Propofol in the emergency department: another interpretation of the evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Impact of the United States propofol ban on emergency providers' procedural sedation agent choice and patient length of stay

BACKGROUND

In the recent past, propofol was temporarily removed from the emergency department (ED) for use in procedural sedation. We sought to determine which agents replaced it in clinical practice and the impact this change had on turnaround times (TAT) for sedated patients.

METHODS

This study is a retrospective chart review at a level one trauma center. Patients receiving sedative agents (propofol, ketamine, midazolam, and etomidate) were identified by pharmacy codes, and their charts were then reviewed for demographics and TAT. Propofol was unavailable in the emergency department (ED) between May 2010 and February 2011. The study period extended from May 2009 until May 2011. Patients receiving sedation by non-emergency medicine physicians and those receiving sedation related to intubation were excluded.

RESULTS

In total 2466 charts were reviewed and 209 met inclusion criteria. When propofol was available, the most commonly used sedative agent was etomidate (40%), followed by propofol (28%), ketamine (20%), and midazolam (6%). When propofol was unavailable, etomidate remained the most commonly used agent (43%), followed by ketamine (41%), and midazolam (11%). When propofol was available, the median TAT for sedated patients was 163 minutes compared to 178 minutes when propofol was unavailable (P=0.83). When propofol was the primary sedative agent used, the median TAT was 166 minutes as compared with a median TAT of 172 minutes for all other sedative agents combined (P=0.87).

CONCLUSION

When propofol was unavailable, ketamine became a preferred ED sedation agent. Removal of propofol from the sedation armamentarium did not affect ED TAT.

Safety and clinical effectiveness of midazolam versus propofol for procedural sedation in the emergency department: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To synthesize the evidence comparing the adverse event (AE) profile and clinical effectiveness of midazolam and propofol for procedural sedation (PS) in adults in the emergency care setting.

METHODS

The authors conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies reporting the use of either midazolam and/or propofol for adult PS in the emergency department (ED). A systematic search strategy was developed and applied to six bibliographic reference databases. Three emergency medicine journals, the Canadian Adverse Drug Reaction Newsletter, and conference proceedings were hand-searched. Retrieved articles were reviewed and data were abstracted using standardized data collection. Trial quality was assessed using the Jadad score. The outcomes assessed were the proportion of patients with AEs and the pooled mean difference in the proportion of patients with successful PS.

RESULTS

Of 229 articles identified, 28 met the inclusion criteria for the analysis of AEs. Only one major AE to PS was found, resulting in no statistically significant difference in the proportion of major AEs between agents. Four studies were RCTs that met the inclusion criteria for the analysis of clinical effectiveness. Two trials met criteria for good quality. The RCTs enrolled between 32 and 86 patients, and the most common indications for PS were orthopedic reductions and cardioversions. There was a nonsignificant difference in the proportion of patients with successful PS in favor of propofol (effect difference 2.9%, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -6.5 to 15.2).

CONCLUSIONS

The authors found no significant difference in the safety profile and the proportion of successful PS between midazolam and propofol for adults in the ED.

Propofol for emergency department procedural sedation and analgesia: a tale of three centers

OBJECTIVES

To characterize propofol procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) encounters for a large patient population at multiple emergency department (ED) sites. The authors sought to assess the frequency of respiratory and cardiovascular events during propofol PSA within these settings.

METHODS

This study was a prospective, descriptive series of a consecutive sample of ED patients receiving propofol for PSA at three study sites. Patients were monitored for PSA-related events, including predefined clinically relevant cardiovascular and respiratory events. Data collection was performed during PSA with a standardized data collection sheet unique to each site.

RESULTS

Propofol was administered during PSA to 792 patients during the respective reporting period at each center. Indications for sedation included dislocation reduction (38%), cardioversion (10%), fracture reduction (35%), abscess incision and drainage (8%), computed tomography imaging (2%), and tube thoracostomy (1%). The cumulative rate of oxygen desaturation events for all study sites was 7.7% with a brief period of assisted ventilation with bag-valve mask in 3.9%. The cumulative rate of PSA-related hypotensive events was 3.5%. Increasing patient age and specific clinical procedure were clinical variables most associated with any propofol-related respiratory event. All PSA-related events resolved with supportive interventions during the PSA encounter. No patients required endotracheal intubation, prolonged observation, or admission for PSA-related complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol typically confers a deep sedation experience for ED PSA. The most common PSA events associated with propofol are respiratory related and appear consistent across these three practice settings. All propofol-related PSA events resolved with brief supportive interventions in the ED with no adverse sequelae.