Rahman Nik Hisamuddin Nik Ab, Hashim Ahmad
Int J Emerg Med. 2010 Mar 25;3(2):105-13. doi: 10.1007/s12245-010-0162-3.
This study examined the safety and effectiveness of the procedural sedation analgesia (PSA) technique carried out in the emergency department (ED) of a university hospital over a period of 1 year. The research was done to compare the effectiveness and efficacy of moderate sedation of fentanyl combined with either midazolam or propofol for any brief, intense procedure in the ED setting.
The objectives were to observe the occurrence of adverse events in subjects undergoing PSA for intense and painful procedures in the emergency department and to implement the use of capnography as a method of monitoring the patients when they were under PSA.
Forty patients were selected for this study. They were randomly divided into two equal groups using the computer-generated random permuted blocks of four patients. Twenty patients were grouped together as group A and the remaining 20 patients as group B. Drugs used were single blinded to prevent any bias. Drug A was propofol and fentanyl, while drug B was midazolam and fentanyl. The procedures involved included orthopedic manipulation such as reduction of fractures, reduction of dislocated joints, abscess drainage, wound debridement, laceration wound repair and cardioversion. All of the subjects were monitored for their vital signs and end tidal carbon dioxide level every 10 min till the PSA was completed. The duration of stay in the ED was documented when the subjects had completed the procedure and were released from the department.
Of the study population, 75.6% were males. The mean age was 37.8 years (95% CI 33.2, 39.8). None of the patients developed any major complications while under PSA. The vital signs pre-, intra- and post-procedure were not significantly different in either the propofol or mizadolam groups (p value >0.05).
This study had proven that there was no difference in adverse event occurrence between the studied drugs during PSA. Propofol can be recommended for use in PSA if the operator is well trained and familiar with the drug.
本研究调查了某大学医院急诊科在1年时间内实施的程序性镇静镇痛(PSA)技术的安全性和有效性。该研究旨在比较芬太尼联合咪达唑仑或丙泊酚进行中度镇静在急诊科任何简短、高强度操作中的有效性和功效。
目标是观察在急诊科接受PSA进行高强度和疼痛操作的受试者中不良事件的发生情况,并将二氧化碳监测仪作为一种监测患者PSA状态的方法加以应用。
本研究选取了40例患者。使用计算机生成的4例患者随机排列分组块将他们随机分为两组,每组20例。20例患者被归为A组,其余20例患者为B组。所用药物采用单盲法以防止任何偏差。药物A为丙泊酚和芬太尼,药物B为咪达唑仑和芬太尼。所涉及的操作包括骨科手法,如骨折复位、关节脱位复位、脓肿引流、伤口清创、撕裂伤修复和心脏复律。在PSA完成前,每隔10分钟对所有受试者的生命体征和呼气末二氧化碳水平进行监测。记录受试者完成操作并离开科室时在急诊科的停留时间。
在研究人群中,75.6%为男性。平均年龄为37.8岁(95%置信区间33.2, 39.8)。在PSA过程中,没有患者出现任何严重并发症。丙泊酚组和咪达唑仑组在操作前、操作中和操作后的生命体征没有显著差异(p值>0.05)。
本研究证明,在PSA过程中,所研究药物之间不良事件的发生没有差异。如果操作者训练有素且熟悉该药物,丙泊酚可推荐用于PSA。