1
|
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
|
4
|
Lewis SR, Nicholson A, Reed SS, Kenth JJ, Alderson P, Smith AF. Anaesthetic and sedative agents used for electrical cardioversion. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; 2015:CD010824. [PMID: 25803543 PMCID: PMC6353050 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd010824.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/10/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Electrical cardioversion is an effective procedure for restoring normal sinus rhythm in the hearts of patients with irregular heart rhythms. It is important that the patient is not fully conscious during the procedure, as it can be painful and distressing. The drug used to make patients unaware of the procedure should rapidly achieve the desired level of sedation, should wear off quickly and should not cause cardiovascular or respiratory side effects. OBJECTIVES We aimed to compare the safety, effectiveness and adverse events associated with various anaesthetic or sedative agents used in direct current cardioversion for cardiac arrhythmia in both elective and emergency settings.We sought answers to the following specific questions.• Which drugs deliver the best outcomes for patients undergoing electrical cardioversion?• Does using a particular agent confer advantages or disadvantages?• Is additional analgesic necessary to prevent pain? SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) on 27 March 2014. Our search terms were relevant to the review question and were not limited by outcomes. We also carried out searches of clinical trials registers and forward and backward citation tracking. SELECTION CRITERIA We considered all randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized and cluster-randomized studies with adult participants undergoing electrical cardioversion procedures in the elective or emergency setting. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data, consulting with a third review author for disagreements. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures, including assessment of risk of bias for all studies. MAIN RESULTS We included 23 studies with 1250 participants that compared one drug with one or more other drugs. Of these comparisons, 19 studies compared propofol with another drug. Seven of these compared propofol with etomidate (four of which combined the drugs with remifentanil or fentanyl), five midazolam, six thiopentone and two sevoflurane. Three studies compared etomidate with thiopentone, and three etomidate with midazolam. Two studies compared thiopentone with midazolam, one thiopentone with diazepam and one midazolam with diazepam. Drug doses and the time over which the drugs were given varied between studies. Although all studies were described as randomized, limited information was provided about the methods used for selection and group allocation. A high level of performance bias was observed across studies, as study authors had not attempted to blind the anaesthetist to group allocation. Similarly, study authors had rarely provided sufficient information on whether outcome assessors had been blinded.Included studies presented outcome data for hypotension, apnoea, participant recall, success of cardioversion, minor adverse events of nausea and vomiting, pain at injection site and myoclonus, additional analgesia and participant satisfaction. We did not pool the data from different studies in view of the multiple drug comparisons, differences in definitions and reporting of outcomes, variability of endpoints and high or unclear risk of bias across studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Few studies reported statistically significant results for our relevant outcomes, and most study authors concluded that both, or all, agents compared in individual studies were adequate for cardioversion procedures. It is our opinion that at present, there is no evidence to suggest that current anaesthetic practice for cardioversion should change.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sharon R Lewis
- Royal Lancaster InfirmaryLancaster Patient Safety Research UnitPointer Court 1, Ashton RoadLancasterUKLA1 4RP
| | - Amanda Nicholson
- c/o Cochrane Anaesthesia, Critical and Emergency Care GroupHerlevDenmark
| | - Stephanie S Reed
- Royal Lancaster InfirmaryDepartment of AnaesthesiaAshton RoadLancasterLancashireUKLA1 4RP
| | - Johnny J Kenth
- Royal Lancaster InfirmaryDepartment of AnaesthesiaAshton RoadLancasterLancashireUKLA1 4RP
| | - Phil Alderson
- National Institute for Health and Care ExcellenceLevel 1A, City Tower,Piccadilly PlazaManchesterUKM1 4BD
| | - Andrew F Smith
- Royal Lancaster InfirmaryDepartment of AnaesthesiaAshton RoadLancasterLancashireUKLA1 4RP
| | | |
Collapse
|