Randomized clinical trial of propofol versus alfentanil for moderate procedural sedation in the emergency department.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the frequency of airway and respiratory adverse events leading to an intervention between moderate sedation using alfentanil or propofol. METHODS: We performed a randomized clinical trial in which adults undergoing moderate sedation in the ED received either alfentanil or propofol. Our primary outcome was the frequency of airway and respiratory adverse events leading to an intervention. Other outcomes included sedation depth, efficacy, sedation time, patient satisfaction, pain, and satisfaction. RESULTS: 108 subjects completed the trial: 52 receiving alfentanil and 56 receiving propofol. Airway or respiratory adverse events leading to an intervention were similar between the two groups: 23% for alfentanil and 20% for propofol (p=0.657). There were no serious adverse events in any group. Secondary outcomes were notably different in the rate of reported pain (48% for alfentanil, 13% for propofol) and recall (75% for alfentanil, 23% for propofol) and similar in the rate of satisfaction with the procedure (87% for alfentanil, 84% for propofol). CONCLUSION: We found a similar frequency of airway and respiratory adverse events leading to intervention between alfentanil and propofol used for moderate procedural sedation. Both agents appear safe for moderate procedural sedation.

Direct Versus Video Laryngoscopy Using the C-MAC for Tracheal Intubation in the Emergency Department, a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Direct laryngoscopy (DL) has long been the most common approach for emergency endotracheal intubation, although the use of video laryngoscopy (VL) is becoming more widespread. Current observational data suggest that VL has higher first-pass success, although randomized trials are lacking. OBJECTIVES: The objective was to compare first-pass success in patients undergoing emergency intubation with DL or VL using a C-MAC device. METHODS: This was an open-label, prospective, randomized, controlled trial in an academic emergency department of patients undergoing emergency intubation with a plan of DL for the first attempt. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either DL or VL using a C-MAC device for the first intubation attempt. The primary outcome was first-pass success. Secondary outcomes included time to intubation, development of aspiration pneumonia, and hospital length of stay (LOS). The study was registered at Clinicaltrials.gov, number NCT01710891. RESULTS: A total of 198 patients were enrolled and intubated with either DL (n = 95) or VL (n = 103). First-attempt success was 86 and 92% for the DL and VL groups, respectively (difference = -5.9%, 95% confidence interval = -14.5% to 2.7%, p = 0.18). Time to intubation, rates of aspiration pneumonia, and hospital LOS were not different between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing emergency intubation in whom DL was planned for the first attempt, we did not detect a difference between VL or DL using the C-MAC device in first-pass success, duration of intubation attempt, aspiration pneumonia, or hospital LOS.

Retrograde Intubation with an Extraglottic Device in Place.

BACKGROUND: The intubating laryngeal mask airway (ILMA) is an extraglottic device with a high rate of successful ventilation and oxygenation. Most modern airway algorithms suggest using an extraglottic device as the first-line rescue technique for a failed airway in emergency airway management. Eventually, a more secure airway is needed if the extraglottic temporizing device is working well. Retrograde intubation is a surgical airway management technique that is effective but relatively slow, making it most useful when ventilation can be maintained during the procedure. CASE REPORT: We report 2 cases of difficult emergency airway management with an ILMA used initially and retrograde intubation later used to establish a more secure airway. WHY SHOULD AN EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN BE AWARE OF THIS?: Retrograde incubation can be performed with an LMA in place for complicated airway management.

A comparison of routine, opt-out HIV screening with the expected yield from physician-directed HIV testing in the ED.

OBJECTIVES: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends routine opt-out HIV screening in health care settings. Our goal was to evaluate the feasibility and yield of this strategy in the emergency department (ED) and to compare it to the expected yield of physician-directed testing. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study in an urban ED during random shifts over 1 year. Patients were ineligible for screening if they were younger than 18 years or older than 64, a prisoner, a victim of sexual assault, in an ED resuscitation room, or had altered mental status. Research associates administered rapid HIV tests and conducted standardized interviews. The patients' ED physician, blinded to the HIV result, was asked if they would have ordered a rapid HIV test if it had been available. RESULTS: Of 7756 ED patients, 3957 (51%) were eligible for HIV screening, and 2811 (71%) of those did not opt out. Routine testing yielded 9 new HIV cases (0.32% of those tested; 95% confidence interval, 0.16%-0.63%). Physician-directed testing would have missed most of these infections: 2 of the 785 patients identified by physicians for testing would have been newly diagnosed with HIV (0.25%; 95% confidence interval, 0.04%-1.0%). Of the 9 new HIV cases, 5 established HIV care, and their median CD4 count was 201 cells/µL (range, 71-429 cells/µL). CONCLUSIONS: Routine opt-out HIV screening was feasible and accepted by a majority of ED patients. The yield of this strategy only modestly exceeded what may have been observed with physician-directed testing.

Prolonged TASER use on exhausted humans does not worsen markers of acidosis.

OBJECTIVE: There are safety concerns about TASER conducted electrical weapon (CEW) use on humans, and there have been media reports of adverse human outcomes after CEW exposure. Conducted electrical weapons are often used on physically exhausted subjects. A single CEW application of a CEW is generally accepted to be 5 seconds of exposure. Some exposures in reality involve more than 5 seconds. We sought to determine if a prolonged (15 seconds) CEW exposure on exhausted humans caused acidosis, hyperkalemia, serum lactate change, or troponin change. METHODS: This was a prospective study of generally healthy human volunteers. Medical histories and baseline serum values were obtained, and several of the volunteers did have acute or chronic medical problems. Subjects underwent an exercise protocol until subjective exhaustion. Exhaustion was defined by the volunteer no longer being able to perform the exercise at a given pace. Blood was drawn immediately (defined as within 20 seconds) after exercise and was immediately followed by a 15-second CEW exposure. Blood was drawn immediately after exposure and again at 16 to 24 hours after exposure. Blood was analyzed for pH, pco(2), potassium, lactate, and troponin. Data were compared using Wilcoxon signed rank tests. RESULTS: There were 38 subjects enrolled with an average age of 39 years. The following health conditions were reported among the volunteers: hypertension (2), gastritis/reflux (2), active respiratory tract infections (3), asthma (2), chronic muscular pain conditions (4), pituitary adenoma (1) and glaucoma (1). Sixteen volunteers reported use of prescription medication at the time of their participation. The median initial pH of 7.38 (interquartile range [IQR], 7.35-7.40) decreased to 7.23 (IQR, 7.19-7.31) immediately after exercise. Immediately after exposure, median pH was 7.22 (IQR, 7.18-7.25). It was 7.39 (IQR, 7.37-7.43) at 24 hours. The pCO2 increased from 46.3 (IQR, 43.0-54.5) to 57.4 (IQR, 49.9-67.7) immediately after exercise, decreased to 51.3 (IQR, 44.4-65.0) immediately after exposure, and was 46.3 (IQR, 42.7-51.7) at 24 hours. Lactate increased from a median of 1.65 (IQR, 1.14-2.55) to 8.39 (IQR, 6.98-11.66) immediately after exercise, increased to 9.85 (IQR, 7.70-12.87) immediately after exposure, and was 1.02 (IQR, 0.91-1.57) at 24 hours. Serum potassium increased from 3.9 (IQR, 3.8-4.4) to 4.2 (IQR, 4.0-4.9) immediately after exercise, decreased to 3.8 (IQR, 3.7-4.4) immediately after exposure, and was 4.1 (IQR, 3.9-4.6) at 24 hours. No troponin elevations were detected. CONCLUSION: Prolonged CEW application on exhausted humans was not associated with worsening change in pH or troponin. Decreases in pCO2 and potassium and a small increase in lactate were found. Worsening acidosis theories due to CEW use in this population are not supported by these data.

The effect of the assignment of a pre-sedation target level on procedural sedation using propofol.

The goal of this study was to determine if there is a difference in the achieved depth of sedation, the rate of respiratory depression, procedural difficulty, or patient perceived pain or recall between patients randomized to a pre-procedural target sedation level of moderate or deep procedural sedation using propofol during the reduction of fractures and dislocations in the Emergency Department (ED). This was a randomized, prospective study of adults undergoing procedural sedation (PS) with propofol for fracture or dislocation reduction in the ED between July 2003 and March 2004. Patients were randomized to a target sedation level of moderate or deep, using American Society of Anesthesiologists' definitions. Doses, vital signs, nasal end tidal CO(2) (ETCO(2)), pulse oximetry, and bispectral EEG analysis (BIS) scores were recorded. Respiratory depression was defined as a change in ETCO(2) >10, an oxygen saturation of <90% at any time, or an absent ETCO(2) waveform at any time. After the procedure, patients were asked if they perceived any pain or had any recall of the procedure. Physicians were asked to rate the difficulty of completing the reduction using a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS). Respiratory depression rates were compared with chi-square tests, BIS and VAS scores were compared with t tests. Seventy-five patients were enrolled, 39 randomized to the target of moderate PS and 36 to the target of deep PS. No significant complications were noted. There were 25/36 (69%) of the patients assigned to the deep sedation target group who actually achieved a deep level of sedation and 21/39 (54%) of the patients assigned to the moderate sedation target group who actually achieved a moderate level of sedation (p = 0.40). Respiratory depression was seen in 19/39 (49%) patients with the moderate PS target and 18/36 (50%) with the deep PS target (p = 0.91). The mean minimum recorded BIS score was 67.7 (95% confidence interval [CI] 62.2-73.3) for the moderate PS target group and 59.2 (95% CI 55.1-64.2) for the deep PS target group (p = 0.03). There were 12/39 (31%) in the moderate PS target group and 4/36 (11%) in the deep PS target group who reported pain with or recall of the procedure (p = 0.04). The mean physician VAS for procedural difficulty was 34.0 (95% CI 23.7-44.3) for the moderate PS group and 28.8 (95% CI 18.4-39.2) for the deep PS group (p = 0.46). In this study, the assignment of a pre-procedural target sedation level of moderate or deep PS did not influence the level of sedation achieved, the rate of respiratory depression, the occurrence of complications, the time to return of baseline mental status, or the success of the procedure. It does not seem that the assignment of a pre-procedural target sedation level is an effective means of changing the outcome of ED PS.

Propofol for emergency department procedural sedation and analgesia: a tale of three centers.

OBJECTIVES: To characterize propofol procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) encounters for a large patient population at multiple emergency department (ED) sites. The authors sought to assess the frequency of respiratory and cardiovascular events during propofol PSA within these settings. METHODS: This study was a prospective, descriptive series of a consecutive sample of ED patients receiving propofol for PSA at three study sites. Patients were monitored for PSA-related events, including predefined clinically relevant cardiovascular and respiratory events. Data collection was performed during PSA with a standardized data collection sheet unique to each site. RESULTS: Propofol was administered during PSA to 792 patients during the respective reporting period at each center. Indications for sedation included dislocation reduction (38%), cardioversion (10%), fracture reduction (35%), abscess incision and drainage (8%), computed tomography imaging (2%), and tube thoracostomy (1%). The cumulative rate of oxygen desaturation events for all study sites was 7.7% with a brief period of assisted ventilation with bag-valve mask in 3.9%. The cumulative rate of PSA-related hypotensive events was 3.5%. Increasing patient age and specific clinical procedure were clinical variables most associated with any propofol-related respiratory event. All PSA-related events resolved with supportive interventions during the PSA encounter. No patients required endotracheal intubation, prolonged observation, or admission for PSA-related complications. CONCLUSIONS: Propofol typically confers a deep sedation experience for ED PSA. The most common PSA events associated with propofol are respiratory related and appear consistent across these three practice settings. All propofol-related PSA events resolved with brief supportive interventions in the ED with no adverse sequelae.

Randomized clinical trial of propofol versus methohexital for procedural sedation during fracture and dislocation reduction in the emergency department.

UNLABELLED: Although methohexital has been well studied for use in emergency department (ED) procedural sedation (PS), propofol has been evaluated less extensively for ED use. OBJECTIVE: The authors hypothesized that there is no difference in the depth of sedation and the rate of respiratory depression (RD) between propofol and methohexital in PS during the reduction of fractures and dislocations in the ED. METHODS: This was a randomized prospective study of nonintoxicated adult patients undergoing PS for fracture or dislocation reduction in the ED between July 2001 and March 2002. Patients were randomized to receive either propofol or methohexital, 1 mg/kg intravenously, followed by repeat boluses of 0.5 mg/kg every 2 minutes until adequate sedation was achieved. Doses, vital signs, end-tidal CO(2) (ETCO(2)) by nasal cannulae, pulse oximetry, and bispectral electroencephalogram analysis (BIS) scores were recorded. RD was defined as an ETCO(2) greater than 50 torr, an oxygen saturation less than 90% at any time, or an absent ETCO(2) waveform. After returning to baseline mental status, patients completed three 100-mm visual analog scales (VASs) regarding pain associated with the procedure, recall of the procedure, and satisfaction. RD rates and VAS outcomes were compared with chi-square tests. RESULTS: There were 109 patients enrolled; six were excluded for study protocol violations. Of the remaining 103 patients, 52 received methohexital (reduction successful in 94%) and 51 received propofol (98% successful). No cardiac rhythm abnormalities or significant decline in systolic blood pressure (>20%) was detected. Six patients required bag-valve-mask-assisted ventilations during the procedure, all for less than 1 minute; four of these patients received methohexital, and two received propofol. By the authors' definition, RD was seen in 25 of 52 (48%) patients receiving methohexital and 25 of 51 (49%) patients receiving propofol (p = 0.88). The mean minimum recorded BIS score was 66.2 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 62 to 70) for methohexital and 66 (95% CI = 60 to 71) for propofol. VAS results showed similar rates of reported pain, recall, and satisfaction for the two agents. CONCLUSIONS: The authors were unable to detect a significant difference in the level of subclinical RD or the level of sedation by BIS between the two agents. The use of either agent seems to be safe in the ED.