Division of Emergency Medicine, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.
Ann Emerg Med. 2011 May;57(5):425-33.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2010.08.032. Epub 2010 Oct 13.
The primary objective is to compare total sedation time when ketamine/propofol is used compared with ketamine alone for pediatric procedural sedation and analgesia. Secondary objectives include time to recovery, adverse events, efficacy, and satisfaction scores.
Children (aged 2 to 17 years) requiring procedural sedation and analgesia for management of an isolated orthopedic extremity injury were randomized to receive either ketamine/propofol or ketamine. Physicians, nurses, research assistants, and patients were blinded. Ketamine/propofol patients received an initial intravenous bolus dose of ketamine 0.5 mg/kg and propofol 0.5 mg/kg, followed by propofol 0.5 mg/kg and saline solution placebo every 2 minutes, titrated to deep sedation. Ketamine patients received an initial intravenous bolus dose of ketamine 1.0 mg/kg and Intralipid placebo, followed by ketamine 0.25 mg/kg and Intralipid placebo every 2 minutes, as required.
One hundred thirty-six patients (67 ketamine/propofol, 69 ketamine) completed the trial. Median total sedation time was shorter (P=0.04) with ketamine/propofol (13 minutes) than with ketamine (16 minutes) alone (Δ -3 minutes; 95% confidence interval [CI] -5 to -2 minutes). Median recovery time was faster with ketamine/propofol (10 minutes) than with ketamine (12 minutes) alone (Δ -2 minutes; 95% CI -4 to -1 minute). There was less vomiting in the ketamine/propofol (2%) group compared with the ketamine (12%) group (Δ -10%; 95% CI -18% to -2%). All satisfaction scores were higher (P<0.05) with ketamine/propofol.
When compared with ketamine alone for pediatric orthopedic reductions, the combination of ketamine and propofol produced slightly faster recoveries while also demonstrating less vomiting, higher satisfaction scores, and similar efficacy and airway complications.
主要目的是比较氯胺酮/丙泊酚与单独使用氯胺酮用于儿科程序镇静和镇痛时的总镇静时间。次要目标包括恢复时间、不良事件、疗效和满意度评分。
需要进行程序镇静和镇痛以治疗孤立的四肢骨科损伤的儿童(年龄 2 至 17 岁)被随机分配接受氯胺酮/丙泊酚或氯胺酮。医生、护士、研究助理和患者均被蒙蔽。氯胺酮/丙泊酚组患者给予初始静脉推注氯胺酮 0.5mg/kg 和丙泊酚 0.5mg/kg,随后每 2 分钟给予丙泊酚 0.5mg/kg 和生理盐水安慰剂,滴定至深度镇静。氯胺酮组患者给予初始静脉推注氯胺酮 1.0mg/kg 和 Intralipid 安慰剂,随后每 2 分钟给予氯胺酮 0.25mg/kg 和 Intralipid 安慰剂,按需给药。
136 名患者(67 名氯胺酮/丙泊酚,69 名氯胺酮)完成了试验。氯胺酮/丙泊酚(13 分钟)的总镇静时间比单独使用氯胺酮(16 分钟)更短(P=0.04)(Δ-3 分钟;95%置信区间[CI]-5 至-2 分钟)。氯胺酮/丙泊酚(10 分钟)的恢复时间比单独使用氯胺酮(12 分钟)更快(Δ-2 分钟;95%CI-4 至-1 分钟)。氯胺酮/丙泊酚组(2%)的呕吐发生率低于氯胺酮组(12%)(Δ-10%;95%CI-18%至-2%)。所有满意度评分均更高(P<0.05)氯胺酮/丙泊酚组。
与单独使用氯胺酮相比,氯胺酮和丙泊酚联合用于儿科骨科复位可使恢复更快,同时呕吐更少,满意度评分更高,疗效和气道并发症相似。