Observational studyThe western journal of emergency medicine2025
Procedural Sedation in the Emergency Department - An Observational Study: Does Nil Per Os Status Matter?
Observational study in The western journal of emergency medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Procedural sedation (PS) is commonly performed in the emergency department (ED). Nil per os (nothing by mouth) (NPO) guidelines extrapolated from standards for patients undergoing elective procedures in the operating room have been applied to ED PS patients. There has been no large study of ED PS patients comparing differences in adverse events and PS success rates based on NPO status. Methods: From a cohort of consecutive ED PS patients of all ages in the 20 EDs of one hospital system-one quaternary ED, four tertiary EDs, six community hospital EDs, one rural ED, two pediatric EDs, and six freestanding EDs in two states in the Midwest and South-we conducted a retrospective analysis on a prospective database over 183 months from April 2000-June 2015. Primary outcome was the incidence of side effects and complications, which comprised the adverse effects. The side effects were nausea, vomiting, itching/rash, emergence reaction, myoclonus, paradoxical reaction, cough, and hiccups. Complications were oxygen desaturation <90%, respiratory depression (respiratory rate <8), apnea, tachypnea, hypotension, hypertension, bradycardia, and tachycardia. Normal vital signs were age dependent. Secondary outcome was successful sedation defined as completion of the procedure. We examined the association between adverse events and successful sedation with NPO status. Results: Of 3,274 visits, exact NPO status was known in 2,643 visits. Comparison of NPO <8 hours in 1,388 patients vs ≥ 8 hours in 1,255 patients revealed side effects 5.5% vs 4.5% ( Conclusion: A nil per os status ≥8 hours may have similar or worse outcomes than NPO <8 hours, which is contrary to many suggested guidelines. Strict adherence to NPO guidelines in ED procedural sedation patients may not be necessary.
Indexed as
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.