Project description:The multidisciplinary International Committee for the Advancement of Procedural Sedation presents the first fasting and aspiration prevention recommendations specific to procedural sedation, based on an extensive review of the literature. These were developed using Delphi methodology and assessment of the robustness of the available evidence. The literature evidence is clear that fasting, as currently practiced, often substantially exceeds recommended time thresholds and has known adverse consequences, for example, irritability, dehydration and hypoglycaemia. Fasting does not guarantee an empty stomach, and there is no observed association between aspiration and compliance with common fasting guidelines. The probability of clinically important aspiration during procedural sedation is negligible. In the post-1984 literature there are no published reports of aspiration-associated mortality in children, no reports of death in healthy adults (ASA physical status 1 or 2) and just nine reported deaths in adults of ASA physical status 3 or above. Current concerns about aspiration are out of proportion to the actual risk. Given the lower observed frequency of aspiration and mortality than during general anaesthesia, and the theoretical basis for assuming a lesser risk, fasting strategies in procedural sedation can reasonably be less restrictive. We present a consensus-derived algorithm in which each patient is first risk-stratified during their pre-sedation assessment, using evidence-based factors relating to patient characteristics, comorbidities, the nature of the procedure and the nature of the anticipated sedation technique. Graded fasting precautions for liquids and solids are then recommended for elective procedures based upon this categorisation of negligible, mild or moderate aspiration risk. This consensus statement can serve as a resource to practitioners and policymakers who perform and oversee procedural sedation in patients of all ages, worldwide.

Project description:BackgroundLittle is known about the practice of pediatric procedural sedation in Africa, despite being incredibly useful to the emergency care of children. This study describes the clinical experiences of African medical providers who use pediatric procedural sedation, including clinical indications, medications, adverse events, training, clinical guideline use, and comfort level. The goals of this study are to describe pediatric sedation practices in resource-limited settings in Africa and identify potential barriers to the provision of safe pediatric sedation.MethodsThis mixed methods study describes the pediatric procedural sedation practices of African providers using semi-structured interviews. Purposive sampling was used to identify key informants working in African resource-limited settings across a broad geographic, economic, and professional range. Quantitative data about provider background and sedation practices were collected concurrently with qualitative data about perceived barriers to pediatric procedural sedation and suggestions to improve the practice of pediatric sedation in their settings. All interviews were transcribed, coded, and analyzed for major themes.ResultsThirty-eight key informants participated, representing 19 countries and the specialties of Anesthesia, Surgery, Pediatrics, Critical Care, Emergency Medicine, and General Practice. The most common indication for pediatric sedation was imaging (42%), the most common medication used was ketamine (92%), and hypoxia was the most common adverse event (61%). Despite 92% of key informants stating that pediatric procedural sedation was critical to their practice, only half reported feeling adequately trained. The three major qualitative themes regarding barriers to safe pediatric sedation in their settings were: lack of resources, lack of education, and lack of standardization across sites and providers.ConclusionsThe results of this study suggest that training specialized pediatric sedation teams, creating portable "pediatric sedation kits," and producing locally relevant pediatric sedation guidelines may help reduce current barriers to the provision of safe pediatric sedation in resource-limited African settings.

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.

Project description:IntroductionChildren presenting to the emergency department (ED) often require procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) prior to procedures. Although ketamine is used widely for PSA safely, there is a risk of adverse effects. Among them, vomiting is significant as it occurs in about 10% of patients and can potentially endanger the airway. Because there is evidence that post-operative complications might be due to anxiety prior to the operation, this study aims to investigate the association between pre-procedural anxiety and vomiting in the ED.MethodsIn this cohort study, a convenient sample of children aged 2 to 14 years who were a candidate for PSA with ketamine in the ED were enrolled. Anxiety was evaluated using the short version of the modified Yale preoperative anxiety scale (mYAS). Vomiting was recorded during the period of hospitalization in the ED and 24 h after discharge by a phone call. Association between anxiety level and vomiting was analyzed using the independent samples t-test and multivariable logistic regression was used to control for covariates.Results102 children were enrolled and 93 were included in final analysis. The mean age of participants was 3.95 ± 1.79 years and 55.9% were male. According to the mYAS, the mean score of anxiety was 48.67 ± 21.78 in the waiting room and 59.10 ± 23.86 in the operating room. The mean score of anxiety was 58.3±25.3 and 51.0±20.7 in the vomiting and non-vomiting groups, respectively. At least one episode of vomiting was reported in 23 children of which, 19 took place in the hospital and 4 after discharge. No significant association was observed between pre-procedural anxiety and the occurrence of vomiting. On univariate regression model, the odds ratio of the association between mean anxiety and vomiting was 1.02 (CI 95%: 0.99-1.04) (P-value: 0.16). On the multivariable logistic regression model, after adjusting for all the covariates, the odds ratio was 1.03 (CI 95%: 1.0-1.05) (P-value: 0.05).ConclusionThe present study showed that anxiety before procedural sedation and analgesia with ketamine in children was not associated with the incidence of vomiting.

Project description:ImportanceProcedural sedation for children undergoing painful procedures is standard practice in emergency departments worldwide. Previous studies of emergency department sedation are limited by their single-center design and are underpowered to identify risk factors for serious adverse events (SAEs), thereby limiting their influence on sedation practice and patient outcomes.ObjectiveTo examine the incidence and risk factors associated with sedation-related SAEs.Design, setting, and participantsThis prospective, multicenter, observational cohort study was conducted in 6 pediatric emergency departments in Canada between July 10, 2010, and February 28, 2015. Children 18 years or younger who received sedation for a painful emergency department procedure were enrolled in the study. Of the 9657 patients eligible for inclusion, 6760 (70.0%) were enrolled and 6295 (65.1%) were included in the final analysis.ExposuresThe primary risk factor was receipt of sedation medication. The secondary risk factors were demographic characteristics, preprocedural medications and fasting status, current or underlying health risks, and procedure type.Main outcomes and measuresFour outcomes were examined: SAEs, significant interventions performed in response to an adverse event, oxygen desaturation, and vomiting.ResultsOf the 6295 children included in this study, 4190 (66.6%) were male and the mean (SD) age was 8.0 (4.6) years. Adverse events occurred in 736 patients (11.7%; 95% CI, 6.4%-16.9%). Oxygen desaturation (353 patients [5.6%]) and vomiting (328 [5.2%]) were the most common of these adverse events. There were 69 SAEs (1.1%; 95% CI, 0.5%-1.7%), and 86 patients (1.4%; 95% CI, 0.7%-2.1%) had a significant intervention. Use of ketamine hydrochloride alone resulted in the lowest incidence of SAEs (17 [0.4%]) and significant interventions (37 [0.9%]). The incidence of adverse sedation outcomes varied significantly with the type of sedation medication. Compared with ketamine alone, propofol alone (3.7%; odds ratio [OR], 5.6; 95% CI, 2.3-13.1) and the combinations of ketamine and fentanyl citrate (3.2%; OR, 6.5; 95% CI, 2.5-15.2) and ketamine and propofol (2.1%; OR, 4.4; 95% CI, 2.3-8.7) had the highest incidence of SAEs. The combinations of ketamine and fentanyl (4.1%; OR, 4.0; 95% CI, 1.8-8.1) and ketamine and propofol (2.5%; OR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.2-3.8) had the highest incidence of significant interventions.Conclusions and relevanceThe incidence of adverse sedation outcomes varied significantly with type of sedation medication. Use of ketamine only was associated with the best outcomes, resulting in significantly fewer SAEs and interventions than ketamine combined with propofol or fentanyl.

Dataset Information

Developments in procedural sedation for adults.

Publications

Developments in procedural sedation for adults.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets