these, 1 (0.9%; 95% CI 0.02% to 4.8%) required bag-valve-mask ventilation. Four patients (3.5%; 95% CI 1.0% to 8.7%) required repositioning for airway malalignment, 4 patients (3.5%; 95% CI 1.0% to 8.7%) required adjunctive medication for sedation, and 3 patients (2.6%; 95% CI 0.6% to 7.5%) had mild unpleasant emergence, of whom 1 (0.9%; 95% CI 0.02% to 4.8%) received midazolam. No patient had hypotension or vomiting or received endotracheal intubation. Median recovery time was 15 minutes (range 5 to 45 minutes; IQR 12 to 19 minutes). Median physician, nurse, and patient satisfaction scores were 10 on a 1-to-10 scale.

CONCLUSION

Ketofol procedural sedation and analgesia is effective and appears to be safe for painful procedures in the ED. Few adverse events occurred and were either self-limited or responded to minimal interventions. Recoveries were rapid, and staff and patients were highly satisfied.