Emergency department procedural sedation for primary electrical cardioversion — a comparison with procedural sedations for other reasons

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation(AF) is the most common arrhythmia treated in the emergency department(ED), with primary electrical cardioversion(PEC) the preferred method of rhythm control. Anecdotally, patients undergoing ED procedural sedation(EDPS) for PEC differ from those requiring EDPS for other procedures: they are at higher risk of adverse events, and require fewer drugs and lower doses. We attempt to verify this using an EDPS registry at a Canadian, tertiary care teaching hospital.METHODS: This is a retrospective review of patients that underwent EDPS for the period of June 2006 to September 2014. We compared demographics, medication use and intra-procedural adverse events between those receiving EDPS for PEC for AF compared to that for other indications. We report the asssociation between AEs and predictors using logistic regression.RESULTS: A total of 4 867 patients were included, 714 for PEC for AF and 4 153 for other indications. PEC patients were more likely male(58.5% vs. 47.1%), older(59.5 years vs. 48.1 years), and less likely to be ASA I(46.6% vs. 69.0%). PEC patients received smaller doses of propofol and less likely to receive adjuvant analgesic therapy(11.5% vs. 78.2%). PEC patients were more likely to experience hypotension(27.6% vs. 16.5%) but respiratory AEs(apnea, hypoxia and airway intervention) were not different.CONCLUSION: EDPS for PEC differs from that conducted for other purposes: patients tend to be less healthy, receive smaller doses of medication and more likely to suffer hypotension without an increase in respiratory AEs. These factors should be considered when performing EDPS.

Availability and quality of procedural sedation and analgesia in emergency departments without emergency physicians: A national survey in the Netherlands

Emergency physicians have been successful in implementing procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) to treat emergency department (ED) patients who need to undergo painful procedures. However, 25% of the EDs in the Netherlands are not staffed by emergency physicians. The aim of this study was to investigate PSA availability and quality in EDs without emergency physicians. METHODS: We performed an exploratory cross-sectional study amongst ED nurses and physicians in all 13 EDs without emergency physicians in the Netherlands. Data were gathered using a standardized questionnaire. RESULTS: The response rate was 34.3% (148/432). Of the respondents, 84/148 (56.8%) provided adult PSA and 30/148 (20.3%) provided paediatric PSA. Main reasons for not providing PSA were insuf cient numbers of trained staff to support PSA in the ED and insuf cient training and exposure. The providers agreed significantly stronger when reflecting their PSA competencies in adults compared to paediatric patients. CONCLUSION: The key to improve pain management in the ED-setting may lay in investing in continuous training of ED health care professionals and/or acquiring professionals who are both quali ed in PSA and available in the ED.

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.

End-tidal capnometry during emergency department procedural sedation and analgesia： a randomized, controlled study

BACKGROUND:This prospective,randomized trial was undertaken to evaluate the utility of adding end-tidal capnometry(ETC)to pulse oximetry(PO)in patients undergoing procedural sedation and analgesia(PSA)in the emergency department(ED).METHODS:The patients were randomized to monitoring with or without ETC in addition to the current standard of care.Primary endpoints included respiratory adverse events,with secondary endpoints of level of sedation,hypotension,other PSA-related adverse events and patient satisfaction.RESULTS:Of 986 patients,501 were randomized to usual care and 485 to additional ETC monitoring.In this series,48%of the patients were female,with a mean age of 46 years.Orthopedic manipulations(71%),cardioversion(12%)and abscess incision and drainage(12%)were the most common procedures,and propofol and fentanyl were the sedative/analgesic combination used for most patients.There was no difference in patients experiencing de-saturation(Sa O2<90%)between the two groups;however,patients in the ETC group were more likely to require airway repositioning(12.9%vs.9.3%,P=0.003).Hypotension(SBP<100 mm Hg or<85 mm Hg if baseline<100 mm Hg)was observed in 16(3.3%)patients in the ETC group and 7(1.4%)in the control group(P=0.048).CONCLUSIONS:The addition of ETC does not appear to change any clinically significant outcomes.We found an increased incidence of the use of airway repositioning maneuvers and hypotension in cases where ETC was used.We do not believe that ETC should be recommended as a standard of care for the monitoring of patients undergoing PSA.

Efficacy and safety of remimazolam in bronchoscopic sedation:A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND Remimazolam is a new benzodiazepine used for procedural sedation and general anesthesia.Several studies have used remimazolam for bendable bronchoscopy.AIM To assess the safety and efficacy of remimazolam for sedation in patients undergoing bendable bronchoscopy by performing a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials(RCTs).METHODS We searched the EMBASE,PubMed,Cochrane Library,and Web of Science databases for RCTs on bendable bronchoscopic procedural sedation with remimazolam vs conventional sedatives(CS).RESULTS Five studies with 1080 cases were included.Remimazolam had the same sedation success rate compared with CS[relative risk(RR):1.35,95%CI:0.60-3.05,P=0.474,I2=99.6%].However,remimazolam was associated with a lower incidence of hypotension(RR:0.61;95%CI:0.40-0.95,P=0.027;I2=65.1%)and a lower incidence of respiratory depression(RR:0.50,95%CI:0.33-0.77,P=0.002,I2=42.3%).A subgroup analysis showed a higher success rate of sedation with remimazolam than midazolam(RR:2.45,95%CI:1.76-3.42,P<0.001).Compared with propofol,the incidence of hypotension(RR:0.45,95%CI:0.32-0.64,P<0.001,I2=0.0%),respiratory depression(RR:0.48,95%CI:0.30-0.76,P=0.002,I2=78.4%),hypoxemia(RR:0.36,95%CI:0.15-0.87,P=0.023),and injection pain(RR:0.04,95%CI:0.01-0.28,P=0.001)were lower.CONCLUSION Remimazolam is safe and effective during bronchoscopy.The sedation success rate was similar to that in the CS group.However,remimazolam has a higher safety profile,with fewer inhibitory effects on respiration and circulation.

Sedation and analgesia in children with cerebral palsy:a narrative review

Background Patients with cognitive impairment due to cerebral palsy experience pain more often than healthy peers and frequently require diagnostic and therapeutic painful procedures.Analgesia and procedural sedation outside the operating room are often required,but they may not adequately be provided because of the inability to accurately recognize and classify the state of pain and for the perceived higher risk of complications.Data sources We reviewed the available literature to highlight the specific risk factors and area of criticism,that should be further improved.We searched the Cochrane Library,Medline,Pubmed from 1987 to September 2018 using key words such as'cerebral palsy and children and pain'or'sedation and cerebral palsy and children'.Results While different pain scales are useful in recognizing pain expressions,anxiety scales are not available.Moreover,studies on non-pharmacological techniques do not always have comparable results.Several risk factors,from anatomic abnormalities to liver and kidney functioning,should be kept in mind before proceeding with sedation.Conclusions Large trials are needed to assess the impact of non-pharmacological techniques and to evaluate which pain control strategy(pharmacological and non-pharmacological)should be used in different settings.