Propofol for conscious sedation: a case series

Is propofol an optimal agent for procedural sedation and rapid sequence intubation in the emergency department?

Objective:

We conducted a qualitative systematic review to evaluate the efficacy and safety of propofol for direct current cardioversion (DCC), rapid sequence intubation (RSI) and procedural sedation in adult emergency department (ED) patients.

Data source:

MEDLINE (1966 to September 2000), PubMed (to September 2000), EMBASE (1988 to September 2000), Database of Systematic Reviews (to September 2000), Best Evidence (1991 to September 2000) and Current Contents (1996 to September 2000) databases.

Study selection:

English-language, randomized, comparative evaluations of propofol for procedures routinely conducted in adults (>18 years) were included. Direct current cardioversion, RSI and procedural sedation were considered.

Data extraction:

Efficacy and safety endpoints were evaluated for all trials. For DCC and procedural sedation trials, efficacy measures included induction and recovery times, as well as the association for successful procedure. For the RSI trials, optimal intubating conditions were evaluated as the primary efficacy endpoint. Safety measures included hemodynamic changes, apnea rates and adverse effects.

Data synthesis:

In the setting of DCC, efficacy and safety outcomes were similar for propofol, thiopental, etomidate and methohexital. All of these agents provided markedly shorter induction and recovery times than midazolam. Patients who were pre-medicated with fentanyl exhibited prolonged recovery times and greater decreases in blood pressure. When used for RSI, propofol administration was associated with satisfactory intubating conditions that were comparable to those seen with thiopental and etomidate. Blood pressure reductions were seen in both DCC and RSI studies. Apneic episodes (>30 seconds) occurred in 23% of propofol recipients, 28% of thiopental recipients and 7% of etomidate and midazolam recipients. Apart from the DCC studies described, no procedural sedation studies met our predefined review eligibility criteria.

Conclusion:

The body of literature evaluating propofol for DCC and RSI in the ED is limited. There is evidence to support the use of propofol for DCC and RSI, but this evidence comes from stable patients in non-ED settings. Further ED-based randomized comparative trials should be conducted before propofol is adopted for widespread use in the ED.

Efficacy, safety and patient satisfaction of propofol for procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department: a prospective study

Objective:

We evaluated the efficacy, safety and patient satisfaction with the use of propofol for procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department (ED).

Methods:

All patients receiving propofol for procedural sedation and analgesia in the ED between December 1, 2003, and November 30, 2005, were prospectively assessed. Propofol was administered using a standardized protocol, which included an initial dose of 0.25–0.5 mg/kg followed by 10–20 mg/minute until sedated. Efficacy was evaluated using procedural success rate, recovery time and physician satisfaction. Adverse respiratory effects were defined as apnea for more than 30 seconds or an oxygen saturation of less than 90%. Hypotension was defined as systolic blood pressure < 90 mm Hg or > 20% decrease from baseline. Patient and physician satisfaction were determined using 5-point Likert scales.

Results:

Our study included 113 patients with a mean age of 50 (standard deviation [SD] 19) years; 62% were male. The most common procedures were orthopedic manipulation (44%), cardioversion (37%), and abscess incision and drainage (13%). The mean total propofol dose required was 1.6 (SD 0.9) mg/kg. Procedural success was achieved in 90% of cases and the mean patient recovery time was 7.6 (SD 3.4) minutes. No patient (0%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0%–3%) experienced apnea; however, 1 patient (1%, 95% CI 0%–5%) experienced emesis, which resulted in an oxygen saturation <90%. Nine patients (8%, 95% CI 4%–15%) experienced hypotension and 7 (6%, 95% CI 3%–12%) experienced pain on injection. All patients were very satisfied (92%, 95% CI 85%–96%) or satisfied (8%, 95% CI 4%–15%), and 94% (95% CI 88%–98%) reported no recollection of the procedure. The majority of physicians were very satisfied (85%, 95% CI 77%–91%) or satisfied (6%, 95% CI 3%–12%) with the sedation and the conditions achieved.

Conclusion:

When administered as part of a standardized protocol, propofol appears to be a safe and effective agent for performing procedural sedation and analgesia in the ED, and is associated with high patient and physician satisfaction.

Propofol for Procedural Sedation in the Emergency Department: A Qualitative Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE:

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of propofol compared to other agents for procedural sedation of adults in the emergency department (ED) and to review the use of opioids in conjunction with propofol for procedural sedation in the ED.

DATA SOURCES:

PubMed (1949-December 2012) and EMBASE (1980-December 2012) were searched using combinations of the following search terms: (procedural sedation or conscious sedation [MESH]) and propofol. A manual search of references was also performed.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION:

English-language, full reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies evaluating propofol use in adults undergoing procedural sedation in the ED were included if they reported efficacy or safety outcomes. Two reviewers independently assessed each article for inclusion, data extraction, and study limitations.

DATA SYNTHESIS:

Thirteen RCTs and 20 observational studies meeting our inclusion criteria were retrieved. Regardless of the agent used for sedation, procedural success was greater than 80% and most trials demonstrated no statistically significant difference in the incidence of respiratory depression with propofol compared to alternatives. One RCT showed a significantly greater percent decrease in systolic blood pressure from baseline in those who received propofol compared to ketamine. Where reported, no significant difference was found in patient recall, pain, and satisfaction when opioids were added to propofol compared to propofol alone; the addition of opioids may have resulted in a higher incidence of respiratory adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS:

Propofol for procedural sedation is a reasonable alternative for use in the ED, with comparative efficacy and safety to other alternatives. Use of opioids in addition to propofol may not provide added benefit but does contribute to increased rates of adverse events.

Safety and clinical effectiveness of midazolam versus propofol for procedural sedation in the emergency department: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To synthesize the evidence comparing the adverse event (AE) profile and clinical effectiveness of midazolam and propofol for procedural sedation (PS) in adults in the emergency care setting.

METHODS

The authors conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies reporting the use of either midazolam and/or propofol for adult PS in the emergency department (ED). A systematic search strategy was developed and applied to six bibliographic reference databases. Three emergency medicine journals, the Canadian Adverse Drug Reaction Newsletter, and conference proceedings were hand-searched. Retrieved articles were reviewed and data were abstracted using standardized data collection. Trial quality was assessed using the Jadad score. The outcomes assessed were the proportion of patients with AEs and the pooled mean difference in the proportion of patients with successful PS.

RESULTS

Of 229 articles identified, 28 met the inclusion criteria for the analysis of AEs. Only one major AE to PS was found, resulting in no statistically significant difference in the proportion of major AEs between agents. Four studies were RCTs that met the inclusion criteria for the analysis of clinical effectiveness. Two trials met criteria for good quality. The RCTs enrolled between 32 and 86 patients, and the most common indications for PS were orthopedic reductions and cardioversions. There was a nonsignificant difference in the proportion of patients with successful PS in favor of propofol (effect difference 2.9%, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -6.5 to 15.2).

CONCLUSIONS

The authors found no significant difference in the safety profile and the proportion of successful PS between midazolam and propofol for adults in the ED.

Propofol by infusion protocol for ED procedural sedation

INTRODUCTION

Propofol is an effective agent for use in procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA). Most ED studies have used a bolus-dosed protocol. We evaluated the efficacy, complication rate, and satisfaction among caregivers and patients while using an infusion-dosed protocol of propofol for PSA in our ED.

METHODS

A prospective, observational study was performed in our academic ED. Propofol use was at the discretion of the ordering physician and dosed by predetermined infusion protocol. Variables measured included adverse events, times of sedation, procedure, and recovery. Patient and provider satisfaction were measured using a 10-cm visual analog scale.

RESULTS

Fifty patients were enrolled over 18 months. Procedures were varied, and all were successfully completed. The mean propofol dose was 174 mg (SD = 164 mg). Average times to sedation (4.6 minutes, SD = 2.6 minutes) and recovery (8.2 minutes, SD = 5.8 minutes) were short. Complications included 8 patients with respiratory depression and 6 with hypotension, all easily reversible. Satisfaction scores were uniformly high. Only 34% of patients had any memory of the procedure, and 94% would agree to use it again if necessary.

CONCLUSIONS

Infusion-dosed propofol is effective for ED PSA. Total doses, effectiveness, satisfaction rates, and complications of infusion-dosed propofol are comparable to findings from studies using bolus-dosed protocols.

Propofol for emergency department procedural sedation and analgesia: a tale of three centers

OBJECTIVES

To characterize propofol procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) encounters for a large patient population at multiple emergency department (ED) sites. The authors sought to assess the frequency of respiratory and cardiovascular events during propofol PSA within these settings.

METHODS

This study was a prospective, descriptive series of a consecutive sample of ED patients receiving propofol for PSA at three study sites. Patients were monitored for PSA-related events, including predefined clinically relevant cardiovascular and respiratory events. Data collection was performed during PSA with a standardized data collection sheet unique to each site.

RESULTS

Propofol was administered during PSA to 792 patients during the respective reporting period at each center. Indications for sedation included dislocation reduction (38%), cardioversion (10%), fracture reduction (35%), abscess incision and drainage (8%), computed tomography imaging (2%), and tube thoracostomy (1%). The cumulative rate of oxygen desaturation events for all study sites was 7.7% with a brief period of assisted ventilation with bag-valve mask in 3.9%. The cumulative rate of PSA-related hypotensive events was 3.5%. Increasing patient age and specific clinical procedure were clinical variables most associated with any propofol-related respiratory event. All PSA-related events resolved with supportive interventions during the PSA encounter. No patients required endotracheal intubation, prolonged observation, or admission for PSA-related complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol typically confers a deep sedation experience for ED PSA. The most common PSA events associated with propofol are respiratory related and appear consistent across these three practice settings. All propofol-related PSA events resolved with brief supportive interventions in the ED with no adverse sequelae.

Etomidate for procedural sedation in the emergency department

OBJECTIVE

To review the current efficacy and safety evidence for the use of etomidate for procedural sedation in the emergency department (ED).

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE (1966-December 2003), EMBASE (1980-December 2003), PubMED (1966-December 2003), and Cochrane Database of Systemic Reviews (up to December 2003) were searched for full-text reports published in English on the use of etomidate in humans. Search terms included etomidate, procedural sedation, conscious sedation, relocation, dislocation, abscess incision, abscess drainage, and cardioversion.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Prospective and retrospective studies evaluating efficacy or safety endpoints using etomidate for procedural sedation in the ED were included. All studies were evaluated independently by both authors. For clinical outcomes (efficacy, safety), the definitions specified by each study were used.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Three observational studies and 5 prospective, randomized controlled trials were included in this review. Onset of action and time to recovery following etomidate were rapid and found to be comparable to that of propofol and thiopental but significantly faster than that of midazolam. The dose of etomidate for procedural sedation ranged from 0.15 to 0.22 mg/kg. No significant hemodynamic effects were observed; however, respiratory depression resulting in oxygen desaturation to <90% or apnea appears to occur in approximately 10% of patients undergoing procedural sedation with etomidate with or without analgesia. The most prominent adverse effect reported with etomidate was myoclonus, occurring in 20-45% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Etomidate is an appropriate and valuable agent for performing procedural sedation in the ED. The rapid onset and recovery time and relative lack of significant hemodynamic and respiratory effects may facilitate optimal and safe conditions for procedural sedation in the ED.

Propofol sedation by emergency physicians for elective pediatric outpatient procedures

STUDY OBJECTIVE

We describe the efficacy of propofol sedation administered by pediatric emergency physicians to facilitate painful outpatient procedures.

METHODS

By using a protocol for patients receiving propofol sedation in an emergency department-affiliated short-stay unit, a prospective, consecutive case series was performed from January to September 2000. Patients were prescheduled, underwent a medical evaluation, and met fasting requirements. A sedation team was present throughout the procedure. All patients received supplemental oxygen. Sedation depth and vital signs were monitored while propofol was manually titrated to the desired level of sedation.

RESULTS

There were 291 separate sedation events in 87 patients. No patient had more than 1 sedation event per day. Median patient age was 6 years; 57% were male patients and 72% were oncology patients. Many children required more than 1 procedure per encounter. Most commonly performed procedures included lumbar puncture (43%), intrathecal chemotherapy administration (31%), bone marrow aspiration (19%), and bone biopsy (3%). Median total propofol dose was 3.5 mg/kg. Median systolic and diastolic blood pressures were lowered 22 mm Hg (range 0 to 65 mm Hg) and 21 mm Hg (range 0 to 62 mm Hg), respectively. Partial airway obstruction requiring brief jaw-thrust maneuver was noted for 4% of patient sedations, whereas transient apnea requiring bag-valve-mask ventilation occurred in 1% of patient sedations. All procedures were successfully completed. Median procedure duration was 13 minutes, median sedation duration was 22 minutes, and median total time in the short stay unit was 40 minutes.

CONCLUSION

Propofol sedation administered by emergency physicians safely facilitated short painful procedures in children under conditions studied, with rapid recovery.

The safe and effective use of propofol sedation in children undergoing diagnostic and therapeutic procedures: experience in a pediatric ICU and a review of the literature

OBJECTIVES

To describe our experience using propofol sedation to facilitate elective diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, and to document the safety profile of propofol in this setting.

DESIGN

Retrospective consecutive case series and review of the literature.

SETTING

Pediatric intensive care unit of a United States Navy tertiary care medical center.

PATIENTS

Children receiving propofol for procedural sedation over an 18-month period.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Descriptive features of sedation including adverse events.

RESULTS

During the study period, 91 children received propofol to facilitate the performance of 110 medical procedures. The mean induction dose was 2.41 mg/kg, the mean infusion rate was 179.3 microg/kg/min, and the mean total dose of propofol administered was 4.23 mg/kg. In all cases, sedation was successfully achieved. The average length of stay in the PICU was 108.4 minutes. Three children (3.3%) had transient episodes of oxygen desaturation that improved with repositioning of the airway. No child required placement of an endotracheal tube. Three (3.3%) children experienced hypotension requiring a decrease in the infusion rate of propofol and a 10-mL/kg bolus infusion of normal saline. No cardiac arrhythmias or adverse neurologic effects secondary to propofol infusion were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Pediatric intensivists can safely and effectively administer propofol to facilitate the performance of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures outside the operating room setting.

Propofol for procedural sedation in children in the emergency department

STUDY OBJECTIVE

We determine the safety and efficacy of propofol sedation for painful procedures in the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

A consecutive case series of propofol sedations for painful procedures in the ED of a tertiary care pediatric hospital from July 2000 to July 2002 was performed. A sedation protocol was followed. Propofol was administered in a bolus of 1 mg/kg, followed by additional doses of 0.5 mg/kg. Narcotics were administered 1 minute before propofol administration. Adverse events were documented, as were the sedation duration, recovery time from sedation, and total time in the ED.

RESULTS

Three hundred ninety-three discrete sedation events with propofol were analyzed. Procedures consisted of the following: fracture reductions (94%), reduction of joint dislocations (4%), spica cast placement (2%), and ocular examination after an ocular burn (0.3%). The median propofol dose was 2.7 mg/kg. Ninety-two percent of patients had a transient (<or=2 minutes) decrease in systolic blood pressure without clinical signs of poor perfusion. Nineteen (5%) patients had hypoxia, 11 (3%) patients required airway repositioning or jaw-thrust maneuvers, and 3 (0.8%) patients required bag-valve-mask ventilation. No patient required endotracheal intubation.

CONCLUSION

Propofol sedation is efficacious and can be used safely in the ED setting under the guidance of a protocol. Transient cardiopulmonary depression occurs, which requires vigilant monitoring by highly skilled practitioners. Propofol is well suited for short, painful procedures in the ED setting.

Use of propofol sedation in a pediatric emergency department: a prospective study

The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy and safety of propofol sedation for pediatric procedures in the emergency department. For patients needing painful procedures, propofol was administered intravenously. Vital signs, complications, and time to recovery were recorded. Patient amnesia and parent, patient, and operator satisfaction with sedation were assessed. The mean age was 7.4 years; 65% were male. Most underwent fracture reduction. Mean total dose was 3.3 mg/kg. Thirty percent experienced desaturation. One required assisted ventilation. Most had decreases in blood pressure. Mean recovery time was 18 minutes. Satisfaction with sedation was rated "excellent." Propofol was an effective sedation with minimal complications in the emergency department setting.

Propofol bolus facilitates reduction of luxed temporomandibular joints

"Locked" or dislocated temporomandibular joint (TMJ) is a common problem in emergency medicine. Like many other joint dislocations, the repositioning of the joint can be facilitated by conscious sedation and muscular relaxation. Propofol is a useful agent for use in the emergency department because of its extremely short half-life, its antiemetic properties, and its safety record. We report two cases of locked TMJ that were repositioned under sedation with propofol. We review methods for repositioning the locked TMJ and review appropriate agents for sedation and muscular relaxation.

The use of propofol for sedation in the emergency department

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of propofol and fentanyl when used by emergency physicians (EPs) for systemic sedation and analgesia in the ED.

METHODS

Over an eight-month period, a convenience sample of consenting patients at an urban teaching hospital ED who required sedation for painful procedures were enrolled in a descriptive study of therapeutic propofol sedation. After receiving 2 micrograms/kg of fentanyl i.v. the patients received a continuous infusion of propofol at 0.21 mg/kg/min i.v. to the desired level of sedation. A maintenance infusion of 3-6 mg/kg/hr was administered during the remainder of the procedure. Sedation time, total procedure time, and recovery time were recorded and the presence of side effects was noted. The patients and the physicians rated their satisfaction with the technique on a 100-mm visual analog scale. The patients were contacted at 24 hours for follow-up information.

RESULTS

Twenty patients (aged 19-62 years) received propofol infusion for procedures that included ten abscess incision and drainages, eight orthopedic reductions, one chest tube placement, and one wound exploration. The mean (+/- SD) total dose of propofol was 200 +/- 160 mg. The mean time to onset of sedation was 6.6 +/- 3.2 min, the mean procedure interval was 9.6 +/- 6.3 min, and the mean interval until recovery was 6.1 +/- 4.1 min. The median patient satisfaction score was 97 mm (range 40-100 mm); the median rating by physicians was 88 mm (range 4-100 mm). Side effects were noted in six patients: three had pain on injection, one had pain on injection and brief (< 1 min) hypotension (systolic blood pressure = 80 mm Hg), and two had apnea (< 30 sec). Seven patients had some recall of the procedure immediately afterwards, but only five had any recall at 24 hours. All 20 patients stated they would be willing to receive the same sedation again for a future procedure.

CONCLUSION

Propofol appears to be an effective agent to provide systemic sedation and analgesia when used in conjunction with fentanyl for procedures in the ED. Given its rapidity of onset and elimination, it may become a useful agent to EPs for i.v. sedation in the ED.