Loading...
Please wait, while we are loading the content...
Similar Documents
Ketamine-propofol combination (ketofol) versus propofol alone for emergency department procedural sedation and analgesia: a randomized double-blind trial.
| Content Provider | Semantic Scholar |
|---|---|
| Author | Andolfatto, Gary Abu-Laban, Riyad B. Zed, Peter J. Staniforth, Sean M. Stackhouse, Sherry Moadebi, Susanne Willman, Elaine |
| Copyright Year | 2012 |
| Abstract | STUDY OBJECTIVE We determine whether a 1:1 mixture of ketamine and propofol (ketofol) for emergency department (ED) procedural sedation results in a 13% or more absolute reduction in adverse respiratory events compared with propofol alone. METHODS Participants were randomized to receive either ketofol or propofol in a double-blind fashion. Inclusion criteria were aged 14 years or older and American Society of Anesthesiology class 1 to 3 status. The primary outcome was the number and proportion of patients experiencing an adverse respiratory event as defined by the Quebec Criteria. Secondary outcomes were sedation consistency, efficacy, and time; induction time; and adverse events. RESULTS A total of 284 patients were enrolled, 142 per group. Forty-three (30%) patients experienced an adverse respiratory event in the ketofol group compared with 46 (32%) in the propofol group (difference 2%; 95% confidence interval -9% to 13%; P=.80). Three ketofol patients and 1 propofol patient received bag-valve-mask ventilation. Sixty-five (46%) patients receiving ketofol and 93 (65%) patients receiving propofol required repeated medication dosing or progressed to a Ramsay Sedation Score of 4 or less during their procedure (difference 19%; 95% confidence interval 8% to 31%; P=.001). Six patients receiving ketofol were treated for recovery agitation. Other secondary outcomes were similar between the groups. Patients and staff were highly satisfied with both agents. CONCLUSION Ketofol for ED procedural sedation does not result in a reduced incidence of adverse respiratory events compared with propofol alone. Induction time, efficacy, and sedation time were similar; however, sedation depth appeared to be more consistent with ketofol. |
| File Format | PDF HTM / HTML |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2012.01.017 |
| PubMed reference number | 22401952 |
| Journal | Medline |
| Volume Number | 59 |
| Issue Number | 6 |
| Alternate Webpage(s) | http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/14639670/565682926/name/PIIS0196064412000510.pdf |
| Alternate Webpage(s) | https://www.cmich.edu/colleges/cmed/Documents/Research/Saginaw%20Library/COLA%202015-2017/22401952.pdf |
| Alternate Webpage(s) | https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2012.01.017 |
| Journal | Annals of emergency medicine |
| Language | English |
| Access Restriction | Open |
| Content Type | Text |
| Resource Type | Article |
