Incidence of Adverse Events in Adults Undergoing Procedural Sedation in the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis

Abstract

ObjectivesThis was a systematic review and meta‐analysis to evaluate the incidence of adverse events in adults undergoing procedural sedation in the emergency department (ED).MethodsEight electronic databases were searched, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBSCO, CINAHL, CENTRAL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, and Scopus, from January 2005 through 2015. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies of adults undergoing procedural sedation in the ED that reported a priori selected outcomes and adverse events were included. Meta‐analysis was performed using a random‐effects model and reported as incidence rates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).ResultsThe search yielded 2,046 titles for review. Fifty‐five articles were eligible, including 9,652 procedural sedations. The most common adverse event was hypoxia, with an incidence of 40.2 per 1,000 sedations (95% CI = 32.5 to 47.9), followed by vomiting with 16.4 per 1,000 sedations (95% CI = 9.7 to 23.0) and hypotension with 15.2 per 1,000 sedations (95% CI = 10.7 to 19.7). Severe adverse events requiring emergent medical intervention were rare, with one case of aspiration in 2,370 sedations (1.2 per 1,000), one case of laryngospasm in 883 sedations (4.2 per 1,000), and two intubations in 3,636 sedations (1.6 per 1,000). The incidence of agitation and vomiting were higher with ketamine (164.1 per 1,000 and 170.0 per 1,000, respectively). Apnea was more frequent with midazolam (51.4 per 1,000), and hypoxia was less frequent in patients who received ketamine/propofol compared to other combinations. The case of laryngospasm was in a patient who received ketamine, and the aspiration and intubations were in patients who received propofol. When propofol and ketamine are combined, the incidences of agitation, apnea, hypoxia, bradycardia, hypotension, and vomiting were lower compared to each medication separately.ConclusionsSerious adverse events during procedural sedation like laryngospasm, aspiration, and intubation are exceedingly rare. Quantitative risk estimates are provided to facilitate shared decision‐making, risk communication, and informed consent.

Quantitative sensory testing measures individual pain responses in emergency department patients

“…Opportunities to use this information might include selection of drugs with fewer side effects than opioids to provide anxiolysis in patients where anxiety is present 46. Anxiolysis and polypharmacy are already common practice in ED procedural sedation 47. Providers could use behavioral or cognitive–behavioral strategies to encourage cognitive reframing of the pain and augment the effects of acute analgesics 48,49.…”

CARDIAC ARREST IN A POSTOPERATIVE CARE UNIT. LITERATURE REVIEW OF PULMONARY PERIOPERATIVE CRITICAL SITUATIONS - Paro cardiaco en unidad de cuidado postoperatorio. Revisión de la literaturade situaciones críticas pulmonares preoperatorias.

“…Puede ser desencadenado por secreciones a nivel de la vía aérea superior, inhalación de anestésicos ácridos, colocación de tubo bucofaríngeo o sonda nasofaríngea en paciente despierto, estímulos dolorosos periféricos o tracción del peritoneo con anestesia superficial (33) . Clínicamente se caracteriza por la presencia de estridor cuando es parcial, y si es completa, el paciente no puede ventilarse.…”

The research to practice continuum: Development of an evidence-based visual aid to improve informed consent for procedural sedation

“…We published two systematic reviews and meta-analyses evaluating the risks of performing PSA in the Emergency Department for both the pediatric 1 and adult 2 populations. We found that serious adverse events are exceedingly rare, regardless of the different medications used for sedation.…”