Dataset Information

Patient safety during procedural sedation using capnography monitoring: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To evaluate the effect of capnography monitoring on sedation-related adverse events during procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) administered for ambulatory surgery relative to visual assessment and pulse oximetry alone.

Design and setting

Systematic literature review and random effects meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reporting sedation-related adverse event incidence when adding capnography to visual assessment and pulse oximetry in patients undergoing PSA during ambulatory surgery in the hospital setting. Searches for eligible studies published between 1 January 1995 and 31 December 2016 (inclusive) were conducted in PubMed, the Cochrane Library and EMBASE without any language constraints. Searches were conducted in January 2017, screening and data extraction were conducted by two independent reviewers, and study quality was assessed using a modified Jadad scale.

Interventions

Capnography monitoring relative to visual assessment and pulse oximetry alone.

Primary and secondary outcome measures

Predefined endpoints of interest were desaturation/hypoxaemia (the primary endpoint), apnoea, aspiration, bradycardia, hypotension, premature procedure termination, respiratory failure, use of assisted/bag-mask ventilation and death during PSA.

Results

The literature search identified 1006 unique articles, of which 13 were ultimately included in the meta-analysis. Addition of capnography to visual assessment and pulse oximetry was associated with a significant reduction in mild (risk ratio (RR) 0.77, 95%?CI 0.67 to 0.89) and severe (RR 0.59, 95%?CI 0.43 to 0.81) desaturation, as well as in the use of assisted ventilation (OR 0.47, 95%?CI 0.23 to 0.95). No significant differences in other endpoints were identified.

Conclusions

Meta-analysis of 13 RCTs published between 2006 and 2016 showed a reduction in respiratory compromise (from respiratory insufficiency to failure) during PSA with the inclusion of capnography monitoring. In particular, use of capnography was associated with less mild and severe oxygen desaturation, which may have helped to avoid the need for assisted ventilation.

SUBMITTER: Saunders R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5734204 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Patient safety during procedural sedation using capnography monitoring: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Saunders Rhodri R Struys Michel M R F MMRF Pollock Richard F RF Mestek Michael M Lightdale Jenifer R JR

BMJ open 20170630 6

<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate the effect of capnography monitoring on sedation-related adverse events during procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) administered for ambulatory surgery relative to visual assessment and pulse oximetry alone.<h4>Design and setting</h4>Systematic literature review and random effects meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reporting sedation-related adverse event incidence when adding capnography to visual assessment and pulse oximetry in patients under ...[more]

PMID: 28667196

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundProcedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) is used to attenuate the pain and distress that may otherwise be experienced during diagnostic and interventional medical or dental procedures. As the risk of adverse events increases with the depth of sedation induced, frequent monitoring of level of consciousness is recommended. Level of consciousness is usually monitored during PSA with clinical observation. Processed electroencephalogram-based depth of anaesthesia (DoA) monitoring devices provide an alternative method to monitor level of consciousness that can be used in addition to clinical observation. However, there is uncertainty as to whether their routine use in PSA would be justified. Rigorous evaluation of the clinical benefits of DoA monitors during PSA, including comprehensive syntheses of the available evidence, is therefore required. One potential clinical benefit of using DoA monitoring during PSA is that the technology could improve patient safety by reducing sedation-related adverse events, such as death or permanent neurological disability. We hypothesise that earlier identification of lapses into deeper than intended levels of sedation using DoA monitoring leads to more effective titration of sedative and analgesic medications, and results in a reduction in the risk of adverse events caused by the consequences of over-sedation, such as hypoxaemia. The primary objective of this review is to determine whether using DoA monitoring during PSA in the hospital setting improves patient safety by reducing the risk of hypoxaemia (defined as an arterial partial pressure of oxygen below 60 mmHg or percentage of haemoglobin that is saturated with oxygen [SpO(2)] less than 90 %). Other potential clinical benefits of using DoA monitoring devices during sedation will be assessed as secondary outcomes.Methods/designElectronic databases will be systematically searched for randomized controlled trials comparing the use of depth of anaesthesia monitoring devices with clinical observation of level of consciousness during PSA. Language restrictions will not be imposed. Screening, study selection and data extraction will be performed by two independent reviewers. Disagreements will be resolved by discussion. Meta-analyses will be performed if suitable.DiscussionThis review will synthesise the evidence on an important potential clinical benefit of DoA monitoring during PSA within hospital settings.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42015017251.

Project description:OBJECTIVE AND DESIGN:We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the incidence of adverse events in the emergency department (ED) during procedural sedation in the paediatric population. Randomised controlled trials and observational studies from the past 10?years were included. We adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. SETTING:ED. PARTICIPANTS:Children. INTERVENTIONS:Procedural sedation. OUTCOMES:Adverse events like vomiting, agitation, hypoxia and apnoea. Meta-analysis was performed with random-effects model and reported as incidence rates with 95% CIs. RESULTS:A total of 1177 studies were retrieved for screening and 258 were selected for full-text review. 41 studies reporting on 13?883 procedural sedations in 13?876 children (?18?years) were included. The most common adverse events (all reported per 1000 sedations) were: vomiting 55.5 (CI 45.2 to 65.8), agitation 17.9 (CI 12.2 to 23.7), hypoxia 14.8 (CI 10.2 to 19.3) and apnoea 7.1 (CI 3.2 to 11.0). The need to intervene with either bag valve mask, oral airway or positive pressure ventilation occurred in 5.0 per 1000 sedations (CI 2.3 to 7.6). The incidences of severe respiratory events were: 34 cases of laryngospasm among 8687 sedations (2.9 per 1000 sedations, CI 1.1 to 4.7; absolute rate 3.9 per 1000 sedations), 4 intubations among 9136 sedations and 0 cases of aspiration among 3326 sedations. 33 of the 34 cases of laryngospasm occurred in patients who received ketamine. CONCLUSIONS:Serious adverse respiratory events are very rare in paediatric procedural sedation in the ED. Emesis and agitation are the most frequent adverse events. Hypoxia, a late indicator of respiratory depression, occurs in 1.5% of sedations. Laryngospasm, though rare, happens most frequently with ketamine. The results of this study provide quantitative risk estimates to facilitate shared decision-making, risk communication, informed consent and resource allocation in children undergoing procedural sedation in the ED.

Project description:ObjectivesThis was a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the incidence of adverse events in adults undergoing procedural sedation in the emergency department (ED).MethodsEight 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).ResultsThe 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.ConclusionsSerious 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.

Dataset Information

Patient safety during procedural sedation using capnography monitoring: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objective

Design and setting

Interventions

Primary and secondary outcome measures

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Patient safety during procedural sedation using capnography monitoring: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets