Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39102153›Full record

SynthesisInternal and emergency medicine2024

Safety of procedural sedation in emergency department settings among the adult population: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Muhammad Taha Khan, Ayesha Rahman Khan, Samia Rohail, Fatima Ali Raza, Shahzaib Ahmed, Amna Siddiqui, Jai Kumar, Abdul Qahar Khan Yasinzai, Amir Humza Sohail, Aman Goyal

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Internal and emergency medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
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

10 authors.

Muhammad Taha KhanDepartment of Internal Medicine, Karachi Medical and Dental College, Karachi, Pakistan.ORCID 0000-0003-2490-0305
Ayesha Rahman KhanDepartment of Internal Medicine, Karachi Medical and Dental College, Karachi, Pakistan.ORCID 0009-0001-0813-7453
Samia RohailDepartment of Internal Medicine, Karachi Medical and Dental College, Karachi, Pakistan.ORCID 0000-0003-1488-0080
Fatima Ali RazaDepartment of Internal Medicine, Karachi Medical and Dental College, Karachi, Pakistan.ORCID 0000-0001-6889-2197
Shahzaib AhmedDepartment of Internal Medicine, Fatima Memorial Hospital College of Medicine and Dentistry, Lahore, Pakistan.ORCID 0000-0001-9374-927X
Amna SiddiquiDepartment of Internal Medicine, Karachi Medical and Dental College, Karachi, Pakistan.ORCID 0000-0001-9372-0362
Jai KumarDepartment of Internal Medicine, Karachi Medical and Dental College, Karachi, Pakistan.
Abdul Qahar Khan YasinzaiDepartment of Internal Medicine, Bolan Medical College, Quetta, Pakistan.
Amir Humza SohailDepartment of Surgery, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA.
Aman GoyalDepartment of Internal Medicine, Seth GS Medical College and KEM Hospital, Mumbai, India, 400012. amanmgy@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0001-8062-5657

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) are a common practice in emergency departments (EDs), aiming to alleviate pain, anxiety, and discomfort during various medical procedures. We have undertaken a systematic review and meta-analysis with the aim of assessing the incidence of adverse events associated with PSA, including those related to individual drugs and various drug combinations. The study adhered to PRISMA guidelines for a systematic review and meta-analysis of adverse events in ED sedation. A comprehensive search strategy was employed across ten databases, supplemented by searches on clinicaltrials.gov and manual reviews of reference lists. Data extraction focused on medication administration and adverse events. The study considered four types of adverse events: cardiac, respiratory, gastrointestinal, and neurological. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on PSA administered to adult patients within the ED setting were included. The statistical analysis employed OpenMeta Analyst to conduct a one-arm meta-analysis, with findings presented alongside their corresponding 95% Confidence Intervals. Forest plots were constructed to combine and evaluate results, and sensitivity analyses were performed to identify sources of heterogeneity. From a literature search of 4246 records, 32 RCTs were deemed suitable for this meta-analysis. The analysis included 6377 procedural sedations. The most common adverse event was hypoxia, with an incidence rate of 78.5 per 1000 sedations (95% CI = 77.5-133.5). This was followed by apnea and hypotension, with incidence rates of 31 (95% CI = 19.5-41.8) and 28.1 (95% CI = 17.4-38.9) per 1,000 sedations, respectively. Agitation and vomiting each occurred in 15.6 per 1,000 sedations (95% CI = 8.7-22.6). Severe adverse events were rare, with bradycardia observed in 16.7 per 1,000 sedations, laryngospasm in 2.9 per 1,000 sedations (95% CI =  - 0.1 to 6), intubation in 10.8 per 1,000 sedations (95% CI = 4-17), and aspiration in 2.7 per 1,000 sedations (95% CI =  - 0.3 to 5.7). Ketamine is found to be the safest option in terms of respiratory adverse events, with the lowest rates of apnea and hypoxia, making it the least respiratory depressant among the evaluated drugs. Etomidate has the least occurrence of hypotension when used alone. Propofol has the highest incidence of hypotension when used alone and ranks second in hypoxia-related adverse events after midazolam. Using combinations of sedating agents, such as propofol and ketamine, has been found to offer several advantages over single drugs, especially in reducing adverse events like vomiting, intubation difficulty, hypotension, bradycardia, and laryngospasm. The combination significantly reduces the incidence of hypotension compared to using propofol or ketamine individually. Despite the regular use of procedural sedation, it can sometimes lead to serious adverse events. Respiratory issues like apnea and hypoxia, while not common, do occur more often than cardiovascular problems such as hypotension. However, the least frequent respiratory complications, which can also pose a threat to life, include laryngospasm, aspiration, and intubation. These incidents are extremely rare.

Indexed as

Emergency Service, HospitalAdultHumansHypnotics and SedativesProcedural SedationRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicHypnotics and SedativesAdult populationAdverse eventsEmergency departmentPatient safetyProcedural sedationSedation complicationsSedation guidelinesSedation medicationsSedation monitoringSedation outcomesSedation protocol

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.