Etomidate for procedural sedation in the emergency department

Effect of remimazolam tosilate versus etomidate on hemodynamics in patients undergoing valve replacement surgery: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Patients with a history of cardiac disease are prone to develop cardiovascular adverse events such as hypotension, hypertension, and tachycardia during anesthesia induction. Therefore, hemodynamic stability is one of the most important concerns for induction of anesthesia in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Remimazolam tosilate is a new, ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine agent, with the advantages of rapid onset, rapid offset, and minimal cardiorespiratory depression. We aim to compare the effect of remimazolam tosilate and etomidate on hemodynamics during anesthesia induction in patients undergoing valve replacement surgery.

METHODS/DESIGN

The trial is a prospective, randomized, double-blinded, controlled, single-center trial to compare the effect of remimazolam tosilate and etomidate on hemodynamics in patients undergoing valve replacement surgery. One hundred seventeen patients undergoing selective valve replacement surgery between January 1, 2022, and December 31, 2023, will be enrolled and randomly allocated into one of three groups: low-dose remimazolam group (Group LR), high-dose remimazolam group (Group HR), or etomidate group (Group E). The primary outcome is hemodynamic fluctuations during anesthesia induction (the difference between mean arterial pressure [MAP] to baseline, ▴MAP; and the difference between maximum or minimum heart rate [HR] and baseline, ▴HR). Secondary outcomes include the incidence of adverse cardiovascular events (hypotension, severe bradycardia, hypertension, tachycardia, and arrhythmia), the cumulative doses of vasoactive drugs used per patient, incidence and degree of injection pain and myoclonus, blood glucose values, and vital signs at different time points.

DISCUSSION

This research will determine the effectiveness and safety of remimazolam tosilate induction on hemodynamics in patients undergoing valve replacement surgery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

www.chictr.org .cn identifier ChiCTR2100052535 . Registered on 17th Dec 2021, http://www.chictr.org.cn/ ).

Physical and Chemical Compatibility of Etomidate and Propofol Injectable Emulsions

INTRODUCTION

The mixture of etomidate and propofol is widely used in clinical practice to improve efficacy of general anesthesia and to minimize side effects. As a thermodynamically unstable system, emulsion is prone to destabilization through mechanisms including coalescence, flocculation, and creaming. Such unwanted phenomenon can induce fat embolism after intravenous administration. This study was aimed to investigate the physical and chemical stability of the mixture of etomidate and propofol in the dosage form of emulsion.

METHODS

This compatibility study focused on the critical quality attributes (CQAs) of drug-containing emulsions, such as appearance, pH, particle size and distribution, zeta potential, the observation under centrifugation, and drug content and impurity.

RESULTS

As the results, there were no significant changes in the CQAs of the mixed emulsions up to 24 h after mixing at refrigeration temperature (4°C), room temperature (25°C), and body temperature (37°C).

CONCLUSIONS

These results demonstrate that etomidate emulsion is physically and chemically compatible with propofol emulsions up to 24 h at 4°C, 25°C, and 37°C, suggesting that etomidate and propofol can be administrated in mixture without adversely affecting product characteristics, at least in vitro.

Neurologic Safety of Etomidate-Based Sedation during Upper Endoscopy in Patients with Liver Cirrhosis Compared with Propofol: A Double-Blind, Randomized Controlled Trial

(1) Background: Although etomidate-based sedation is an effective and safe protocol in endoscopic procedures, there is a lack of evidence regarding the safety of etomidate in patients with liver cirrhosis (LC). This study aimed to compare the neurologic safety and efficacy of etomidate and propofol for endoscopic sedation in patients with LC. (2) Methods: From December 2017 to December 2019, consecutive cirrhotic patients who underwent sedative endoscopy using either etomidate or propofol were randomly recruited. The primary endpoint was the number connection test (NCT), and the secondary endpoints included factors for the safety of sedatives during endoscopy. (3) Results: 63 patients were enrolled in each of the etomidate and propofol groups. The NCT times were significantly lower in the etomidate group than in the propofol group. Furthermore, severe or very severe degree of encephalopathy was higher in the propofol group but was not significantly different. Pharmacological properties and the overall incidence of respiratory and cardiovascular events did not differ significantly between the groups. (4) Conclusion: Etomidate-based sedation exacerbates neither subclinical nor overt hepatic encephalopathy. It guarantees efficacies similar to those of propofol regarding rapid sedation, fast recovery, and early discharge, with no increased risk of adverse respiratory or cardiovascular events in patients with LC.

Difficult Intubation due to Penetrating Trauma from a Crossbow Bolt

We present the case of a patient with penetrating neck and craniofacial trauma from a self-inflicted crossbow bolt injury. This case highlights the challenges involved in prehospital airway management related to an in situ foreign object penetrating the oral cavity. We review the complications associated with such injuries and considerations for effective prehospital airway management.

Efficacy and Safety of Etomidate in Comparison with Propofol or Midazolam as Sedative for Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

BACKGROUND/AIMS

In this study, we compared the efficacy and safety of etomidate with those of propofol or midazolam for the maintenance of sedation during endoscopy.

METHODS

The study enrolled patients who underwent sedative endoscopy in our hospital and divided them into three groups. Patients in each group were administered midazolam as induction therapy and were subsequently administered either midazolam (M + M group), propofol (M + P group), or etomidate (M + E group) as maintenance medication. The primary outcome was overall cardiovascular and respiratory adverse events.

RESULTS

In total, 105 patients who underwent sedative endoscopic examination were enrolled. The outcomes related to the procedure and sedation were not significantly different among the groups. Overall cardiovascular and respiratory adverse events were observed in 9 patients (25.7%) in the M + M group, 8 patients (23.5%) in the M + P group, and 10 patients (27.8%) in the M + E group. The logistic regression analysis revealed that etomidate use was not an independent risk factor for overall cardiovascular and respiratory adverse events.

CONCLUSION

The outcomes following the use of etomidate for maintenance after induction with midazolam for sedation in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy were not inferior to those following midazolam or propofol use from the perspectives of safety and efficacy.

Safety and efficacy of combined use of propofol and etomidate for sedation during gastroscopy: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Sedation with etomidate or propofol alone during gastroscopy has many side effects. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the combined use of propofol and etomidate for sedation during gastroscopy.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Medline (via Ovid SP), Cochrane library databases, CINAHL (via EBSCO), China Biology Medicine disc (CBMdisc), Wanfang, VIP, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases were systematically searched. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the combined use of propofol and etomidate vs etomidate or propofol alone for sedation during gastroscopy. Data were pooled using the random-effects models or fixed-effect model based on heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies with 2973 participants were included in the analysis. Compared to propofol alone, the combined use of propofol and etomidate possibly increased recovery time (SMD = 0.14, 95% CI = 0.04-0.24; P = .005), and the risk for myoclonus (OR = 3.07, 95% CI = 1.73-5.44; P < .001), injection pain, and nausea and vomiting. Furthermore, compared to propofol alone, the combination of propofol and etomidate produced an apparent beneficial effect for mean arterial pressure (MAP) after anesthesia (SMD = 1.32, 95% CI = 0.38-2.26; P = .006), SPO2 after anesthesia (SMD = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.43-1.55; P < .001), apnea or hypoxemia (OR = 0.16, 95% CI = 0.08-0.33; P < .001), injection pain, and body movement. Further, compared to etomidate alone, the combination of propofol and etomidate reduced the risk for myoclonus (OR = 0.15, 95% CI = 0.11-0.22; P < .001), body movement, and nausea and vomiting.

CONCLUSION

The combination of propofol and etomidate might increase recovery time vs that associated with propofol, but it had fewer side effects on circulation and respiration in patients undergoing gastroscopy. The combined use of propofol and etomidate can improve and produce an apparent beneficial effect on the adverse effects of propofol or etomidate alone, and it was safer and more effective than propofol or etomidate alone.

Alternatives to Rapid Sequence Intubation: Contemporary Airway Management with Ketamine

Endotracheal intubation (ETI) is a high-risk procedure commonly performed in emergency medicine, critical care, and the prehospital setting. Traditional rapid sequence intubation (RSI), the simultaneous administration of an induction agent and muscle relaxant, is more likely to harm patients who do not allow appropriate preparation and preoxygenation, have concerning airway anatomy, or severe hypoxia, acidemia, or hypotension. Ketamine, a dissociative anesthetic, can be used to facilitate two alternatives to RSI to augment airway safety in these scenarios: delayed sequence intubation - the use of ketamine to allow airway preparation and preoxygenation in the agitated patient; and ketamine-only breathing intubation, in which ketamine is used without a paralytic to facilitate ETI as the patient continues to breathe spontaneously. Ketamine may also provide hemodynamic benefits during standard RSI and is a valuable agent for post-intubation analgesia and sedation. When RSI is not an optimal airway management strategy, ketamine's unique pharmacology can be harnessed to facilitate alternative approaches that may increase patient safety.

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.

Etomidate Sedation for Advanced Endoscopic Procedures

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM

Although propofol is widely used for sedation for endoscopic procedures, concerns remain regarding cardiopulmonary adverse events. Etomidate has little effect on the cardiovascular and respiratory systems, but patient satisfaction analysis is lacking. We compared the efficacy and safety of balanced propofol and etomidate sedation during advanced endoscopic procedures.

METHODS

As a randomized noninferiority trial, balanced endoscopic sedation was achieved using midazolam and fentanyl, and patients were randomly assigned to receive propofol (BPS) or etomidate (BES) as add-on drug. The main outcomes were sedation efficacy measured on a 10-point visual analog scale (VAS) and safety.

RESULTS

In total, 186 patients (94 in the BPS group and 92 in the BES group) were evaluated. BES did not show noninferiority in terms of overall patient satisfaction, with a difference in VAS score of -0.35 (97.5 % confidence interval -1.03 to ∞, p = 0.03). Among endoscopists and nurses, BES showed noninferiority to BPS, with differences in VAS scores of 0.06 and 0.08, respectively. Incidence of cardiopulmonary adverse events was lower in the BES group (27.7 versus 14.1 %, p = 0.023). Hypoxia occurred in 5.3 and 1.1 % of patients in the BPS and BES group (p = 0.211). Myoclonus occurred in 12.1 % (11/92) in the BES group. BES had lower risk of overall cardiopulmonary adverse events (odds ratio 0.401, p = 0.018).

CONCLUSIONS

BES was not noninferior to BPS in terms of patient satisfaction. However, BES showed better safety outcomes in terms of cardiopulmonary adverse events.

Efficacy and safety of etomidate-based sedation compared with propofol-based sedation during ERCP in low-risk patients: a double-blind, randomized, noninferiority trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Etomidate is a short-acting intravenous hypnotic with a safety profile that is superior to alternative drugs such as propofol. However, there is a lack of evidence on the safety of etomidate in ERCP. The objective of this study was to compare efficacy and safety profiles of etomidate and propofol for endoscopic sedation.

METHODS

This single-center, randomized, double-blind, noninferiority trial included patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I to II who had been scheduled for ERCP. All patients received .05 mg/kg midazolam intravenously as pretreatment before receiving etomidate or propofol. Either etomidate or propofol was then administered according to group allocation. The primary endpoint was an overall respiratory event. A noninferiority margin of 10% was assumed.

RESULTS

Sixty-three and 64 patients were enrolled in the etomidate and propofol groups, respectively. Respiratory events were identified in 10 patients (15.6%) in the etomidate group and 16 patients (25.4%) on the propofol group, with a rate difference of -9.8% (1-sided 97.5% confidence interval, -∞ to 4.2%). The overall incidence of cardiovascular events tended to be higher in the etomidate group (67.2% vs 50.8%, P = .060). In particular, tachycardia (heart rate > 100 beats/min) was more common in the etomidate group than in the propofol group (64.1% vs 34.9%, P = .001). Transient hypotension tended to be less common in the etomidate group (6.3 vs 15.9%, P = .084).

CONCLUSIONS

Etomidate-based sedation during ERCP was noninferior to propofol-based sedation in terms of the overall incidence of respiratory events in patients with ASA physical status I to II. (International Clinical Trials Registry Platform number: KCT0001926.).

Comparison of sedative effectiveness of thiopental versus midazolam in reduction of shoulder dislocation

BACKGROUND

Various sedative drugs have been proposed to control anxiety and agitation in shoulder dislocation, but none of them has been diagnosed as the best sedative and relaxant agent. The study aimed to compare the sedative effectiveness of thiopental versus midazolam in reduction of shoulder dislocation.

METHODS

A randomized double-blind controlled trail was performed in 80 patients with shoulder dislocation recruited from the emergency department. Ten patients were excluded and 70 patients were enrolled in the study. Case group received intravenous thiopental 2 mg/kg+2 µg/kg fentanyl while control group received intravenous midazolam 0.1 mg/kg+2 µg/kg fentanyl. Number of times, patients and physician's satisfaction, difficulty of procedure, degree of muscle relaxation, time of sedation and complete recovery, number of patients with apnea episode, O2 saturation, patient's pain score and adverse events were all recorded.

RESULTS

Muscular tone had significant difference between the two groups (P-value=0.014) and thiopental was more muscle relaxant than midazolam. Replacement of shoulder dislocation in thiopental group was easier than midazolam group (P-value=0.043). There was no need to use multiple methods of reduction in either group. Before drug infusion the mean±SD VAS scores were 8.37±2.21 in the midazolam group (A) and 8.94±1.78 in the thiopental group (B); mean difference 0.57, 95% CI= -0.38 to 1.52. After completion of the procedure, the mean±SD VAS scores in group (A) and (B) were 3.20±1.30 vs. 3.65±1.30; mean difference -0.45, 95% CI= -1.07 to 0.16.

CONCLUSION

Thiopental might be more effective and relaxant than midazolam for reduction of shoulder dislocation.

Sedation and analgesia for procedures in the pediatric emergency room

OBJECTIVE

Children and adolescents often require sedation and analgesia in emergency situations. With the emergence of new therapeutic options, the obsolescence of others, and recent discoveries regarding already known drugs, it became necessary to review the literature in this area.

DATA SOURCES

Non-systematic review in the PubMed database of studies published up to December 2016, including original articles, review articles, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. References from textbooks, publications from regulatory agencies, and articles cited in reviews and meta-analyses through active search were also included.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Based on current literature, the concepts of sedation and analgesia, the necessary care with the patient before, during, and after sedoanalgesia, and indications related to the appropriate choice of drugs according to the procedure to be performed and their safety profiles are presented.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of sedoanalgesia protocols in procedures in the pediatric emergency room should guide the professional in the choice of medication, the appropriate material, and in the evaluation of discharge criteria, thus assuring quality in care.

Etomidate versus propofol sedation for complex upper endoscopic procedures: a prospective double-blinded randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Although a growing body of evidence demonstrates that propofol-induced deep sedation can be effective and performed safely, cardiopulmonary adverse events have been observed frequently. Etomidate is a new emerging drug that provides hemodynamic and respiratory stability, even in high-risk patient groups. The objective of this study was to compare safety and efficacy profiles of etomidate and propofol for endoscopic sedation.

METHODS

A total of 128 patients undergoing EUS were randomized to receive either etomidate or propofol blinded administered by a registered nurse. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with any cardiopulmonary adverse events.

RESULTS

Overall cardiopulmonary adverse events were identified in 22 patients (34.38%) of the etomidate group and 33 patients (51.56%) of the propofol group, without significant difference (P = .074). However, the incidence of oxygen desaturation (4/64 [6.25%] vs 20/64 [31.25%]; P =.001) and respiratory depression (5/64 [7.81%] vs 21/64 [32.81%]; P =.001) was significantly lower in the etomidate group than in the propofol group. The frequency of myoclonus was significantly higher in the etomidate group (22/64 [34.37%]) compared with the propofol group (8/64 [12.50%]) (P =.012). Repeated measure analysis of variance revealed significant effects of sedation group and time on systolic blood pressure (etomidate group greater than propofol group). Physician satisfaction was greater in the etomidate group than in the propofol group.

CONCLUSIONS

Etomidate administration resulted in fewer respiratory depression events and had a better sedative efficacy than propofol; however, it was more frequently associated with myoclonus and increased blood pressure during endoscopic procedures. (Clinical trial registration number: KCT0001701.).

Comparison of ketamine/propofol (ketofol) and etomidate/fentanyl (etofen) combinations for procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department: An observational study

OBJECTIVES

The primary aim of this study was to report the vital signs, hemodynamic parameters and pain scores of the patients who have received procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) with either ketofol (combination of ketamine and propofol) or etofen (combination of etomidate and fentanyl) and compare the proportion of patients with airway or respiratory adverse events (AEs) requiring an intervention and calculate the relative risk of AEs with each combination.

METHODS

This study is a prospective observational study with survey analysis. All patients received procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) with either ketofol (combination of ketamine and propofol) or etofen (combination of etomidate and fentanyl) were prospectively observed. Vital and hemodynamic parameters and pain scores of the patients were recorded by automated equipment and visual analog scale (VAS) charts.

RESULTS

112 patients were enrolled, 55 received ketofol and 57 received etofen. All patients with a respiratory AE (n = 27) observed to receive a respiratory intervention. Respiratory AE rate and proportion of patient who required a respiratory intervention were significantly higher with ketofol (p = 0.0029). Overall AE rate, and rates of desaturation, emergence reaction were also significantly higher in ketofol group.

CONCLUSION

Etofen is a promising combination for the PSA of adult patients with lower respiratory AE and intervention rates and with better hemodynamic profile.

Etomidate Versus Ketamine: Effective Use in Emergency Procedural Sedation for Pediatric Orthopedic Injuries

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare the induction and recovery times, postsedation observation durations, and adverse effects of etomidate and ketamine in pediatric patients with fractures and/or dislocations requiring closed reduction in the emergency department.

METHODS

Forty-four healthy children aged 7 to 18 years were included. The patients were randomly divided into 2 groups. Group 1 (24 patients) received etomidate and fentanyl, and group 2 (20 patients) received ketamine intravenously. The Ramsay Sedation Scale and American Pediatric Association discharge criteria were used to evaluate the patients.

RESULTS

There were 70 fractured bones and 3 joint dislocations. Except in 1 case (2.3%), all of the injuries were reducted successfully. The mean amount of drugs used to provide adequate sedation and analgesia were 0.25 mg/kg of etomidate and 1.30 μg/kg of fentanyl in group 1 and 1.25 mg/kg of ketamine in group 2. Fourteen patients (31.8%) reported adverse effects, and none required hospitalization. There was no difference between the groups in the recovery times, occurrence of adverse effects, and postsedation observation durations (P > 0.05). The mean (SD) induction time for the patients in group 1 was 4.3 (1.0) minutes, whereas it was 2.2 (1.6) minutes in group 2 (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Etomidate induces effective and adequate sedation in the pediatric emergency department for painful orthopedic procedures. Ketamine, which has longer action times, might be preferred for reductions because orthopedic procedures could be lengthy.

A comparison of ketamine versus etomidate for procedural sedation for the reduction of large joint dislocations

Study Objectives:

Ketamine and etomidate are used for procedural sedation (PS) to facilitate the performance of painful procedures. We hypothesized that ketamine produces adequate and comparable sedation conditions for dislocated large joint reduction when compared to etomidate and results in fewer adverse events.

Methods:

This Institutional Review Board approved prospective trial compared a convenience sample of subjects, who were randomized to receive either ketamine or etomidate for PS to facilitate reduction of large joint dislocations. Following informed consent, subjects were assigned via a computer-generated algorithm to receive either etomidate (0.1 mg/kg) or ketamine (0.5 mg/kg) intravenously; if PS was not sufficient, subjects received repeat doses of etomidate or ketamine until adequate PS was achieved. The protocol's primary endpoint was a successful reduction of dislocated, large joints. Secondary endpoints included alteration in blood pressure, vomiting, recovery agitation, hypersalivation, laryngospasm, myoclonus, hypoxia, airway assistance with chin lift or jaw thrust, bag-valve-mask ventilation, endotracheal intubation, utilization of additional doses of ketamine or etomidate, and recovery time from sedation.

Results:

Total enrollment was eighty subjects, 46 in the ketamine cohort and 34 in the etomidate cohort. The two PS groups were comparable in terms of gender, age, and weight. There was no significant difference in the primary endpoint of large joint dislocation reduction between the ketamine and etomidate cohorts (46/46, 100%; 32/34, 94.1%; P – 0.1). Shoulder, hip, and ankle joints account for the majority of joint reductions in this trial. Titration of PS was necessary for almost half of each cohort as evidenced by the utilization of additional dosages of the sedative agents: ketamine (22/46, 47.8%) and etomidate (14/34, 41.2%; P – 0.56). Among secondary outcome variables, significant differences between ketamine and etomidate cohorts were myoclonus (1/46, 2.2%, 15/33, 45.5%; P – 0.0001), assisted ventilation with airway manipulation (3/45, 6.7%; 9/33, 27.3%; P – 0.01), and pulsoximetry desaturation < 90% (0/46; 7/34, 20.6%; P – 0.002). There was no significant difference in recovery time from PS between the ketamine and etomidate cohorts (11 min vs. 10 min; P – 0.69).

Conclusion:

Ketamine produces PS conditions for successful large joint dislocation reduction that are adequate and comparable to etomidate. The increased likelihood of myoclonus, of the requirement for airway assistance, and of hypoxia observed with etomidate suggest potential benefits with the utilization of ketamine for PS for dislocated large joint reduction.

Incidence of Adverse Events in Adults Undergoing Procedural Sedation in the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

This was a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the incidence of adverse events in adults undergoing procedural sedation in the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

Eight electronic databases were searched, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBSCO, CINAHL, CENTRAL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, and Scopus, from January 2005 through 2015. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies of adults undergoing procedural sedation in the ED that reported a priori selected outcomes and adverse events were included. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model and reported as incidence rates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

The search yielded 2,046 titles for review. Fifty-five articles were eligible, including 9,652 procedural sedations. The most common adverse event was hypoxia, with an incidence of 40.2 per 1,000 sedations (95% CI = 32.5 to 47.9), followed by vomiting with 16.4 per 1,000 sedations (95% CI = 9.7 to 23.0) and hypotension with 15.2 per 1,000 sedations (95% CI = 10.7 to 19.7). Severe adverse events requiring emergent medical intervention were rare, with one case of aspiration in 2,370 sedations (1.2 per 1,000), one case of laryngospasm in 883 sedations (4.2 per 1,000), and two intubations in 3,636 sedations (1.6 per 1,000). The incidence of agitation and vomiting were higher with ketamine (164.1 per 1,000 and 170.0 per 1,000, respectively). Apnea was more frequent with midazolam (51.4 per 1,000), and hypoxia was less frequent in patients who received ketamine/propofol compared to other combinations. The case of laryngospasm was in a patient who received ketamine, and the aspiration and intubations were in patients who received propofol. When propofol and ketamine are combined, the incidences of agitation, apnea, hypoxia, bradycardia, hypotension, and vomiting were lower compared to each medication separately.

CONCLUSIONS

Serious adverse events during procedural sedation like laryngospasm, aspiration, and intubation are exceedingly rare. Quantitative risk estimates are provided to facilitate shared decision-making, risk communication, and informed consent.

Comparison of Propofol, Propofol-Remifentanil, and Propofol-Fentanyl Administrations with Each Other Used for the Sedation of Patients to Undergo ERCP

INTRODUCTION

Using single anesthetic agent in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) may lead to inadequate analgesia and sedation. To achieve the adequate analgesia and sedation the single anesthetic agent doses must be increased which causes undesirable side effects. For avoiding high doses of single anesthetic agent nowadays combination with sedative agents is mostly a choice for analgesia and sedation for ERCP.

AIM

The aim of this study is to investigate the effects of propofol alone, propofol + remifentanil, and propofol + fentanyl combinations on the total dose of propofol to be administered during ERCP and on the pain scores after the process.

MATERIALS AND METHOD

This randomized study was performed with 90 patients (ASA I-II-III) ranging between 18 and 70 years of age who underwent sedation/analgesia for elective ERCP. The patients were administered only propofol (1.5 mg/kg) in Group Ι, remifentanil (0.05 μg/kg) + propofol (1.5 mg/kg) combination in Group II, and fentanyl (1 μg/kg) + propofol (1.5 mg/kg) combination in Group III. All the patients' sedation levels were assessed with the Ramsey Sedation Scale (RSS). Their recovery was assessed with the Aldrete and Numerical Rating Scale Score (NRS) at 10 min intervals.

RESULTS

The total doses of propofol administered to the patients in the three groups in this study were as follows: 375 mg in Group I, 150 mg in Group II, and 245 mg in Group III.

CONCLUSION

It was observed that, in the patients undergoing ERCP, administration of propofol in combination with an opioid provided effective and reliable sedation, reduced the total dose of propofol, increased the practitioner satisfaction, decreased the pain level, and provided hemodynamic stability compared to the administration of propofol alone.

Etomidate Anesthesia during ERCP Caused More Stable Haemodynamic Responses Compared with Propofol: A Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Propofol may result in hypotension and respiratory depression, while etomidate is considered to be a safe induction agent for haemodynamically unstable patients because of its low risk of hypotension. We hypothesized that etomidate anesthesia during ERCP caused more stable haemodynamic responses compared with propofol. The primary endpoint was to compare the haemodynamic effects of etomidate vs. propofol in ERCP cases. The secondary endpoint was overall survival.

METHODS

A total of 80 patients undergoing ERCP were randomly assigned to an etomidate or propofol group. Patients in the etomidate group received etomidate induction and maintenance during ERCP, and patients in the propofol group received propofol induction and maintenance. Cardiovascular parameters and procedure-related time were measured and recorded during ERCP.

RESULTS

The average percent change to baseline in MBP was -8.4±7.8 and -14.4±9.4 with P = 0.002, and in HR was 1.8±16.6 and 2.4±16.3 with P = 0.874 in the etomidate group and the propofol group, respectively. MBP values in the etomidate group decreased significantly less than those in the propofol group (P<0.05). The ERCP duration and recovery time in both groups was similar. There was no significant difference in the survival rates between groups ( p = 0.942).

CONCLUSIONS

Etomidate anesthesia during ERCP caused more stable haemodynamic responses compared with propofol.

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 &lt; 90 mm Hg or &gt; 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 &lt;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.

Anesthesia for stem cell transplantation in autistic children: A prospective, randomized, double-blind comparison of propofol and etomidate following sevoflurane inhalation

The objective of the present study was to comparatively investigate the feasibility and safety of etomidate and propofol use following sevoflurane inhalation in autistic children during the intrathecal transplantation of stem cells. The patients selected were 60 autistic children with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I, who were aged between two and 12 years and scheduled for stem cell transplantation. The children received an inhalation induction of 8% sevoflurane, followed by intravenous injection of etomidate (0.2 mg/kg) in group E and propofol (2 mg/kg) in group P (n=30/group). Supplemental doses of 0.1 mg/kg etomidate or 1 mg/kg propofol were used until a deep sedation was obtained. The heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure, oxygen saturation, respiratory rate, Ramsay sedation score (RSS) and recovery time were monitored continuously. Following anesthesia, blood pressure and HR measurements were significantly decreased in group P compared with the baseline (P<0.01) and group E values at the same time-points (P<0.05). The occurrence of adverse effects, such as respiratory depression, bradycardia, hypotension and pain on injection, was significantly higher in group P than that in group E, whereas the incidence of myoclonus in group E was significantly higher than that in group P (P<0.01). No significant differences in anesthesia induction, surgery duration, recovery time, RSS and physician satisfaction were observed between the two groups. In conclusion, sevoflurane-etomidate combinations resulted in more stable hemodynamic responses and relatively fewer adverse effects compared with propofol injection following sevoflurane inhalation and may therefore be more suitable for the induction of short-term anesthesia in autistic children during stem cell transplantation.

Etomidate-remifentanil is more suitable for monitored anesthesia care during gastroscopy in older patients than propofol-remifentanil

Background

This prospective and randomized study was designed to compare safety, potential complications, and patient and examiner satisfaction of 2 anesthetic combinations – etomidate-remifentanil and propofol-remifentanil – in elderly patients undergoing diagnostic gastroscopy.

Material/Methods

A group of 720 patients, aged 60–80 years, scheduled for diagnostic gastroscopy under sedation were prospectively randomized. After 0.4–0.6 μg kg⁻¹ of remifentanil was infused, etomidate or propofol was administered. Patients in the etomidate group received doses of etomidate at 0.1–0.15 mg kg⁻¹ followed by 4–6 mg. Patients in the propofol group received doses of propofol at 1–2 mg kg⁻¹ followed by 20–40 mg. Physiological indexes were evaluated for the 715 of 720 patients that completed the treatment. The onset time, duration time, and discharge time were recorded. Physicians, anesthetists, and patients were surveyed to assess their satisfaction.

Results

Systolic pressure and diastolic pressure decreased significantly after the procedure in the propofol group (P<0.001). The average heart rate was significantly lower in the propofol group (P<0.05). No periods of desaturation (SpO₂ <95%) were observed in either group. The onset time was earlier in the etomidate group (P=0.00). All adverse events, with the exception of myoclonus, were greater in the propofol group, and physician and patient satisfaction in both groups was similar.

Conclusions

Etomidate-remifentanil administration for sedation and analgesia during gastroscopy resulted in more stable hemodynamic responses and less adverse events in older patients.

Etomidate with or without flumazenil anesthesia for stem cell transplantation in autistic children

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to investigate etomidate administration with or without flumazenil in autistic children who underwent intrathecal transplantation of stem cells by lumbar puncture.

METHODS

Forty autistic children aged 2-12, who were scheduled for stem cell transplantation via lumbar puncture under anesthesia, were randomized for a double-blind study. The children were randomly assigned to two groups: the flumazenil group (group F, n=20) and the etomidate group (group E, n=20). All children received 0.2 mg/kg of etomidate. In the case of inadequate anesthesia, patients received repeated doses of 0.1 mg/kg of etomidate until reaching deep sedation. After operation, children in group F were given flumazenil (0.01 mg/kg) and children in group E received placebo. Heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure, oxygen saturation, respiratory rate, the Ramsay sedation score (RSS), and recovery time of all children were continuously monitored and recorded during the entire procedure.

RESULTS

After anesthesia, blood pressure and HR measurements were not significantly changed in both groups compared with the baseline. There were no respiratory depression, bradycardia, hypotension, nausea, and vomiting. Five patients complained of pain on the site of injection. Myoclonus occurred in seven patients. Recovery time in group F was significantly shorter than in group E (p<0.001), and after the injection of flumazenil, RSS in group F significantly decreased than in group E. There were no significant differences in operation time. Physician satisfaction in both groups was similar.

CONCLUSIONS

Etomidate resulted in stable hemodynamic responses and relatively less adverse effects, and flumazenil antagonized the anesthetic effect of etomidate; thus, etomidate with flumazenil is suitable for performing stem cell transplantation in autistic children.

A descriptive study of myoclonus associated with etomidate procedural sedation in the ED

BACKGROUND

Myoclonus is a well-recognized side effect of etomidate when given in induction doses for rapid sequence intubation. Most of the data reported on myoclonus with emergency department (ED) sedation doses are reported as a secondary finding.

STUDY OBJECTIVES

Our objective was to prospectively quantify the incidence and duration of myoclonus associated with the administration of etomidate in the lower doses given for procedural sedation in the ED.

METHODS

This was a prospective descriptive study performed between September 2008 and September 2010 at an urban teaching hospital ED with approximately 50000 patient visits per year. Procedural sedation was performed at the discretion of the treating emergency physician, and adult patients receiving etomidate were eligible for enrollment. The occurrence and duration of myoclonus were observed and recorded. Any interference of myoclonus with the ability to complete the procedure was recorded, and adverse effects were identified.

RESULTS

Thirty-four eligible subjects were enrolled, and 36 separate sedation procedures were performed. The mean initial etomidate dose was 0.13 mg/kg (range, 0.077-0.20), and the mean total etomidate dose was 0.15 mg/kg (range, 0.077-0.29). Myoclonus was noted in 26 (72%) of 36 sedations. Mean time to onset of myoclonus was 50 seconds (range, 15-146), and the mean duration was 93 seconds (range, 03-557). Myoclonus interfered with the procedure in only 1 (3%) of 36 attempted procedures, and no procedure was unsuccessful because of myoclonus.

CONCLUSION

Myoclonus associated with sedation doses of etomidate was common but rarely interfered with the completion of a procedure.

Etomidate for short pediatric procedures in the emergency department

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to prospectively determine the etomidate dose associated with adequate sedation and few significant respiratory events for procedures of short duration in children.

METHODS

This is a prospective cohort study in an urban pediatric emergency department of patients 4 to 18 years requiring sedation and analgesia for painful procedures of short duration. Patients received fentanyl 1 μg/kg followed by intravenously administered etomidate 0.1 to 0.2 mg/kg as a loading dose. An additional dose of etomidate 0.1 mg/kg was intravenously administered if needed. The level of sedation was determined by The Children's Hospital of Wisconsin Sedation Score. The primary outcome was to determine the etomidate dose associated with an adequate level of sedation and procedural completion.

RESULTS

Sixty patients were enrolled. The most frequent procedure was fracture reduction (50/60, 83.3%). Procedures were successfully completed for 59 (98.3%) of 60 patients. The initial dose of etomidate associated with adequate sedation was 0.2 mg/kg intravenously administered for 33 (66.7%) of 50 patients requiring fracture reduction and for 6 (60.0%) of 10 patients receiving a procedure other than fracture reduction. Respiratory depression was noted in 9 (16.4%) of 55 patients, and oxygen desaturation was noted in 23 (39.0%) of 59 patients. Of 58 patients, 21 (36.2%) experienced a respiratory adverse event requiring brief intervention including oxygen supplementation, stimulation, and/or airway repositioning. No patient experienced a significant adverse respiratory event, defined as positive pressure ventilation. Median time to discharge-ready was 21 minutes.

CONCLUSIONS

For short-duration painful emergency department procedures, etomidate 0.2 mg/kg intravenously administered after fentanyl was associated with effective sedation, successful procedural completion, and readily managed respiratory adverse events in children.

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.

Anaesthesia of farmed fish: implications for welfare

During their life cycle as farmed animals, there are several situations in which fish are subjected to handling and confinement. Netting, weighing, sorting, vaccination, transport and, at the end, slaughter are frequent events under farming conditions. As research subjects, fish may also undergo surgical procedures that range from tagging, sampling and small incisions to invasive procedures. In these situations, treatment with anaesthetic agents may be necessary in order to ensure the welfare of the fish. The main objective of this paper is to review our knowledge of the effects of anaesthetic agents in farmed fish and their possible implications for welfare. As wide variations in response to anaesthesia have been observed both between and within species, special attention has been paid to the importance of secondary factors such as body weight, water temperature and acute stress. In this review, we have limited ourselves to the anaesthetic agents such as benzocaine, metacaine (MS-222), metomidate hydrochloride, isoeugenol, 2-phenoxyethanol and quinaldine. Anaesthetic protocols of fish usually refer to one single agent, whereas protocols of human and veterinary medicine cover combinations of several drugs, each contributing to the effects needed in the anaesthesia. As stress prior to anaesthesia may result in abnormal reactions, pre-anaesthetic sedation is regularly used in order to reduce or avoid stress and is an integral part of the veterinary protocols of higher vertebrates. Furthermore, the anaesthetic agents that are used in order to obtain general anaesthesia are combined with analgesic agents that target nociception. The increased use of such combinations in fish is therefore included as a special section. Anaesthetic agents are widely used to avoid stress during various farming procedures. While several studies report that anaesthetics are effective in reducing the stress associated with confinement and handling, there are indications that anaesthesia may in itself induce a stress response, measured by elevated levels of cortisol. MS-222 has been reported to elicit high cortisol release rates immediately following exposure, while benzocaine causes a bimodal response. Metomidate has an inhibitory effect on cortisol in fish and seems to induce the lowest release of cortisol of the agents reported in the literature. Compared to what is observed following severe stressors such as handling and confinement, the amount of cortisol released in response to anaesthesia appears to be low but may represent an extra load under otherwise stressful circumstances. Furthermore, anaesthetics may cause secondary adverse reactions such as acidosis and osmotic stress due to respiratory arrest and insufficient exchange of gas and ions between the blood and the water. All in all, anaesthetics may reduce stress and thereby improve welfare but can also have unwanted side effects that reduce the welfare of the fish and should therefore always be used with caution. Finally, on the basis of the data reported in the literature and our own experience, we recommend that anaesthetic protocols should always be tested on a few fish under prevailing conditions in order to ensure an adequate depth of anaesthesia. This recommendation applies whether a single agent or a combination of agents is used, although it appears that protocols comprising combinations of agents provide wider safety margins. The analgesic effects of currently used agents, in spite of their proven local effects, are currently being debated as the agents are administrated to fish via inhalation rather than locally at the target site. We therefore recommend that all protocols of procedures requiring general anaesthesia should be complemented by administration of agents with analgesic effect at the site of tissue trauma.

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.

Sedation and anesthesia for CT: emerging issues for providing high-quality care

During the past decades, the use of CT to diagnose conditions and monitor treatment in the pediatric setting has increased. Infants and children often require procedural sedation to maintain a motionless state to ensure high-quality imaging. Various medication regimens have been recommended to achieve satisfactory sedation for this painless procedure. While the incidence of adverse events remains low, procedural sedation carries the risk of serious morbidity and mortality. The use of evidence-based, structured approaches to procedural sedation should be used to reduce variation in clinical practice and improve outcomes.

Procedural sedation analgesia

The number of noninvasive and minimally invasive procedures performed outside of the operating room has grown exponentially over the last several decades.Sedation, analgesia, or both may be needed for many of these interventional or diagnostic procedures. Individualized care is important when determining if a patient requires procedural sedation analgesia (PSA). The patient might need an anti-anxiety drug, pain medicine, immobilization, simple reassurance, or a combination of these interventions. The goals of PSA in four different multidisciplinary practices namely; emergency, dentistry, radiology and gastrointestinal endoscopy are discussed in this review article. Some procedures are painful, others painless. Therefore, goals of PSA vary widely. Sedation management can range from minimal sedation, to the extent of minimal anesthesia. Procedural sedation in emergency department (ED) usually requires combinations of multiple agents to reach desired effects of analgesia plus anxiolysis. However, in dental practice, moderate sedation analgesia (known to the dentists as conscious sedation) is usually what is required. It is usually most effective with the combined use of local anesthesia. The mainstay of success for painless imaging is absolute immobility. Immobility can be achieved by deep sedation or minimal anesthesia. On the other hand, moderate sedation, deep sedation, minimal anesthesia and conventional general anesthesia can be all utilized for management of gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Pediatric procedural sedation and analgesia

Procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) is an evolving field in pediatric emergency medicine. As new drugs breach the boundaries of anesthesia in the Pediatric Emergency Department, parents, patients, and physicians are finding new and more satisfactory methods of sedation. Short acting, rapid onset agents with little or no lingering effects and improved safety profiles are replacing archaic regimens. This article discusses the warning signs and areas of a patient's medical history that are particularly pertinent to procedural sedation and the drugs used. The necessary equipment is detailed to provide the groundwork for implementing safe sedation in children. It is important for practitioners to familiarize themselves with a select few of the PSA drugs, rather than the entire list of sedatives. Those agents most relevant to PSA in the pediatric emergency department are presented.

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.

Randomized Clinical Trial of Etomidate Versus Propofol for Procedural Sedation in the Emergency Department

STUDY OBJECTIVE

We compare the efficacy, adverse events, and recovery duration of etomidate and propofol for use in procedural sedation in the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

This was a randomized nonblinded prospective trial of adult patients undergoing procedural sedation for painful procedures in the ED. Patients received either propofol or etomidate. Doses, vital signs, nasal end-tidal CO2 (ETCO2), pulse oximetry, and bispectral electroencephalogram analysis scores were recorded. Subclinical respiratory depression was defined as a change in ETCO2 greater than 10 mm Hg, an oxygen saturation of less than 92% at any time, or an absent ETCO2 waveform at any time. Clinical events related to respiratory depression, including an increase in supplemental oxygen, the use of a bag-valve-mask apparatus, airway repositioning, or stimulation to induce breathing, were noted during the procedure. After the procedure, patients completed visual analog scales about perceived pain during the procedure and recall of the procedure.

RESULTS

Two hundred twenty patients were enrolled; 214 underwent sedation and were analyzed. One hundred five patients received etomidate and 109 received propofol. No clinically significant complications were noted. Subclinical respiratory depression was observed in 36 of 105 (34.3%) patients in the etomidate group and 46 of 109 (42.2%) in the propofol group (difference -7.9%; 95% confidence interval [CI] -20.9% to 5.1%). Myoclonus was noted in 21 of 105 (20.0%) patients in the etomidate group and 2 of 109 (1.8%) in the propofol group (difference 18.2%; 95% CI 10.1% to 26.2%). The mean difference between baseline systolic blood pressure and the nadir was 3.8% (95% CI 2.3% to 5.3%) for etomidate and 7.9% (95% CI 6.1% to 9.7%) for propofol. Clinical events related to respiratory depression included an increase in supplemental oxygen in 6.7% of etomidate patients and 5.5% of propofol patients (difference 1.2%; 95% CI -5.2% to 7.6%), the use of bag-valve-mask apparatus in 3.8% of patients in the etomidate groups and 4.6% in the propofol group (difference -0.8%; 95% CI -6.1% to 4.6%), airway repositioning in 13.3% of etomidate patients and 11.0% of propofol patients (effect size 2.3%; 95% CI -6.4% to 11.1%), and stimulation to induce breathing in 11.4% of etomidate patients and 11.9% of propofol patients (difference -0.5%; 95% CI -9.1% to 8.1%). The procedures were successful in 93 of 105 (88.6%) for etomidate and 106 of 109 (97.2%) for propofol (difference -7.4%; 95% CI -14.3% to -1.1%).

CONCLUSION

Etomidate and propofol appear equally safe for ED procedural sedation; however, etomidate had a lower rate of procedural success and induced myoclonus in 20% of patients.

Etomidate Versus Midazolam for Procedural Sedation in Pediatric Outpatients: A Randomized Controlled Trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Midazolam is widely used for procedural sedation and analgesia. Etomidate has been studied mostly in adults. Our objective is to compare the efficacy of etomidate and midazolam for achieving procedural sedation and analgesia in children.

METHODS

A randomized, double-blind, emergency department and orthopedic clinic-based trial was carried out among patients aged 2 to 18 years with displaced extremity fractures. Patients were administered 1 microg/kg of fentanyl and either 0.2 mg/kg of etomidate or 0.1 mg/kg of midazolam. Adequate sedation was defined, for the purpose of this study, as a score of 4 or more on the Ramsay Sedation Scale. The primary outcome was induction and recovery time. The rates of adverse events, success of fracture reduction, and parent and physician satisfaction were also compared.

RESULTS

From April to August 2004, 100 of 128 eligible patients were enrolled (age 8.7+/-3.7 years; 50% male patients). A higher proportion of patients attained adequate sedation among those who received etomidate: 46 of 50 (92%) versus 18 of 50 (36%) (delta 56%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 38% to 69%). Time taken for induction (hazard ratio 4.9; 95% CI 2.2 to 10.9) and time taken for recovery (hazard ratio 2.8; 95% CI 1.5 to 5.1) were lower among patients who received etomidate. The rates of adverse events were similar in both groups, except for myoclonus and pain at the injection site, which was more frequent in the etomidate group.

CONCLUSION

Induction and recovery times are shorter with etomidate compared with midazolam. At the dosages used for procedural sedation and analgesia among children with displaced extremity fracture, etomidate has higher efficacy in comparison with midazolam.

Etomidate depresses lumbar dorsal horn neuronal responses to noxious thermal stimulation in rats

Etomidate is a widely used IV anesthetic, but little is known about its analgesic properties, in particular, its effects on spinal cord neuronal responses to noxious stimuli. We hypothesized that etomidate would depress lumbar neuronal responses to noxious heat. Rats (n = 15) were anesthetized with isoflurane (1.2%) and laminectomy was performed to record single unit activity. Lumbar neuronal responses to noxious thermal (52 degrees C, 12 s) stimulation of the hindpaw were recorded before and every 2 min (up to 13 min postinjection) after administration of etomidate. The responses at peak effect of etomidate (as a percentage of the control response) were 63% +/- 16%, 63% +/- 16%, 38% +/- 25%, 36% +/- 30%, and 41% +/- 26% for the 0.125, 0.25, 0.5, 1 and 2 mg/kg doses, respectively. The responses quickly recovered, usually by the 10-min period postinjection. Similar responses were obtained in decerebrate, isoflurane-free rats administered etomidate and in isoflurane-anesthetized rats administered propofol. These data demonstrate that etomidate depresses spinal cord neuronal responses to noxious stimulation and is a possible mechanism by which this drug might produce analgesia.