Concept: Procedural sedation
Our aim was to characterize effectiveness and complications in children receiving oral midazolam alone, nasal midazolam alone, or oral midazolam with other sedatives. Children received oral midazolam alone, nasal midazolam, or oral midazolam in combination with other sedative medications. All subjects received a presedation history and physical examination and were sedated per protocol by any of 28 resident providers under attending supervision. Sedations were rated for success and complications by clinicians. Postoperative complications were assessed by trained staff up to 48 hours postoperatively. Seven hundred and one encounters, completed over 24 months, yielded 650 usable sedations. The majority of children were healthy (469; 68.2%) and 86% (532) weighed between 10 and 25 kg. Sedations were deemed successful in about 80% of cases. Planned treatment was completed in over 85% of encounters. Oral midazolam alone yielded the best behavior. Physical assessment factors of behavior and age were correlated (P = .035) with effectiveness. Hiccups and a positive medical history were significantly related (P = .049). Side effects of either nausea/vomiting, dysphoria, or hiccups occurred in less than 10% of cases. All 3 regimens were effective with minimal postoperative complications.
Procedural sedation for painful procedures in the emergency department (ED) can be accomplished with various pharmacological agents. The choice of the sedative used is highly dependent on procedure- and patient characteristics and on personal- or local preferences.
We determine whether emergency physician-provided deep sedation with 1:1 ketofol versus propofol results in fewer adverse respiratory events requiring physician intervention when used for procedural sedation and analgesia.
Sedation may minimize physiologic and behavioral stress responses. In our facility, the infusion rate of propofol is adjusted according to the bispectral index (BIS) in all cases of implant-related surgery; multivariate analysis of retrospective data enabled us to extract independent factors that affect the dose of propofol in sedation that are considered useful indicators for achieving adequate sedation. The study population comprised all patients undergoing implant-related surgery under intravenous sedation in Okayama University Hospital from April 2009 to March 2013. The infusion rate of propofol was adjusted to maintain the BIS value at 70-80. The outcome was the average infusion rate of propofol, and potential predictor variables were age, sex, body weight, treatment time, and amount of midazolam. Independent variables that affected the average infusion rate of propofol were extracted with multiple regression analysis. One hundred twenty-five subjects were enrolled. In the multiple regression analysis, female sex was shown to be significantly associated with a higher average infusion rate of propofol. Females may require a higher infusion rate of propofol than males to achieve adequate sedation while undergoing implant-related surgery.
The use of moderate to deep sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures has increased in Europe considerably. Because this level of sedation is a risky medical procedure, a number of international guidelines have been developed. This survey aims to review if, and if so which, quality aspects have been included in new sedation practices when compared to traditional uncontrolled sedation practices.
We compare the frequency of airway and respiratory adverse events leading to an intervention between propofol with 1:1 and 4:1 mixtures of propofol and ketamine (ketofol).
Gastrointestinal endoscopies are invasive and unpleasant procedures that are increasingly being used worldwide. The importance of high quality procedures (especially in colorectal cancer screening), the increasing patient awareness and the expectation of painless examination, increase the need for procedural sedation. The best single sedation agent for endoscopy is propofol which, due to its' pharmacokinetic/dynamic profile allows for a higher patient satisfaction and procedural quality and lower induction and recovery times, while maintaining the safety of traditional sedation. Propofol is an anesthetic agent when used in higher doses than those needed for endoscopy. Because of this important feature it may lead to cardiovascular and respiratory depression and, ultimately, to cardiac arrest and death. Fueled by this argument, concern over the safety of its administration by personnel without general anesthesia training has arisen. Propofol usage seems to be increasing but it’s still underused. It is a safe alternative for simple endoscopic procedures in low risk patients even if administered by non-anesthesiologists. Evidence on propofol safety in complex procedures and high risk patients is less robust and in these cases, the presence of an anesthetist should be considered. We review the existing evidence on the topic and evaluate the regional differences on sedation practices.
This clinical policy from the American College of Emergency Physicians is the revision of a 2005 clinical policy evaluating critical questions related to procedural sedation in the emergency department.1 A writing subcommittee reviewed the literature to derive evidence-based recommendations to help clinicians answer the following critical questions: (1) In patients undergoing procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department,does preprocedural fasting demonstrate a reduction in the risk of emesis or aspiration? (2) In patients undergoing procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department, does the routine use of capnography reduce the incidence of adverse respiratory events? (3) In patients undergoing procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department, what is the minimum number of personnel necessary to manage complications? (4) Inpatients undergoing procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department, can ketamine, propofol, etomidate, dexmedetomidine, alfentanil and remifentanil be safely administered? A literature search was performed, the evidence was graded, and recommendations were given based on the strength of the available data in the medical literature.
Dexmedetomidine vs midazolam or propofol for sedation during prolonged mechanical ventilation: two randomized controlled trials.
- JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association
- Published about 7 years ago
Long-term sedation with midazolam or propofol in intensive care units (ICUs) has serious adverse effects. Dexmedetomidine, an α(2)-agonist available for ICU sedation, may reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation and enhance patient comfort.
Ketamine use in emergency departments (EDs) for procedural sedation and analgesia is becoming increasingly common. However, few studies have examined patient factors related to adverse events associated with ketamine. This study investigated factors for consideration when using ketamine to sedate pediatric ED patients.