A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Patient-Controlled and Physician-Controlled Sedation in the Emergency Department

被引:5
作者
Bell, Anthony [1 ,2 ]
Lipp, Trent [1 ]
Greenslade, Jaimi [1 ,2 ]
Chu, Kevin [1 ,2 ]
Rothwell, Sean [1 ,2 ]
Duncan, Alison [1 ]
机构
[1] Royal Brisbane & Womens Hosp, Dept Emergency Med, Brisbane, Qld, Australia
[2] Univ Queensland, Sch Med, Burns Trauma & Crit Care Res Ctr, Brisbane, Qld, Australia
关键词
CONTROLLED CONSCIOUS SEDATION; PROCEDURAL SEDATION; CONTROLLED PROPOFOL;
D O I
10.1016/j.annemergmed.2010.04.020
中图分类号
R4 [临床医学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100602 ;
摘要
Study objective: We compare patient-controlled sedation (PCS) and emergency physician-controlled sedation (EPCS) with respect to propofol requirements, depth of sedation, adverse events, recovery time, physician satisfaction, and patient satisfaction in emergency department (ED) patients requiring brief but painful procedures. Methods: One hundred sixty-six patients in this randomized controlled trial received propofol sedation according to one of 2 regimens: infusion of propofol at doses determined by the treating physician (EPCS group) or infusion of propofol with a patient-controlled infusion pump (PCS group). The PCS group received an initial physician-controlled bolus following by self-administered doses. Depth of sedation was assessed at 3-minute intervals. Adverse events were recorded as they occurred. Physician and patient satisfaction were recorded with 100-mm visual analog scales. Results: There was a nonsignificant trend toward lower total propofol doses with PCS relative to EPCS (medians 1.36 versus 1.60 mg/kg, respectively; median difference -0.15 mg/kg; 95% confidence interval of the difference -0.33 to 0.05 mg/kg; P=.14). Adverse events, requirement for treatment of adverse events, and recovery time did not differ in the 2 groups. Depth of sedation was lower in the PCS group. Procedural success, ease of procedure, and patient satisfaction were similar in both groups despite nearly twice as many patients recalling the procedure in the PCS group and 15% of patients requiring additional physician-administered doses in the PCS group. Conclusion: Compared with EPCS, PCS demonstrated similar propofol dosing, safety, recovery, and satisfaction but resulted in lighter sedation. Propofol PCS appears safe and effective for ED procedures requiring moderate rather than deep sedation. [Ann Emerg Med. 2010;56:502-508.]
引用
收藏
页码:502 / 508
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] The effectiveness of topical lidocaine in relieving pain related to intranasal midazolam sedation: a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial
    Khalil, Walaa
    Raslan, Nabih
    QUINTESSENCE INTERNATIONAL, 2020, 51 (02): : 162 - 167
  • [32] Comparison of meperidine plus midazolam and fentanyl plus midazolam in procedural sedation: A double-blind, randomized controlled trial
    Soysal, S
    Karcioglu, O
    Demircan, A
    Topacoglu, H
    Serinken, M
    Ozucelik, N
    Tirpan, K
    Gunerli, A
    ADVANCES IN THERAPY, 2004, 21 (05) : 312 - 321
  • [33] Comparison of sedative effects of intramuscular and intranasal midazolam for pediatric laceration repair in dental emergency department: A randomized controlled study
    Chang, Huihui
    Yuan, Ye
    Yang, Ge
    Liao, Xinmin
    Chen, Chanchan
    Ding, Guicong
    JOURNAL OF STOMATOLOGY ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, 2023, 124 (03)
  • [34] Remimazolam versus propofol for procedural sedation: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
    Chang, Yu
    Huang, Yun-Ting
    Chi, Kuan-Yu
    Huang, Yen-Ta
    PEERJ, 2023, 11
  • [35] Patient-maintained versus anaesthetist-controlled propofol sedation during elective primary lower-limb arthroplasty performed under spinal anaesthesia: a randomised controlled trial
    Hewson, David W.
    Worcester, Frank
    Sprinks, James
    Smith, Murray D.
    Buchanan, Heather
    Breedon, Philip
    Hardman, Jonathan G.
    Bedforth, Nigel M.
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA, 2022, 128 (01) : 186 - 197
  • [36] Sedation with propofol during ERCP: is the combination with esketamine more effective and safer than with alfentanil? Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
    Eberl, Susanne
    Koers, Lena
    van Hooft, Jeanin E.
    de Jong, Edwin
    Schneider, Thomas
    Hollmann, Markus W.
    Preckel, Benedikt
    TRIALS, 2017, 18
  • [37] Sedation with propofol during ERCP: is the combination with esketamine more effective and safer than with alfentanil? Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
    Susanne Eberl
    Lena Koers
    Jeanin E. van Hooft
    Edwin de Jong
    Thomas Schneider
    Markus W. Hollmann
    Benedikt Preckel
    Trials, 18
  • [38] Forced air warming to maintain normoTHERMIa during SEDation in the cardiac catheterization laboratory: protocol for the THERMISED pilot randomized controlled trial
    Conway, Aaron
    Duff, Jed
    JOURNAL OF ADVANCED NURSING, 2016, 72 (10) : 2547 - 2557
  • [39] Forced air warming during sedation in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory: a randomised controlled trial
    Conway, Aaron
    Ersotelos, Suzanna
    Sutherland, Joanna
    Duff, Jed
    HEART, 2018, 104 (08) : 685 - 690
  • [40] A study protocol for a feasibility study: Propofol Target-Controlled Infusion in Emergency Department Sedation (ProTEDS)—a multi-centre feasibility study protocol
    Fiona M. Burton
    David J. Lowe
    Jonathan Millar
    Alasdair R. Corfield
    Malcolm A. B. Sim
    Pilot and Feasibility Studies, 5