1
|
Kan Z, Min W, Dai Y, Zhang P. Intravenous esketamine as an adjuvant for sedation/analgesia outside the operating room: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Pharmacol 2024; 15:1287761. [PMID: 39021840 PMCID: PMC11252540 DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2024.1287761] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/02/2023] [Accepted: 06/17/2024] [Indexed: 07/20/2024] Open
Abstract
Background This study was conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of intravenous esketamine as an adjuvant for sedation or analgesia outside the operating room in adults and children. Method PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science, and Scopus were searched for potential randomized controlled studies randomized controlled trials comparing drug combinations of esketamine to any other single or combination drug regimens for sedation or analgesia outside the operating room. Results Twenty-five studies with a total of 3,455 participants were included in this review. The pooled results of adults showed that compared with drug regimens of the control group, intravenous esketamine combinations were significantly associated with decreased risk of oxygen desaturation (RR = 0.49, 95% CI = [0.34, 0.70]); hypotension (RR = 0.38, 95% CI = [0.31, 0.46]); bradycardia (RR = 0.23, 95% CI = [0.12, 0.43]); injection pain (RR = 0.37, 95% CI = [0.25, 0.53]); body movement (RR = 0.60, 95% CI = [0.41, 0.88]); and propofol consumption (SMD = -1.38, 95% CI = [-2.64, -0.11]), but an increased risk of psychiatric symptoms (RR = 3.10, 95% CI = [2.11, 4.54]) (RR = relative risk; CI = confidence intervals; SMD = standardized mean difference). Subgroup analysis showed that only the combination of esketamine and propofol significantly reduced the above incidence of respiratory and cardiovascular adverse events in adults. In addition, the pooled results of children showed that compared with drug regimens of the control group, esketamine and propofol co-administration significantly reduced the risk of hypotension (RR = 0.59, 95% CI = [0.37, 0.95]) but increased the risk of visual disturbance (RR = 6.62, 95% CI = [2.18, 20.13]) and dizziness (RR = 1.99, 95% CI = [1.17, 3,37]). Subgroup analysis indicated that esketamine>0.5 mg/kg significantly reduced the incidence of hypotension, but increased the risk of dizziness in children. Conclusion Intravenous use of esketamine, particularly in combination with propofol, may improve the safety and efficacy of sedation and analgesia outside the operating room, although the potential for psychiatric side effects warrants attention. Future research is recommended to investigate the role of esketamine with agents other than propofol.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ziheng Kan
- School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China
| | - Weixiang Min
- Department of Anesthesiology, Sichuan Provincial People’s Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China
| | - Yuee Dai
- Department of Anesthesiology, Sichuan Provincial People’s Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China
| | - Peng Zhang
- Department of Anesthesiology, Sichuan Provincial People’s Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Sharif S, Kang J, Sadeghirad B, Rizvi F, Forestell B, Greer A, Hewitt M, Fernando SM, Mehta S, Eltorki M, Siemieniuk R, Duffett M, Bhatt M, Burry L, Perry JJ, Petrosoniak A, Pandharipande P, Welsford M, Rochwerg B. Pharmacological agents for procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department and intensive care unit: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials. Br J Anaesth 2024; 132:491-506. [PMID: 38185564 DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2023.11.050] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/07/2023] [Revised: 09/29/2023] [Accepted: 11/30/2023] [Indexed: 01/09/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND We aimed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of various i.v. pharmacologic agents used for procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) in the emergency department (ED) and ICU. We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis to enable direct and indirect comparisons between available medications. METHODS We searched Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane, and PubMed from inception to 2 March 2023 for RCTs comparing two or more procedural sedation and analgesia medications in all patients (adults and children >30 days of age) requiring emergent procedures in the ED or ICU. We focused on the outcomes of sedation recovery time, patient satisfaction, and adverse events (AEs). We performed frequentist random-effects model network meta-analysis and used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to rate certainty in estimates. RESULTS We included 82 RCTs (8105 patients, 78 conducted in the ED and four in the ICU) of which 52 studies included adults, 23 included children, and seven included both. Compared with midazolam-opioids, recovery time was shorter with propofol (mean difference 16.3 min, 95% confidence interval [CI] 8.4-24.3 fewer minutes; high certainty), and patient satisfaction was better with ketamine-propofol (mean difference 1.5 points, 95% CI 0.3-2.6 points, high certainty). Regarding AEs, compared with midazolam-opioids, respiratory AEs were less frequent with ketamine (relative risk [RR] 0.55, 95% CI 0.32-0.96; high certainty), gastrointestinal AEs were more common with ketamine-midazolam (RR 3.08, 95% CI 1.15-8.27; high certainty), and neurological AEs were more common with ketamine-propofol (RR 3.68, 95% CI 1.08-12.53; high certainty). CONCLUSION When considering procedural sedation and analgesia in the ED and ICU, compared with midazolam-opioids, sedation recovery time is shorter with propofol, patient satisfaction is better with ketamine-propofol, and respiratory adverse events are less common with ketamine.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sameer Sharif
- Department of Medicine, Division of Emergency Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Department of Medicine, Division of Critical Care, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
| | - Jasmine Kang
- Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Behnam Sadeghirad
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Department of Anesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Fayyaz Rizvi
- Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Ben Forestell
- Department of Medicine, Division of Emergency Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Alisha Greer
- Department of Medicine, Division of Emergency Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Department of Medicine, Division of Critical Care, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Mark Hewitt
- Department of Medicine, Division of Emergency Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Department of Medicine, Division of Critical Care, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Shannon M Fernando
- Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada; Division of Critical Care, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | - Sangeeta Mehta
- Department of Medicine, Sinai Health System; Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Mohamed Eltorki
- Department of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Emergency Medicine, McMaster University, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | - Reed Siemieniuk
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Mark Duffett
- Department of Pediatrics, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Maala Bhatt
- Department of Medicine, Sinai Health System, Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Lisa Burry
- Department of Medicine, Sinai Health System; Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Department of Pharmacy, Sinai Health System, Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Jeffrey J Perry
- Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | - Andrew Petrosoniak
- Department of Medicine, Division of Emergency Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Pratik Pandharipande
- Department of Anesthesiology, Division of Critical Care, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Michelle Welsford
- Department of Medicine, Division of Emergency Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Bram Rochwerg
- Department of Medicine, Division of Critical Care, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| |
Collapse
|