Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33298604›Full record

ArticleEmergency medicine journal : EMJ2021

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

Fiona Marie Burton, David John Lowe, Jonathan Millar, Alasdair R Corfield, Malcolm J Watson, Malcolm A B Sim

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Emergency medicine journal : EMJ, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03442803 (Propofol Target-controlled Infusion Versus Usual Care for the Sedation of Adult Patients With Acute Shoulder Dislocation in the Emergency Department), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT03442803 naunknown statusnot on this map

Propofol Target-controlled Infusion Versus Usual Care for the Sedation of Adult Patients With Acute Shoulder Dislocation in the Emergency Department

TypeinterventionalSponsorNHS Greater Glasgow and ClydeRan2017 to 2018Enrolled20ConditionsShoulder DislocationArmsTarget-Controlled Infusion
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Fiona Marie BurtonEmergency Department, Hairmyres Hospital, East Kilbride, South Lanarkshire, UK fiona.burton@glasgow.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7891-2884
David John LoweEmergency Department, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4866-2049
Jonathan MillarDepartment of Anaesthesia and Critical Care, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, UK.
Alasdair R CorfieldEmergency Department, Royal Alexandra Hospital, Paisley, Renfrewshire, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0878-7867
Malcolm J WatsonDepartment of Anaesthesia and Critical Care, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, UK.
Malcolm A B SimGlasgow University Section of Anaesthesia, Pain and Critical Care, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProcedural 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.

methodsFour 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.

resultsBetween 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.

conclusionPropofol 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.

Indexed as

Emergency Service, HospitalPatient SatisfactionAdolescentAdultAgedFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansHypnotics and SedativesInfusions, IntravenousMaleMiddle AgedPain MeasurementPropofolHypnotics and SedativesPropofolairwayanalgesia/pain controlemergency department managementfractures and dislocationssafety

Identifiers

PMID33298604
PMCPMC7907579

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.