Rapid sequence induction: An international survey.
Klucka Jozef,Kosinova Martina,Zacharowski Kai,De Hert Stefan,Kratochvil Milan,Toukalkova Michaela,Stoudek Roman,Zelinkova Hana,Stourac Petr
European journal of anaesthesiology
BACKGROUND:Rapid sequence induction (RSI) is a standard procedure, which should be implemented in all patients with a risk of aspiration/regurgitation during anaesthesia induction. OBJECTIVE:The primary aim was to evaluate clinical practice in RSI, both in adult and paediatric populations. DESIGN:Online survey. SETTINGS:A total of 56 countries. PARTICIPANTS:Members of the European Society of Anaesthesiology. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:The aim was to identify and describe the actual clinical practice of RSI related to general anaesthesia. RESULTS:From the 1921 respondents, 76.5% (n=1469) were qualified anaesthesiologists. When anaesthetising adults, the majority (61.7%, n=1081) of the respondents preoxygenated patients with 100% O2 for 3 min and 65.9% (n=1155) administered opioids during RSI. The Sellick manoeuvre was used by 38.5% (n=675) and was not used by 37.4% (n=656) of respondents. First-line medications for a haemodynamically stable adult patient were propofol (90.6%, n=1571) and suxamethonium (56.0%, n=932). Manual ventilation (inspiratory pressure <12 cmH2O) was used in 35.5% (n=622) of respondents. In the majority of paediatric patients, 3 min of preoxygenation (56.6%, n=817) and opioids (54.9%, n=797) were administered. The Sellick manoeuvre and manual ventilation (inspiratory pressure <12 cmH2O) in children were used by 23.5% (n=340) and 35.9% (n=517) of respondents, respectively. First-line induction drugs for a haemodynamically stable child were propofol (82.8%, n=1153) and rocuronium (54.7%, n=741). CONCLUSION:We found significant heterogeneity in the daily clinical practice of RSI. For patient safety, our findings emphasise the need for international RSI guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03694860.
Effect of Conscious Sedation vs General Anesthesia on Early Neurological Improvement Among Patients With Ischemic Stroke Undergoing Endovascular Thrombectomy: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Schönenberger Silvia,Uhlmann Lorenz,Hacke Werner,Schieber Simon,Mundiyanapurath Sibu,Purrucker Jan C,Nagel Simon,Klose Christina,Pfaff Johannes,Bendszus Martin,Ringleb Peter A,Kieser Meinhard,Möhlenbruch Markus A,Bösel Julian
Importance:Optimal management of sedation and airway during thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke is controversial due to lack of evidence from randomized trials. Objective:To assess whether conscious sedation is superior to general anesthesia for early neurological improvement among patients receiving stroke thrombectomy. Design, Setting, and Participants:SIESTA (Sedation vs Intubation for Endovascular Stroke Treatment), a single-center, randomized, parallel-group, open-label treatment trial with blinded outcome evaluation conducted at Heidelberg University Hospital in Germany (April 2014-February 2016) included 150 patients with acute ischemic stroke in the anterior circulation, higher National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score (>10), and isolated/combined occlusion at any level of the internal carotid or middle cerebral artery. Intervention:Patients were randomly assigned to an intubated general anesthesia group (n = 73) or a nonintubated conscious sedation group (n = 77) during stroke thrombectomy. Main Outcomes and Measures:Primary outcome was early neurological improvement on the NIHSS after 24 hours (0-42 [none to most severe neurological deficits; a 4-point difference considered clinically relevant]). Secondary outcomes were functional outcome by modified Rankin Scale (mRS) after 3 months (0-6 [symptom free to dead]), mortality, and peri-interventional parameters of feasibility and safety. Results:Among 150 patients (60 women [40%]; mean age, 71.5 years; median NIHSS score, 17), primary outcome was not significantly different between the general anesthesia group (mean NIHSS score, 16.8 at admission vs 13.6 after 24 hours; difference, -3.2 points [95% CI, -5.6 to -0.8]) vs the conscious sedation group (mean NIHSS score, 17.2 at admission vs 13.6 after 24 hour; difference, -3.6 points [95% CI, -5.5 to -1.7]); mean difference between groups, -0.4 (95% CI, -3.4 to 2.7; P = .82). Of 47 prespecified secondary outcomes analyzed, 41 showed no significant differences. In the general anesthesia vs the conscious sedation group, substantial patient movement was less frequent (0% vs 9.1%; difference, 9.1%; P = .008), but postinterventional complications were more frequent for hypothermia (32.9% vs 9.1%; P < .001), delayed extubation (49.3% vs 6.5%; P < .001), and pneumonia (13.7% vs 3.9%; P = .03). More patients were functionally independent (unadjusted mRS score, 0 to 2 after 3 months [37.0% in the general anesthesia group vs 18.2% in the conscious sedation group P = .01]). There were no differences in mortality at 3 months (24.7% in both groups). Conclusions and Relevance:Among patients with acute ischemic stroke in the anterior circulation undergoing thrombectomy, conscious sedation vs general anesthesia did not result in greater improvement in neurological status at 24 hours. The study findings do not support an advantage for the use of conscious sedation. Trial Registration:clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02126085.
Risk Factors for Adverse Events in Emergency Department Procedural Sedation for Children.
Bhatt Maala,Johnson David W,Chan Jason,Taljaard Monica,Barrowman Nick,Farion Ken J,Ali Samina,Beno Suzanne,Dixon Andrew,McTimoney C Michelle,Dubrovsky Alexander Sasha,Sourial Nadia,Roback Mark G,
Importance:Procedural 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. Objective:To examine the incidence and risk factors associated with sedation-related SAEs. Design, Setting, and Participants:This 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. Exposures:The 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 Measures:Four outcomes were examined: SAEs, significant interventions performed in response to an adverse event, oxygen desaturation, and vomiting. Results:Of 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 Relevance:The 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.
Association of Preprocedural Fasting With Outcomes of Emergency Department Sedation in Children.
Bhatt Maala,Johnson David W,Taljaard Monica,Chan Jason,Barrowman Nick,Farion Ken J,Ali Samina,Beno Suzanne,Dixon Andrew,McTimoney C Michelle,Dubrovsky Alexander Sasha,Roback Mark G,
Importance:It is not clear whether adherence to preprocedural fasting guidelines prevent pulmonary aspiration and associated adverse outcomes during emergency department (ED) sedation of children. Objective:To examine the association between preprocedural fasting duration and the incidence of sedation-related adverse outcomes in a large sample of children. Design, Setting, and Participants:We conducted a planned secondary analysis of a multicenter prospective cohort study of children aged 0 to 18 years who received procedural sedation for a painful procedure in 6 Canadian pediatric EDs from July 2010 to February 2015. The primary risk factor was preprocedural fasting duration. Secondary risk factors were age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, preprocedural and sedation medications, and procedure type. Main Outcomes and Measures:Four outcomes were examined: (1) pulmonary aspiration, (2) the occurrence of any adverse event, (3) serious adverse events, and (4) vomiting. Results:A total of 6183 children with a median age of 8.0 years (interquartile range, 4.0-12.0 years), of whom 6166 (99.7%) had healthy or mild systemic disease (American Society of Anesthesiologists levels I or II), were included in the analysis. Of these, 2974 (48.1%) and 310 (5.0%) children did not meet American Society of Anesthesiologists fasting guidelines for solids and liquids, respectively. There were no cases of pulmonary aspiration. There were 717 adverse events (11.6%; 95% CI, 10.8%-12.4%), of which 68 (1.1%; 95% CI, 0.9%-1.3%) were serious adverse events and 315 (5.1%; 95% CI, 4.6%-5.7%) were vomiting. The odds ratio (OR) of occurrence of any adverse event, serious adverse events, and vomiting did not change significantly with each additional hour of fasting duration for both solids (any adverse event: OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.02; serious adverse events, OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.95-1.07; vomiting: OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.97-1.03) and liquids (any adverse event: OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.98-1.02; serious adverse events: 1.01, 95% CI, 0.95-1.07; vomiting: OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.96-1.03). Conclusions and Relevance:In this study, there was no association between fasting duration and any type of adverse event. These findings do not support delaying sedation to meet established fasting guidelines.
Clinical policy: procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department.
Godwin Steven A,Burton John H,Gerardo Charles J,Hatten Benjamin W,Mace Sharon E,Silvers Scott M,Fesmire Francis M,
Annals of emergency medicine
This clinical policy from the American College of Emergency Physicians is the revision of a 2005 clinical policy evaluating critical questions related to procedural sedation in the emergency department.1 A writing subcommittee reviewed the literature to derive evidence-based recommendations to help clinicians answer the following critical questions: (1) In patients undergoing procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department,does preprocedural fasting demonstrate a reduction in the risk of emesis or aspiration? (2) In patients undergoing procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department, does the routine use of capnography reduce the incidence of adverse respiratory events? (3) In patients undergoing procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department, what is the minimum number of personnel necessary to manage complications? (4) Inpatients undergoing procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department, can ketamine, propofol, etomidate, dexmedetomidine, alfentanil and remifentanil be safely administered? A literature search was performed, the evidence was graded, and recommendations were given based on the strength of the available data in the medical literature.