Emergency Department Procedural Sedation Practice Limitations: A Statewide California American College of Emergency Physicians Survey

OBJECTIVES

We wanted to estimate the frequency and describe the nature of emergency department (ED) procedural sedation restrictions in the State of California.

METHODS

We surveyed medical directors for all licensed EDs statewide regarding limitations on procedural sedation practice. Our primary outcome was the frequency of restrictions on procedural sedation, defined as an inability to administer moderate sedation, deep sedation, and typical ED sedative agents in accordance with American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) guidelines. Our secondary outcomes were the nature of these restrictions, who has imposed them, why they were imposed, and the perceived clinical impact.

RESULTS

We obtained responses from 211 (64%) of the 328 EDs. Ninety-one (43%) reported conditional or total limitations on their ability to administer one or more of the following: moderate sedation, deep sedation, propofol, ketamine, or etomidate. Thirty-nine (18%) reported total restriction of at least one of these-most frequently a prohibition of deep sedation (18%). Local anesthesia directors were the most frequently cited creators and enforcers of these restrictions. Some respondents reported that, due to these restrictions, they used less effective sedatives, they performed procedures without sedation when sedation would have been preferred, and they observed inadequate sedation and pain control.

CONCLUSIONS

In this statewide survey we found a substantial prevalence of practice limitations-mostly created by local anesthesia directors-that restrict the ability of emergency physicians to provide procedural sedation for their patients in accordance with ACEP guidelines. Deep sedation was prohibited in 18% of responding EDs. Our respondents describe adverse consequences to patient care.

Randomized clinical trial on the efficacy of intranasal or oral ketamine-midazolam combinations compared to oral midazolam for outpatient pediatric sedation

Purpose

The optimal sedative regime that provides the greatest comfort and the lowest risk for procedural sedation in young children remains to be determined. The aim of this randomized, blinded, controlled, parallel-design trial was to evaluate the efficacy of intranasal ketamine and midazolam as the main component of the behavioral guidance approach for preschoolers during dental treatment.

Materials and methods

Children under seven years of age, with caries and non-cooperative behavior, were randomized into three groups: (KMIN) intranasal ketamine and midazolam; (KMO) oral ketamine and midazolam; or (MO) oral midazolam. The dental sedation appointments were videotaped, and the videos were analyzed using the Ohio State University Behavioral Rating Scale (OSUBRS) to determine the success of the sedation in each group. Intra- and postoperative adverse events were recorded. Data analysis involved descriptive statistics and non-parametric tests (P < 0.05, IBM SPSS).

Results

Participants were 84 children (28 per group; 43 boys), with a mean age of 3.1 years (SD 1.2). Children’s baseline and the dental sedation session characteristics were balanced among groups. The success of the treatment as assessed by the dichotomous variable ‘quiet behavior for at least 60% of the session length’ was: KMIN 50.0% (n = 14; OR 2.10, 95% CI 0.71 to 6.30), KMO 46.4% (n = 13; OR 1.80, 95% CI 0.62 to 5.40), MO 32.1% (n = 9) (P = 0.360). Adverse events were minor, occurred in 37 of 84 children (44.0%), and did not differ among groups (P = 0.462).

Conclusion

All three regimens provided moderate dental sedation with minor adverse events, with marked variability in the behavior of children during dental treatment. The potential benefit of the ketamine–midazolam combination should be further investigated in studies with larger samples.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT02447289. Registered on 11 May 2015, named “Midazolam and Ketamine Effect Administered Through the Nose for Sedation of Children for Dental Treatment (NASO).”

Procedural sedation of elderly patients by emergency physicians: a safety analysis of 740 patients

BACKGROUND

The elderly are perceived as a high-risk group for procedural sedation. Concern exists regarding the safety of sedation of this patient group by emergency physicians, particularly when using propofol.

METHODS

We analysed prospectively collected data on patients aged 75 yr or older undergoing sedation between October 2006 and March 2017 in the emergency department of a single centre. We used the World Society of Intravenous Anaesthesia International Sedation Task Force adverse event tool, stratifying identified adverse events according to consensus agreement.

RESULTS

Of 740 consecutive patients (median age 84 yr), 571 patients received propofol, 142 morphine and midazolam, and 27 other agents. We identified 19 sentinel events: 2 cases of hypoxia, 10 of apnoea (without hypoxaemia), 5 of hypotension, and 2 of both hypoxaemia and hypotension. We also identified 30 moderate, 41 minor, and 7 minimal risk adverse events. There were no adverse outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed safe sedation practice in this high-risk group of patients in this department. A sentinel adverse event rate of 2.6% including a hypoxaemia rate of 0.5%, with no adverse outcomes sets a benchmark for elderly sedation. We recommend quality pre-oxygenation, an initial propofol bolus of no more than 0.5 mg kg^-1, and a robust training and governance framework.

Pediatric Procedural Sedation Using the Combination of Ketamine and Propofol Outside of the Emergency Department: A Report From the Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium

OBJECTIVES

Outcomes associated with a sedative regimen comprised ketamine + propofol for pediatric procedural sedation outside of both the pediatric emergency department and operating room are underreported. We used the Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium database to describe a multicenter experience with ketamine + propofol by pediatric sedation providers.

DESIGN

Prospective observational study of children receiving IV ketamine + propofol for procedural sedation outside of the operating room and emergency department using data abstracted from the Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium during 2007-2015.

SETTING

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

PATIENTS

Children from birth to less than or equal to 21 years old.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A total of 7,313 pediatric procedural sedations were performed using IV ketamine + propofol as the primary sedative regimen. Median age was 84 months (range, < 1 mo to ≤ 21 yr; interquartile range, 36-144); 80.6% were American Society of Anesthesiologists-Physical Status less than III. The majority of sedation was performed in dedicated sedation or radiology units (76.1%). Procedures were successfully completed in 99.8% of patients. Anticholinergics (glycopyrrolate and atropine) or benzodiazepines (midazolam and lorazepam) were used in 14.2% and 41.3%, respectively. The overall adverse event and serious adverse event rates were 9.79% (95% CI, 9.12-10.49%) and 3.47% (95% CI, 3.07-3.92%), respectively. No deaths occurred. Risk factors associated with an increase in odds of adverse event included ASA status greater than or equal to III, dental suite, cardiac catheterization laboratory or radiology/sedation suite location, a primary diagnosis of having a gastrointestinal illness, and the coadministration of an anticholinergic.

CONCLUSIONS

Using Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium data, we describe the diverse use of IV ketamine + propofol for procedural sedation in the largest reported cohort of children to date. Data from this study may be used to design sufficiently powered prospective randomized, double-blind studies comparing outcomes of sedation between commonly administered sedative and analgesic medication regimens.