Procedural sedation in the emergency department by Dutch emergency physicians:A prospective multicentre observational study of 1711 adults

Objective: To describe our experience performing ED procedural sedation in a country where emergency medicine (EM) is a relatively new specialty. Methods: This is a prospective observational study of adult patients undergoing procedural sedation by emergency physicians (EPs) or EM residents in eight hospitals in the Netherlands. Data were collected on a standardised form, including patient characteristics, sedative and analgesic used, procedural success, adverse events (classified according to World SIVA) and rescue interventions. Results: 1711 adult cases were included from 2006 to 2013. Prop... Mehr ...

Verfasser: Smits, GJP
Kuypers, Maybritt I
Mignot, Lisette AA
Reijners, Eef PJ
Oskam, Erick
Doorn, Karen Van
Thijssen, Wendy AMH
Korsten, H Erik
Dokumenttyp: article / Letter to the editor
Erscheinungsdatum: 2017
Verlag/Hrsg.: BMJ Publishing Group
Sprache: Englisch
Permalink: https://search.fid-benelux.de/Record/base-27062669
Datenquelle: BASE; Originalkatalog
Powered By: BASE
Link(s) : http://repository.tue.nl/907059

Objective: To describe our experience performing ED procedural sedation in a country where emergency medicine (EM) is a relatively new specialty. Methods: This is a prospective observational study of adult patients undergoing procedural sedation by emergency physicians (EPs) or EM residents in eight hospitals in the Netherlands. Data were collected on a standardised form, including patient characteristics, sedative and analgesic used, procedural success, adverse events (classified according to World SIVA) and rescue interventions. Results: 1711 adult cases were included from 2006 to 2013. Propofol, midazolam and esketamine (S+ enantiomer of ketamine) were the most used sedatives (63%, 29% and 8%). We had adverse event data on all patients. The overall adverse event rate was 11%, mostly hypoxia or apnoea. There was no difference in adverse event rate between EPs and EM residents. However, there was a significantly higher success rate of the procedure when EPs did the procedural sedation (92% vs 84%). No moderate (unplanned hospital admission or escalation of care) or sentinel SIVA outcomes occurred ( pulmonary aspiration syndrome, death or permanent neurological deficit). Conclusion: Adverse events during procedural sedation occurred in 11% of patients. There were no moderate or sentinel outcomes. All events could be managed by the sedating physician. In a country where EM is a relatively new specialty, procedural sedation appears to be safe when performed by EPs or trained EM residents and has comparable adverse event rates to international studies.