A comparative study of dexmedetomidine and propofol to prevent recovery agitation in adults undergoing procedural sedation with ketamine: A randomized double-blind clinical trial

Comparison of the incidence of recovery agitation with two different doses of ketamine in procedural sedation: A randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to compare the incidence of recovery agitation and efficacy of two different intravenous (IV) doses of ketamine (0.5 mg/kg vs. 1 mg/kg) in adult patients who presented to the emergency department (ED) requiring procedural sedation with ketamine.

METHODS

This randomized, prospective clinical trial included patients aged 18-75 years who required procedural sedation with ketamine in the ED. Patients were randomized to receive IV ketamine at either 0.5 mg/kg (low dose) or 1 mg/kg (high dose). The primary outcome was the incidence of recovery agitation, assessed by the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) at 5, 15, and 30 min following the procedure, in both dosage groups. Secondary outcomes included overall efficacy, sedation duration, and changes in vital signs.

RESULTS

A total of 108 patients were enrolled in the study, 54 in each group. The median (IQR) RASS scores at 5, 15, and 30 min were -4 (-5 to -4), -1 (-1.3 to 0), and 0 (-1 to 0.5), respectively, in the low-dose group and -4 (-5 to -4), -1 (-3 to 0), and 0 (0 to 0), respectively, in the high-dose group. The incidence of recovery agitation was similar between the low- and high-dose groups (difference 1.9%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -14.8% to 18.4%). No significant difference was observed in sedation duration between the two groups (difference 0%, 95% CI -3.0% to 4.0%). While no additional ketamine was required in the high-dose group, four patients (7.4%) in the low-dose group required an additional half-dose (difference 7.4%, 95% CI -2.3% to 18.7%). Changes in vital signs were similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant difference in recovery agitation, sedation duration, and changes in vital signs between 0.5 and 1 mg/kg IV ketamine for procedural sedation in the ED.

Efficacy and Safety of Ketamine-Dexmedetomidine Versus Ketamine-Propofol Combination for Periprocedural Sedation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The combination of ketamine with propofol and dexmedetomidine has gained popularity for sedation and general anesthesia in different populations. In our meta-nalysis, we helped the anesthesiologists to know the efficiency and the efficacy of both combinations in adult and pediatric patients.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Scopus from inception to August 1, 2023. Our outcome parameters for efficacy were recovery time, pain score, and physician satisfaction while for safety were the related cardiorespiratory, neurological, and gastrointestinal adverse events.

RECENT FINDINGS

Twenty-two trials were included with a total of 1429 patients. We found a significantly longer recovery time in the ketadex group of 7.59 min (95% CI, 4.92, 10.26; I2 = 94%) and a significantly less pain score of - 0.72 (95% CI, - 1.10, - 0.34; I2 = 0%). Adults had a significantly better physician satisfaction score with the ketofol group, odds ratio of 0.29 (95% CI, 0.12, 0.71; I2 = 0%). Recovery agitations were higher in the ketofol group with an odds ratio of 0.48 (95% CI, 0.24, 0.98; I2 = 36%). Furthermore, we found a significant difference between the combinations with a higher incidence in the ketadex group with pooled odds ratio of 1.75 (95% CI, 1.06, 2.88; I2 = 15%). Ketadex was associated with lower pain scores, hypoxic events and airway obstruction, and emergence agitation. At the same time, ketofol had much more clinician satisfaction which might be attributed to the shorter recovery time and lower incidence of nausea and vomiting. Therefore, we suppose that ketadex is the better combination in periprocedural sedation for both adult and pediatric patients who are not at greater risk for postoperative nausea and vomiting.

Dexmedetomidine versus propofol: An effective combination with ketamine for adult procedural sedation: A randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Recently, drug combination protocols have been preferred over single drugs in procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA). This study aimed to compare the effectiveness and hemodynamic profile of ketamine-dexmedetomidine (ketodex) and ketofol as drug combinations with ketamine as a single medication for PSA in the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

This prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial was performed among adult patients (≥18 years) requiring PSA for a painful procedure in the ED. 135 patients were enrolled and assigned into three equal groups to receive either ketodex, ketofol, or ketamine. Additional ketamine was used as a rescue agent for inadequate sedation in three groups. Oxygen saturation, heart rate, and blood pressure were recorded from baseline until 120 min after induction of PSA. Adverse events, hemodynamic variables, induction, and recovery time were recorded and compared between groups.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 38.16 ± 19.09 years and no differences were observed between the three groups in terms of demographic variables, pain scores, and procedures between the three groups. Respiratory events had similar incidences between the three groups. The O2 reduction was less in the Ketodex group in comparison with Ketofol and Ketamine groups (1.9%, 6.5%, and 3.8%, P = 0.015). No patient needed endotracheal intubation. Changes in mean arterial pressure from the baseline in Ketamine and Ketofol groups compared to Ketodex was higher (difference was 12.9 mmHg [95% CI, 9.5 to 20.3] and 8.6 mmHg [95% CI, 3.4 to 13.7]. Tachycardia in the Ketamine group had a significantly higher incidence. The recovery time was statistically shorter in the Ketofol group in comparison with other groups. The differences between Ketofol with Ketamine and Ketodex groups were 9.8 min (95% CI, [2.5 to 17.1]) and 8.3 min (95% CI, [1.5 to 15.1]).

CONCLUSION

Ketodex, as well as ketofol, were effective and safe combinations with good recovery profiles and hemodynamic stability for adult PSA in ED.

Narrative Review: Low-Dose Ketamine for Pain Management

Pain is the leading cause of medical consultations and occurs in 50-70% of emergency department visits. To date, several drugs have been used to manage pain. The clinical use of ketamine began in the 1960s and it immediately emerged as a manageable and safe drug for sedation and anesthesia. The analgesic properties of this drug were first reported shortly after its use; however, its psychomimetic effects have limited its use in emergency departments. Owing to the misuse and abuse of opioids in some countries worldwide, ketamine has become a versatile tool for sedation and analgesia. In this narrative review, ketamine's role as an analgesic is discussed, with both known and new applications in various contexts (acute, chronic, and neuropathic pain), along with its strengths and weaknesses, especially in terms of psychomimetic, cardiovascular, and hepatic effects. Moreover, new scientific evidence has been reviewed on the use of additional drugs with ketamine, such as magnesium infusion for improving analgesia and clonidine for treating psychomimetic symptoms. Finally, this narrative review was refined by the experience of the Pain Group of the Italian Society of Emergency Medicine (SIMEU) in treating acute and chronic pain with acute manifestations in Italian Emergency Departments.

Uncovering the Benefits of the Ketamine-Dexmedetomidine Combination for Procedural Sedation during the Italian COVID-19 Pandemic

This retrospective observational study evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ketamine and dexmedetomidine combination (keta-dex) compared to ketamine or dexmedetomidine alone for sedation of patients with acute respiratory distress due to COVID-19 pneumonia who require non-invasive ventilation. The following factors were assessed: tolerance to the ventilation, sedation level on the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS), hemodynamic and saturation profile, adverse effects, and discontinuation or mortality during ventilation. The study included 66 patients who underwent sedation for non-invasive ventilation using keta-dex (KETA-DEX group, n = 22), ketamine (KET group, n = 22), or dexmedetomidine (DEX group, n = 22). The DEX group showed a slower sedation rate and a significant reduction in blood pressure compared to the KETA-DEX group (p < 0.05). An increase in blood pressure was recorded more frequently in the KET group. No reduction in oxygen saturation and no deaths were observed in any of the groups. None of the patients discontinued ventilation due to intolerance. The mean duration of sedation was 28.12 h. No cases of delirium were observed in any of the groups. Overall, keta-dex was associated with faster sedation rates and better hemodynamic profiles compared to dexmedetomidine alone. Keta-dex is effective and safe for sedation of uncooperative patients undergoing non-invasive ventilation.

The use of dexmedetomidine in the emergency department: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Dexmedetomidine (DEX), a centrally acting alpha-2 agonist, is increasingly used for sedation in multiple clinical settings. Evidence from the intensive care unit and operative settings suggests DEX may have significant advantages over traditional GABAergic sedatives such as benzodiazepines. There has been limited research on the use of DEX in the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of the medical literature to identify all published evidence regarding the use of DEX in the ED. We included randomized and nonrandomized studies and studies reporting any use of DEX in the ED, even when it was not the primary focus of the study. Two authors reviewed studies for inclusion, and a single author assessed studies for quality and risk of bias and abstracted data.

RESULTS

We identified 35 studies meeting inclusion criteria, including 11 randomized controlled trials, 13 cohort and other nonrandomized studies, and 11 case reports and case series. Significant heterogeneity in interventions, comparators, indications, and outcomes precluded data pooling and meta-analysis. We found modest evidence that DEX was efficacious in facilitating medical imaging and mixed and limited evidence regarding its efficacy for procedural sedation and sedation of nonintubated medical and psychiatric patients. Our results suggested that DEX is associated with bradycardia and hypotension, which are generally transient and infrequently require medical intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

A limited body of generally poor- to moderate-quality evidence suggests that the use of DEX may be efficacious in certain clinical scenarios in the ED and that DEX use in the ED is likely safe. Further high-quality research into DEX use in the ED setting is needed, with a particular focus on clear and consistent selection of indications, identification of clear and clinically relevant primary outcomes, and careful assessment of the clinical implications of the hemodynamic effects of DEX therapy.

Ketamine and dexmedetomidine (Keto-dex) or ketamine and propofol (Keto-fol) for procedural sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: Which is safer? A randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Optimum procedural sedation is very essential for conducting non-operating room procedures such as endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The combination of ketamine and dexmedetomidine (KD) is expected to balance out the undesirable effects of either drug and provide smooth sedation. Together ketamine and propofol (KP) also provide synergistic sedation with stable hemodynamics. This prospective, single-blinded randomized study aimed to compare the effect of both the combinations during ERCP in terms of oxygen desaturation, respiratory depression, hemodynamic parameters, analgesia, recovery time, and ease with which the endoscopist could perform the endoscopy.

METHODS

This prospective, single-blinded randomized study (CTRI/2019/08/020625) was conducted on 84, ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) physical status I or II patients, of age 18-65 years presenting for ERCP in a tertiary care center. They were randomized to receive either KD (n=42) or KP (n=42) combination during ERCP. Mean SPO₂ at the end of the procedure was compared between the groups. Apart from these periprocedural hemodynamic and respiratory parameters, pain scores on arrival in the recovery room (t0), 15 minutes (t15), and 30 minutes (t30), recovery time, and endoscopist's satisfaction as per a Likert's scale were recorded.

RESULTS

The mean SpO₂ (SpO₂ recorded every minute during the procedure and averaged over procedure time in minutes) in group KP (97.7 [96.1-98.6]) was significantly lower than group KD (98.5 [98.1-98.8]) (p=0.005). The post-procedure pain scores measured at t0 and t15 were higher in group KP (p<0.001 and p=0.043), and comparable at t30 in both the groups (p=0.711). The time to achieve Modified Aldrete score (MAS) ≥ 9 was significantly more in group KD (p<0.001). The lowest mean arterial pressure and heart rate in group KD were significantly lower than in group KP (p<0.001, p=0.006, respectively). The overall endoscopist satisfaction was better in group KP compared to group KD (p= 0.011).

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of ketamine-dexmedetomidine for procedural sedation during ERCP is a safe alternative to ketamine-propofol with a better respiratory profile.

CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER AND REGISTRY URL

CTRI/2019/08/020625 ( www.ctri.nic.in ).