Department of Emergency Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Ann Emerg Med. 2012 Jun;59(6):504-12.e1-2. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2012.01.017. Epub 2012 Mar 7.
We determine whether a 1:1 mixture of ketamine and propofol (ketofol) for emergency department (ED) procedural sedation results in a 13% or more absolute reduction in adverse respiratory events compared with propofol alone.
Participants were randomized to receive either ketofol or propofol in a double-blind fashion. Inclusion criteria were aged 14 years or older and American Society of Anesthesiology class 1 to 3 status. The primary outcome was the number and proportion of patients experiencing an adverse respiratory event as defined by the Quebec Criteria. Secondary outcomes were sedation consistency, efficacy, and time; induction time; and adverse events.
A total of 284 patients were enrolled, 142 per group. Forty-three (30%) patients experienced an adverse respiratory event in the ketofol group compared with 46 (32%) in the propofol group (difference 2%; 95% confidence interval -9% to 13%; P=.80). Three ketofol patients and 1 propofol patient received bag-valve-mask ventilation. Sixty-five (46%) patients receiving ketofol and 93 (65%) patients receiving propofol required repeated medication dosing or progressed to a Ramsay Sedation Score of 4 or less during their procedure (difference 19%; 95% confidence interval 8% to 31%; P=.001). Six patients receiving ketofol were treated for recovery agitation. Other secondary outcomes were similar between the groups. Patients and staff were highly satisfied with both agents.
Ketofol for ED procedural sedation does not result in a reduced incidence of adverse respiratory events compared with propofol alone. Induction time, efficacy, and sedation time were similar; however, sedation depth appeared to be more consistent with ketofol.
我们旨在确定在急诊科(ED)进行程序镇静时,使用 1:1 比例的氯胺酮和丙泊酚(氯胺酮/丙泊酚合剂)与单独使用丙泊酚相比,是否能使不良呼吸事件的绝对发生率降低 13%或更多。
参与者以双盲方式随机接受氯胺酮/丙泊酚合剂或丙泊酚。纳入标准为年龄 14 岁或以上且美国麻醉医师协会(ASA)分级为 1 至 3 级。主要结局是根据魁北克标准定义的出现不良呼吸事件的患者数量和比例。次要结局是镇静一致性、疗效和时间、诱导时间以及不良事件。
共纳入 284 例患者,每组 142 例。氯胺酮/丙泊酚合剂组 43 例(30%)患者发生不良呼吸事件,丙泊酚组 46 例(32%)(差异 2%;95%置信区间 -9%至 13%;P=.80)。氯胺酮/丙泊酚合剂组有 3 例患者和丙泊酚组有 1 例患者需要进行球囊面罩通气。接受氯胺酮/丙泊酚合剂的 65 例(46%)患者和接受丙泊酚的 93 例(65%)患者在其治疗过程中需要重复给药或进展至 Ramsay 镇静评分 4 级或以下(差异 19%;95%置信区间 8%至 31%;P=.001)。接受氯胺酮/丙泊酚合剂的 6 例患者需要治疗苏醒期躁动。其他次要结局在两组之间相似。患者和医护人员对两种药物均高度满意。
与单独使用丙泊酚相比,氯胺酮/丙泊酚合剂用于 ED 程序镇静不会降低不良呼吸事件的发生率。诱导时间、疗效和镇静时间相似;然而,氯胺酮/丙泊酚合剂似乎能使镇静深度更一致。