ArticleDrugs - real world outcomes2019
Serious Cardiovascular Adverse Events Reported with Intravenous Sedatives: A Retrospective Analysis of the MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting System.
Article in Drugs - real world outcomes, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- A comparison of ciprofol-nalbuphine versus propofol-nalbuphine on safety and efficacy during gastrointestinal endoscopy: a randomized controlled trial.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Trial
- Risk factors for adverse reactions to nurse-administered propofol during outpatient endoscopy: a cross-sectional study.BMC anesthesiology · 2025Article
- Serious Cardiovascular Adverse Events Associated with Hydroxychloroquine/Chloroquine Alone or with Azithromycin in Patients with COVID-19: A Pharmacovigilance Analysis of the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS).Drugs - real world outcomes · 2022Article
- A survival after cardiac arrest during CT scan: The critical imaging findings.Radiology case reports · 2022Article
- Fatal Events Associated with Adverse Drug Reactions in the Korean National Pharmacovigilance Database.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021Article
- Comparative Safety Profiles of Sedatives Commonly Used in Clinical Practice: A 10-Year Nationwide Pharmacovigilance Study in Korea.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSerious cardiovascular adverse events (SCAEs) associated with intravenous sedatives remain poorly characterized.
objectiveThe objective of this study was to compare SCAE incidence, types, and mortality between intravenous benzodiazepines (i.e., diazepam, lorazepam, and midazolam), dexmedetomidine, and propofol in the USA over 8 years regardless of the clinical setting where it was administered.
methodsThe Food and Drug Administration's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting System was searched between 2004 and 2011 using the Evidex
resultsAmong the 2326 Food and Drug Administration's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting System cases reported, 394 (16.9%) were related to a SCAE. The presence of a SCAE (vs. a non-SCAE) is associated with higher mortality (34 vs. 8%, p < 0.001). The percentage of cases with one or more SCAE, the case mortality rate (%), and the incidence of each SCAE (per 10
conclusionsSerious cardiac adverse events account for nearly one-fifth of intravenous sedative Food and Drug Administration's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting System reports. These SCAEs appear to be associated with greater mortality than non-cardiac serious adverse events. Serious cardiac events may be more prevalent with either benzodiazepines or dexmedetomidine than propofol.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.