Is propofol a safe and effective sedative for relocating hip prostheses?

Comparing Propofol With Fentanyl and Midazolam for Sedation in Closed Reductions of Traumatic Hip Dislocations

Traumatic native hip dislocations require prompt reduction of the dislocation to limit the risk of avascular necrosis and resultant hip arthrosis. Although closed reduction under sedation is frequently attempted, there is minimal evidence about which sedative agent is most safe and effective. The goal of this study was to compare the efficacy of propofol vs combination fentanyl/midazolam for closed reduction under sedation of traumatic native hip dislocations. This was a single-center retrospective review. The main outcome measures were the rate of successful closed reduction with propofol vs combination fentanyl/midazolam and time from the start of sedation to radiographic evidence of reduction. Fifty-four patients with traumatic native hip dislocations were identified. Closed reduction under sedation with propofol was successful in 11 of 14 attempts compared with 4 of 11 attempts with combination fentanyl/midazolam (P=.04). The fentanyl/midazolam group had 6.4 times the odds (95% CI, 1.1-37.7) of failed closed reduction compared with the propofol group. The median time to reduction in the propofol group was 14 minutes vs 45 minutes for the fentanyl/midazolam group (P=.18). Patients who had failed closed reduction with fentanyl/midazolam had a median time to reduction of 100 minutes. There was no difference in sedation-related complications between the 2 groups. We therefore conclude that sedation with propofol is significantly more effective than combination fentanyl/midazolam for closed reduction of native hip dislocations. To minimize unsuccessful reduction attempts and shorten total time to reduction, we recommend against the use of combination fentanyl/midazolam because of the high risk of failure. [Orthopedics. 2023;46(2):86-92.].

Results of Reduction of Dislocated Prosthetic Hips in the Emergency Department

BACKGROUND

Dislocation of total hip arthroplasty (dTHA) is a commonly encountered complication in the emergency department (ED). Several studies have been conducted that describe the overall success rate after reduction in the ED, however, all were small in sample size.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to assess the success rate of reduction of dTHA by emergency physicians in the ED under procedural sedation (PSA).

METHODS

Patients who presented to the ED with a dislocated prosthetic hip were eligible for inclusion. We performed a retrospective cohort study assessing success rate. Secondary parameters included time to reduction, discharge rate from the ED, and complication rate.

RESULTS

There were 305 patients analyzed. Of these, 31 were excluded due to hemi-arthroplasty and 25 because they went primarily for reduction in the operating room. In total, 249 patients were included. Of 249 attempted reductions in the ED, 230 (92%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 89-96%) were successful. Seventy-one cases (28.5%, 95% CI 22.9-34.2%) were discharged from the ED after successful reduction. Six cases (2.4%, 95% CI 0.2-2.6%) experienced complications related to PSA and three cases (1.2%, 95% CI 0.5-4.3%) experienced complications related to reduction.

CONCLUSION

Reduction of a dTHA can be performed safely in the ED under PSA by emergency physicians with a high rate of success.

Effect of target-controlled propofol infusion to reduce the incidence of adverse events for procedural sedation in the emergency department: a systematic review

The administration of propofol target-controlled infusion (TCI) for procedural sedation is standard in a range of hospital settings except for the Emergency Department (ED). Propofol TCI could be an alternative, safer way to provide procedural sedation in the ED compared with other methods of propofol administration. We compare the incidence of adverse events using propofol TCI compared with other methods of propofol administration. We conducted a systematic review of the literature from 1946 to January 2019 identifying studies that compared propofol TCI with other propofol regimens for procedural sedation in the adult population. Studies were assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool. Seven articles were included. There was significant methodological heterogeneity in all aspects of study designs and definitions of adverse events which precluded a meta-analysis. A systematic review of the studies demonstrated fewer respiratory and cardiovascular adverse outcomes in three of the seven studies. It was not possible to determine if propofol TCI reduces the incidence of adverse events when compared with other sedating regimens using propofol using a descriptive systematic review of the relevant literature. Further research is required to compare the incidence of adverse events using propofol TCI for procedural sedation with other methods of administration in the ED. Future systematic reviews and meta-analysis comparisons would be aided by the use of standard adverse event reporting tools such as that of the Society of Intravenous Anaesthesia.

Propofol Target-Controlled Infusion in Emergency Department Sedation (ProTEDS): a multicentre, single-arm feasibility study

BACKGROUND

Procedural sedation is a core skill of the emergency physician. Bolus administration of propofol is widely used in UK EDs. Titrated to an end point of sedation, it has a rapid effect but has been associated with adverse incidents. The use of a target-controlled infusion (TCI) of propofol is not routine but may reduce the incidence of adverse incidents.The primary aims of this single-arm feasibility study were patient satisfaction and to establish recruitment rates for a randomised controlled trial comparing propofol TCI to bolus administration.

METHODS

Four EDs in Scotland, UK, participated. Patients aged 18-65 years, with anterior shoulder dislocation, weight ≥ 50kg, fasted ≥ 90 min were screened. Patients underwent reduction of their dislocated shoulder using TCI propofol. The primary end point was patient satisfaction recorded on a Visual Analogue Scale.

RESULTS

Between 3 April 2017 and 31 December 2018, 25 patients were recruited with a recruitment rate of 20% for the 16-month recruitment window, with a temporary pause to allow amendment of drug dosage.Two patients were excluded. Twenty achieved adequate sedation, defined as a Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Scale (OAA/S) 3. Successful reduction was achieved in all adequately sedated. Patient satisfaction was documented in 14 patients, mean±SD of 97±9 and time to sedation was 25±8 min. No adverse events were recorded using the Society of Intravenous Anaesthesia adverse event reporting tool.

CONCLUSION

Propofol TCI was acceptable as a method of procedural sedation for patients. The lower than expected recruitment rates highlight the need for dedicated research support.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03442803.

A study protocol for a feasibility study: Propofol Target-Controlled Infusion in Emergency Department Sedation (ProTEDS)-a multi-centre feasibility study protocol

Background

Procedural sedation is a core skill of the emergency physician. Bolus administration of propofol is widely utilised in UK emergency departments to provide procedural sedation. Bolus administration of propofol, titrated to an endpoint of sedation, has a rapid effect but can easily result in apnoea and loss of airway patency. The use of a target-controlled infusion of propofol allows for controlled titration to an effect site concentration and may reduce the rate of adverse incidents. Target-controlled infusion of propofol is not currently used in emergency departments.The primary aim of this feasibility study is to ensure that propofol target-controlled infusion (TCI) is acceptable to the patient and that recruitment rates are adequate to power a randomised controlled trial comparing propofol target-controlled infusion versus bolus administration.

Methods

This study will recruit in four emergency departments in Scotland, UK. Patients aged 18-65 years with anterior shoulder dislocation, weighing ≥ 50 kg and fasted ≥ 90 min, will be screened. Recruited patients will undergo emergency reduction of a dislocated shoulder facilitated by procedural sedation utilising TCI of propofol.The widespread adoption of TCI propofol by emergency departments will require evidence that it is safe, potentially effective, patient centred and a timely method of providing procedural sedation. The primary endpoint will be acceptability measured by patient satisfaction. The secondary endpoints will include incidence and severity of adverse events, number of shoulder reduction attempts, nursing opinion of patient experience, patient's reported pain score and time from commencement of TCI propofol sedation to desired sedation level.The study will be open for recruitment from April 2017 to December 2018.

Discussion

If the study demonstrates patient acceptability with adequate recruitment, we will be in a position to determine the feasibility of progression to a randomised controlled clinical trial of TCI compared to bolus administration of propofol.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03442803. Registered retrospectively on 22 February 2018.

Procedural sedation of elderly patients by emergency physicians: a safety analysis of 740 patients

BACKGROUND

The elderly are perceived as a high-risk group for procedural sedation. Concern exists regarding the safety of sedation of this patient group by emergency physicians, particularly when using propofol.

METHODS

We analysed prospectively collected data on patients aged 75 yr or older undergoing sedation between October 2006 and March 2017 in the emergency department of a single centre. We used the World Society of Intravenous Anaesthesia International Sedation Task Force adverse event tool, stratifying identified adverse events according to consensus agreement.

RESULTS

Of 740 consecutive patients (median age 84 yr), 571 patients received propofol, 142 morphine and midazolam, and 27 other agents. We identified 19 sentinel events: 2 cases of hypoxia, 10 of apnoea (without hypoxaemia), 5 of hypotension, and 2 of both hypoxaemia and hypotension. We also identified 30 moderate, 41 minor, and 7 minimal risk adverse events. There were no adverse outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed safe sedation practice in this high-risk group of patients in this department. A sentinel adverse event rate of 2.6% including a hypoxaemia rate of 0.5%, with no adverse outcomes sets a benchmark for elderly sedation. We recommend quality pre-oxygenation, an initial propofol bolus of no more than 0.5 mg kg^-1, and a robust training and governance framework.

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

OBJECTIVES

This was a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the incidence of adverse events in adults undergoing procedural sedation in the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

Eight 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).

RESULTS

The 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.

CONCLUSIONS

Serious 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.

Comparison of procedural sedation for the reduction of dislocated total hip arthroplasty

Introduction: Various types of sedation can be used for the reduction of a dislocated total hip arthroplasty. Traditionally, an opiate/benzodiazepine combination has been employed. The use of other pharmacologic agents, such as etomidate and propofol, have more recently gained popularity. Currently no studies directly comparing these sedation agents have been carried out. The purpose of this study is to compare differences in reduction and sedation outcomes, including recovery times, of these 3 sedation agents.

Methods: We performed a retrospective chart review examining 198 patients who presented with dislocated total hip arthroplasty at 2 academic affiliated medical centers. The patients were grouped according to the type of sedation agent. We calculated percentages of reduction and sedation complications along with recovery times. Reduction complications included fracture, skin or neurovascular injury, and failure of reduction requiring general anesthesia. Sedation complications included use of bag-valve mask and artificial airway, intubation, prolonged recovery, use of a reversal agent, and inability to achieve sedation. We then compared the data for each sedation agent.

Results: We found reduction complications rates of 8.7% in the propofol, 24.7% in the etomidate, and 28.9% in the opiate/benzodiazepine groups. The propofol group was significantly different from the other 2agents (p ≤ 0.01). Sedation complications were found 7.3% of the time in the propofol , 11.7% in the etomidate , and 21.3% in the opiate/benzodiazepine group, (p=0.02 propofol vs. others) . Average recovery times were 25.2 minutes for propofol, 30.8 minutes for etomidate, and 44.4 minutes for opiate/benzodiazepine (p = 0.05 for propofol vs. other agents).

Conclusion: For reduction of dislocated total hip arthroplasty under procedural sedation, propofol appears to have fewer complications and a trend toward more rapid recovery than both etomidate and opiate/benzodiazepine. These data support the use of propofol as first line agent for procedural sedation of dislocated total hip arthroplasty, with fewer complications and a shorter recovery period.

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.

Sedation-assisted Orthopedic Reduction in Emergency Medicine: The Safety and Success of a One Physician/One Nurse Model

Introduction

Much of the emergency medical research on sedation-assisted orthopedic reductions has been undertaken with two physicians––one dedicated to the sedation and one to the procedure. Clinical practice in community emergency departments (EDs), however, often involves only one physician, who both performs the procedure and simultaneously oversees the crendentialed registered nurse who administers the sedation medication and monitors the patient. Although the dual-physician model is advocated by some, evidence in support of its superiority is lacking.

Methods:

In this electronic health records review we describe sedation-assisted closed reductions of major joints and forearm fractures in three suburban community EDs. The type of procedure and sedation medication, need for specialty assistance, success rates, and intervention-requiring adverse events are reported.

Results:

During the 18-month study period, procedural sedation was performed 457 times on 442 patients undergoing closed reduction for shoulder dislocations (n = 111), elbow dislocations (n = 29), hip dislocations (n = 101), and forearm fractures (n = 201). In the vast majority of this cohort (98.4% [435/442]), a single emergency physician simultaneously managed both the procedural sedation and the initial orthopedic reduction without the assistance of a second physician. The reduction was successful or satisfactory in 96.6% (425/435; 95% confidence interval [CI], 95.8–98.8%) of these cases, with a low incidence of intervention-requiring adverse events (2.8% [12/435]; 95% CI, 1.5–4.8%).

Conclusion:

Sedation-assisted closed reduction of major joint dislocations and forearm fractures can be performed effectively and safely in the ED using a one physician/one nurse model. A policy that requires a separate physician (or nurse anesthetist) to administer medications for all sedation-assisted ED procedures appears unwarranted. Further research is needed to determine which specific clinical scenarios might benefit from a dual-physician approach.

Association between ASA grade and complication rate in patients receiving procedural sedation for relocation of dislocated hip prostheses in a UK emergency department

OBJECTIVE

To determine the association between the American Society of Anesthiologists (ASA) grade and the complication rate of patients receiving procedural sedation for relocation of hip prosthesis in an adult emergency department (ED) in the UK.

DESIGN

Retrospective study of registry data from a large UK teaching hospital ED. Consecutive adult patients (aged 16 years and over) in whom ASA grade could be calculated, with an isolated dislocation of a hip prosthesis between 8 September 2006 and 16 April 2010 were included for analyses (n=303). The primary outcome measure was association between ASA and complication rate (any of desaturation <90%; apnoea; vomiting; aspiration; hypotension <90 mm Hg; cardiac arrest). Secondary outcome measures were relationship between ASA grade and procedural success, choice of sedative agent and sedation depth, and complications and choice of sedative agent, arrival time and sedation depth.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between ASA grade and the risk of complication (p=0.800). Moreover, there was no significant difference between ASA grade and procedural success (p=0.284), ASA and choice of sedative agent (p=0.243), or ASA and sedation depth (p=0.48). There was no association between complications and sedative agent (p=0.18), or complications and arrival time (p=0.12). There was a significant difference between sedative depth and complications (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

There is no clear association between a patient's physical status (ASA grade) and the risk of complications, chance of procedural success or choice of sedative agent in relocation of hip prostheses. There is a higher rate of complications with higher levels of sedation (p<0.001).

Factors associated with failure to successfully complete a procedure during emergency department sedation

OBJECTIVE

To determine factors associated with failure to successfully complete a procedure during sedation in the ED.

METHODS

Eleven Australian EDs enrolled consecutive adult and paediatric patients between January 2006 and December 2008. Patients were included if a sedative drug was administered for an ED procedure and the success or failure of the procedure was recorded.

RESULTS

Data were available for 2567 patients. Of these, 1548 (60.3%, 95% CI 58.4-62.2) were male and 456 (17.8%, 95% CI 16.3-19.3) were age <16 years. The most common procedures performed were reduction of major joints and laceration repair. A total of 149 procedures (5.8%, 95% CI 5.0-6.8) failed. There were significant differences in failure rates between the types of procedure undertaken, with reduction of hips, digits and mandibles associated with the highest failure rates (P < 0.001). In adults, body weight >100 kg was also associated with increased risk of procedural failure (odds ratio 2.3, 95% CI 1.3-4.1). Ketamine used as a single agent had the lowest procedural failure rate (2.5%, 95% CI 1.1-5.4) whereas propofol had the highest (5.9%, 95% CI 4.6-7.6). However, these two drugs were generally used in different age groups and for different procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Procedures performed under sedation in the ED have a low failure rate. However, increased body weight and specific procedures, such as hip reduction, are associated with significantly higher failure rates. Special consideration should be given to these patient groups before undertaking sedation in the ED.

Propofol versus propofol/ketamine for brief painful procedures in the emergency department: clinical and bispectral index scale comparison

The ideal procedural sedation drug for emergency department (ED) use would be easily titrated, rapid in onset, brief in duration, and provide sedation and analgesia without respiratory or hemodynamic compromise. Although many agents have been tried, no single drug fits this profile. The authors evaluated the comparative effectiveness and safety of propofol versus propofol/ketamine combination for procedural sedation using bispectral index monitoring for measuring depth of sedation. A prospective, randomized case series of patients undergoing procedural sedation for fracture manipulation was studied in a Level 1 trauma center emergency department. Patients were randomized to a propofol (P) group with a target dose of 0.5 to 1.5 mg/kg or a propofol/ketamine (P/K) group with a target dose of both ketamine and propofol of 0.75 mg/kg. Procedural success, bispectral index (BIS) score, adverse effects, recovery time, and vital signs were measured. Twenty-eight patients were enrolled. The P/K group experienced a smaller decline in systolic blood pressure (1.6% versus 12.5%) and BIS score at goal sedation (77 versus 61), a smaller difference between baseline and goal sedation BIS score (18.78 ± 10 versus 34.64 ± 11) and a lower mean propofol dose (92.5 ± 58 versus 177.27 ± 11 mg). No patient in either group experienced respiratory depression or required any intervention. The combination of propofol and ketamine provides an attractive combination for procedural sedation in the emergency department. Compared to propofol alone, "ketofol" results in less hypotension, better sedation, and enhanced patient comfort and safety.