Is it safe to use propofol in the emergency department? a randomized controlled trial to compare propofol and midazolam

被引:13
|
作者
Hisamuddin N. [1 ,3 ]
Rahman N.A. [1 ,3 ]
Hashim A. [2 ]
机构
[1] Consultant and Head of Emergency Medicine, PPSP, USM, Kubang Kerian
[2] Department of Emergency and Trauma, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah
[3] Department of Emergency Medicine, School of Medical Sciences, USM
关键词
Emergency department; Midazolam; Procedural sedation analgesia; Propofol;
D O I
10.1007/s12245-010-0162-3
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Background This study examined the safety and effectiveness of the procedural sedation analgesia (PSA) technique carried out in the emergency department (ED) of a university hospital over a period of 1 year. The research was done to compare the effectiveness and efficacy of moderate sedation of fentanyl combined with either mid-azolam or propofol for any brief, intense procedure in the ED setting. Aims The objectives were to observe the occurrence of adverse events in subjects undergoing PSA for intense and painful procedures in the emergency department and to implement the use of capnography as a method of monitoring the patients when they were under PSA. Methods Forty patients were selected for this study. They were randomly divided into two equal groups using the computer-generated random permuted blocks of four patients. Twenty patients were grouped together as group A and the remaining 20 patients as group B. Drugs used were single blinded to prevent any bias. Drug A was propofol and fentanyl, while drug B was midazolam and fentanyl. The procedures involved included orthopedic manipulation such as reduction of fractures, reduction of dislocated joints, abscess drainage, wound debridement, laceration wound repair and cardioversion. All of the subjects were monitored for their vital signs and end tidal carbon dioxide level every 10 min till the PSA was completed. The duration of stay in the ED was documented when the subjects had completed the procedure and were released from the department. Result Of the study population, 75.6% were males. The mean age was 37.8 years (95% CI 33.2, 39.8). None of the patients developed any major complications while under PSA. The vital signs pre-, intra- and post-procedure were not significantly different in either the propofol or miz-adolam groups (p value >0.05). Conclusion This study had proven that there was no difference in adverse event occurrence between the studied drugs during PSA. Propofol can be recommended for use in PSA if the operator is well trained and familiar with the drug. © Springer-Verlag London Ltd 2010.
引用
收藏
页码:105 / 113
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] A randomized, controlled, double-blind trial of patient-controlled sedation with propofol/remifentanil versus midazolam/fentanyl for colonoscopy
    Mandel, Jeff E.
    Tanner, Jonathan W.
    Lichtenstein, Gary R.
    Metz, David C.
    Katzka, David A.
    Ginsberg, Gregory G.
    Kochman, Michael L.
    ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA, 2008, 106 (02) : 434 - 439
  • [42] A clinical trial comparing propofol versus propofol plus midazolam in diagnostic endoscopy of patients with a low anesthetic risk
    Julian-Gomez, Laura
    Fuentes-Coronel, Ana
    Lopez-Ramos, Carmen
    Ochoa-Sangrador, Carlos
    Fradejas-Salazar, Paola
    Martin-Garrido, Eva
    Conde-Gacho, Pilar
    Bailador-Andres, Carmen
    Garcia-Alvarado, Maria
    Rascarachi, Gabriella
    Castillo-Trujillo, Rocio
    Jose Rodriguez-Gomez, Santiago
    REVISTA ESPANOLA DE ENFERMEDADES DIGESTIVAS, 2018, 110 (11) : 691 - 698
  • [43] LOW-DOSE PROPOFOL FOR PEDIATRIC MIGRAINE: A PROSPECTIVE, RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
    Sheridan, David C.
    Hansen, Matthew L.
    Lin, Amber L.
    Fu, Rongwei
    Meckler, Garth D.
    JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 2018, 54 (05) : 600 - 606
  • [44] Cardioprotective effect of propofol in cardioplegia compared to systemic propofol in heart valves surgery; a randomized controlled trial
    Attia, Amr Atef
    Torky, Mohammad Abd Elmoneim
    Elnasr, Mohamed Mahmoud Abo
    Wahby, Ehab Abd Elmonem
    Taha, Abd Elhady Mohammed
    CARDIOTHORACIC SURGEON, 2023, 31 (01)
  • [45] Cardioprotective effect of propofol in cardioplegia compared to systemic propofol in heart valves surgery; a randomized controlled trial
    Amr Atef Attia
    Mohammad Abd Elmoneim Torky
    Mohamed Mahmoud Abo Elnasr
    Ehab Abd Elmonem Wahby
    Abd Elhady Mohammed Taha
    The Cardiothoracic Surgeon, 31
  • [46] Review article: Safety profile of propofol for paediatric procedural sedation in the emergency department
    Lamond, David W.
    EMERGENCY MEDICINE AUSTRALASIA, 2010, 22 (04) : 265 - 286
  • [47] A comparison of the use of propofol alone and propofol with midazolam for pediatric magnetic resonance imaging sedation - a retrospective cohort study
    Kang, RyungA
    Shin, Young Hee
    Gil, Nam-Su
    Kim, Ki Yoon
    Yeo, Hyean
    Jeong, Ji Seon
    BMC ANESTHESIOLOGY, 2017, 17
  • [48] A comparison of the use of propofol alone and propofol with midazolam for pediatric magnetic resonance imaging sedation – a retrospective cohort study
    RyungA Kang
    Young Hee Shin
    Nam-Su Gil
    Ki Yoon Kim
    Hyean Yeo
    Ji Seon Jeong
    BMC Anesthesiology, 17
  • [49] Colonoscopy sedation: clinical trial comparing propofol and fentanyl with or without midazolam
    Nunes Pereira das Neves, Jose Francisco
    Pereira das Neves Araujo, Mariana Moraes
    Araujo, Fernando de Paiva
    Ferreira, Clarice Martins
    Neves Duarte, Fabiana Baeta
    Pace, Fabio Heleno
    Ornellas, Laura Cotta
    Baron, Todd H.
    Vieira de Castro Ferreira, Lincoln Eduardo Villela
    REVISTA BRASILEIRA DE ANESTESIOLOGIA, 2016, 66 (03): : 231 - 236
  • [50] Propofol target-controlled infusion for sedated gastrointestinal endoscopy: A comparison of propofol alone versus propofol-fentanyl-midazolam
    Hsu, Chiung-Dan
    Huang, Jui-Mei
    Chuang, Ya-Ping
    Wei, Hua-Yi
    Su, Yu-Chung
    Wu, Jeng-Yih
    Wang, Wen-Ming
    Hsu, Hung-Te
    Huang, Hui-Fang
    Lu, I-Cheng
    Lu, David Vi
    KAOHSIUNG JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, 2015, 31 (11) : 580 - 584