Department of Emergency Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Am J Emerg Med. 2011 Jun;29(5):541-4. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2009.12.017. Epub 2010 Apr 24.
Emergency physicians routinely perform emergency department procedural sedation (EDPS), and its safety is well established. We are unaware of any published reports directly evaluating the safety of EDPS in older patients (≥65 years old). Many EDPS experts consider seniors to be at higher risk. The objective was to evaluate the complication rate of EDPS in elderly adults.
This was a prospective, observational study of EDPS patients at least 65 years old, as compared with patients aged 18 to 49 and 50 to 64 years. Physicians were blind to the objectives of this research. The study protocol required an ED nurse trained in data collection to be present to record vital signs and assess for any prospectively defined complications. We used American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification for systemic disease to evaluate and account for the comorbidities of patients. We used the Fisher exact test for the difference in proportions across age groups and analysis of variance for the differences in dosing across age and ASA categories.
During the 4-year study, we enrolled 50 patients at least 65 years old, 149 patients aged 50 to 64 years, and 665 patients aged 18 to 49 years. Adverse event rates were 8%, 5.4%, and 5.2%, respectively (P = .563). The at least 65 years age group represented a greater percentage of those with higher ASA scores (P < .001). The average total sedative dose in the at least 65 years group was significantly lower than the comparisons (P < .001).
This study demonstrated no statistically significant difference in complication rate for patients 65 years or older. There was a significant decrease in mean sedation dosing with increased age and ASA score.
急诊医师经常进行急诊镇静程序(EDPS),其安全性已得到充分证实。我们不知道有任何发表的报告直接评估老年患者(≥65 岁)的 EDPS 安全性。许多 EDPS 专家认为老年人的风险更高。目的是评估老年患者 EDPS 的并发症发生率。
这是一项前瞻性、观察性研究,比较了至少 65 岁的 EDPS 患者与 18 至 49 岁和 50 至 64 岁的患者。医师对本研究的目的一无所知。研究方案要求有接受过数据收集培训的急诊护士在场,以记录生命体征并评估任何前瞻性定义的并发症。我们使用美国麻醉医师协会(ASA)身体状况分类来评估和考虑患者的合并症。我们使用 Fisher 确切检验比较年龄组之间的比例差异,使用方差分析比较年龄和 ASA 类别之间的剂量差异。
在 4 年的研究期间,我们纳入了 50 名至少 65 岁的患者、149 名 50 至 64 岁的患者和 665 名 18 至 49 岁的患者。不良事件发生率分别为 8%、5.4%和 5.2%(P =.563)。至少 65 岁的年龄组中 ASA 评分较高的患者比例更高(P <.001)。至少 65 岁组的平均总镇静剂量明显低于其他两组(P <.001)。
本研究表明,≥65 岁的患者并发症发生率无统计学差异。随着年龄和 ASA 评分的增加,平均镇静剂量显著降低。