Context:Long-term sedation with midazolam or propofol has been demonstrated to have serious adverse side effects, such as toxic accumulation or propofol infusion syndrome. Ketamine remains a viable alternative for continuous sedation as it is inexpensive and widely available, however, there are few analyses regarding its safety in this clinical setting.Objective:To review the data related to safety and efficacy of ketamine as a potential sedative agent in mechanically ventilated patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU).Materials and Methods:This was a single-center retrospective study from September 2011 to March 2012 of patients who required sedation for greater than 24 hours, in whom ketamine was selected as the primary sedative agent. All patients greater than 18 years of age, regardless of admitting diagnosis, were eligible for inclusion. Patients that received ketamine for continuous infusion but died prior to receiving it for 24 hours were not included.Results:Thirty patients received ketamine for continuous sedation. In four patients, ketamine was switched to another sedative agent due to possible adverse side effects. Of these, two patients had tachydysrhythmias, both with new onset atrial fibrillation and two patients had agitation believed to be caused by ketamine. The adverse event rate in our patient population was 13% (4/30).Conclusions:Among ICU patients receiving prolonged mechanical ventilation, the use of ketamine appeared to have a frequency of adverse events similar to more common sedative agents, like propofol and benzodiazepines.

IntroductionEmergency department (ED) crowding has been shown to negatively impact patient outcomes. Few studies have addressed the effect of ED crowding on patient satisfaction. Our objective was to evaluate the impact of ED crowding on patient satisfaction in patients discharged from the ED.Methods:We measured patient satisfaction using Press-Ganey surveys returned by patients that visited our ED between August 1, 2007 and March 31, 2008. We recorded all mean satisfaction scores and obtained mean ED occupancy rate, mean emergency department work index (EDWIN) score and hospital diversion status over each 8-hour shift from data archived in our electronic tracking board. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis was calculated to determine the effect of ED crowding and hospital diversion status on the odds of achieving a mean satisfaction score ≥ 85, which was the patient satisfaction goal set forth by our ED administration.Results:A total of 1591 surveys were returned over the study period. Mean satisfaction score was 77.6 (standard deviation [SD] ±16) and mean occupancy rate was 1.23 (SD ± 0.31). The likelihood of failure to meet patient satisfaction goals was associated with an increase in average ED occupancy rate (odds ratio [OR] 0.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.17 to 0.59, P < 0.001) and an increase in EDWIN score (OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.004 to 0.55, P = 0.015). Hospital diversion resulted in lower mean satisfaction scores, but this was not statistically significant (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.05). In multivariable analysis controlling for hospital diversion status and time of shift, ED occupancy rate remained a significant predictor of failure to meet patient satisfaction goals (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.66, P = 0.001).Conclusion:Increased crowding, as measured by ED occupancy rate and EDWIN score, was significantly associated with reduced patient satisfaction. Although causative attribution was limited, our study suggested yet another negative impact resulting from ED crowding.

No abstract

Objectives: Etomidate is known to cause adrenal suppression after single-bolus administration. Some studies suggest that when etomidate is used as an induction agent for intubation of septic patients in the emergency department (ED), this adrenal suppression leads to increased mortality, vasopressor requirements, and length of hospital stay. The authors sought to determine differences in the in-hospital mortality and hospital length of stay (LOS) between septic patients given etomidate and patients given alternative or no induction agents for rapid-sequence intubation in our ED.Methods: This was a nonrandomized, prospective observational study of all patients meeting sepsis criteria who were intubated in an ED over a 9-month period. Times of patient presentation, intubation, admission, discharge, and ⁄ or death were recorded, as well as the intubation agent used, if any, and corticosteroid use. The authors also recorded relevant laboratory and demographic variables to determine severity of illness using the Mortality in Emergency Department Sepsis (MEDS) score. Mortality and survivor LOS between the patients given etomidate and those given alternative or no induction agents were compared.Results: A total of 106 patients with sepsis were intubated over the study period. Of these, 74 patients received etomidate, while 32 patients received ketamine, benzodiazepines, propofol, or no induction agents. Age in years (median = 78; interquartile range [IQR] = 67 to 83), gender (45% male), MEDS score (median = 13; IQR = 10 to 15), and receipt of supplemental corticosteroids (56%) were statistically similar between the two groups. In-hospital mortality of patients given etomidate (38%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 28% to 49%) was similar to those receiving alternatives (44%; 95% CI = 28% to 61%). Surviving patients had a median hospital LOS after receiving etomidate of 10 days compared to those receiving alternatives (7.5 days; p = 0.08). Conclusions:No statistically significant increase in hospital LOS or mortality in patients given etomidate for rapid-sequence intubation was found. Suggestions that the use of etomidate for intubation in the ED be abandoned are not supported by these data.

No abstract