Hartling Lisa, Milne Andrea, Foisy Michelle, Lang Eddy S, Sinclair Douglas, Klassen Terry P, Evered Lisa
Alberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Acad Emerg Med. 2016 May;23(5):519-30. doi: 10.1111/acem.12938. Epub 2016 Apr 24.
Sedation is increasingly used to facilitate procedures on children in emergency departments (EDs). This overview of systematic reviews (SRs) examines the safety and efficacy of sedative agents commonly used for procedural sedation in children in the ED or similar settings.
We followed standard SR methods: comprehensive search; dual study selection, quality assessment, data extraction. We included SRs of children (1 month to 18 years) where the indication for sedation was procedure-related and performed in the ED.
Fourteen SRs were included (210 primary studies). The most data were available for propofol (six reviews/50,472 sedations) followed by ketamine (7/8,238), nitrous oxide (5/8,220), and midazolam (4/4,978). Inconsistent conclusions for propofol were reported across six reviews. Half concluded that propofol was sufficiently safe; three reviews noted a higher occurrence of adverse events, particularly respiratory depression (upper estimate 1.1%; 5.4% for hypotension requiring intervention). Efficacy of propofol was considered in four reviews and found adequate in three. Five reviews found ketamine to be efficacious and seven reviews showed it to be safe. All five reviews of nitrous oxide concluded it is safe (0.1% incidence of respiratory events); most found it effective in cooperative children. Four reviews of midazolam made varying recommendations. To be effective, midazolam should be combined with another agent that increases the risk of adverse events (upper estimate 9.1% for desaturation, 0.1% for hypotension requiring intervention).
This comprehensive examination of an extensive body of literature shows consistent safety and efficacy for nitrous oxide and ketamine, with very rare significant adverse events for propofol. There was considerable heterogeneity in outcomes and reporting across studies and previous reviews. Standardized outcome sets and reporting should be encouraged to facilitate evidence-based recommendations for care.
在急诊科(ED),镇静越来越多地用于辅助儿童进行操作。本系统评价概述探讨了在急诊科或类似环境中常用于儿童程序性镇静的镇静剂的安全性和有效性。
我们遵循标准的系统评价方法:全面检索;双人研究筛选、质量评估、数据提取。我们纳入了针对1个月至18岁儿童的系统评价,其中镇静指征与操作相关且在急诊科进行。
纳入了14项系统评价(210项原始研究)。有关丙泊酚的数据最多(六项评价/50472例镇静),其次是氯胺酮(7项评价/8238例)、氧化亚氮(5项评价/8220例)和咪达唑仑(4项评价/4978例)。六项评价对丙泊酚的结论不一致。一半的评价认为丙泊酚足够安全;三项评价指出不良事件发生率较高,尤其是呼吸抑制(上限估计为1.1%;因低血压需要干预的为5.4%)。四项评价考虑了丙泊酚的有效性,三项评价认为其有效。五项评价发现氯胺酮有效,七项评价表明其安全。所有五项关于氧化亚氮的评价均得出其安全的结论(呼吸事件发生率为0.1%);大多数评价发现其对合作儿童有效。四项关于咪达唑仑的评价提出了不同的建议。为了有效,咪达唑仑应与另一种增加不良事件风险的药物联合使用(脱饱和的上限估计为9.1%,因低血压需要干预的为0.1%)。
对大量文献的全面审查表明,氧化亚氮和氯胺酮具有一致的安全性和有效性,丙泊酚的严重不良事件非常罕见。各研究和既往评价的结果及报告存在相当大的异质性。应鼓励采用标准化的结局指标集和报告方式,以促进基于证据的护理建议。