Lison Davide, Lorenzati Bartolomeo, Segre Elisabetta, Bernardi Emanuele, Nazerian Peiman, Gianno Adriana, Bruno Alice, Baldassa Federico, Tizzani Maria, Stefanone Valerio T, Borselli Matteo, Dutto Luca, Veglio Maria Grazia, Landi Andrea, Soardo Flavia, Cibinel Gian A
Emergency Department, Azienda Sanitaria Locale Torino 3 (ASL TO3) Ospedale E. Agnelli, Pinerolo.
Emergency Department, Ospedale SS Annunziata, Savigliano.
Eur J Emerg Med. 2025 Jun 1;32(3):194-201. doi: 10.1097/MEJ.0000000000001210. Epub 2024 Dec 24.
Effective and safe procedural sedation is pivotal for the quality of care in the emergency department (ED).
The aim of this work is to evaluate the feasibility, effectiveness, and safety procedural sedation performed by emergency physicians in the ED setting in Italy.
DESIGN/SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS/INTERVENTION: Following a specific training of the staff and with the adoption of a standardized protocol, a registry of procedural sedations performed on adult patients in 10 Italian EDs was compiled from 2019 to 2022; the following basic data were recorded: demographic and clinical information, procedure's indication, administered drugs, predefined, and actual sedation level.
Effectiveness was evaluated considering three parameters: successful completion of the procedure, absence of procedural pain, and no memory of the procedure; adverse events were classified according to the World Society of Intravenous Anaesthesia criteria and evaluated taking into account clinical and procedural variables.
The study included 1349 patients (median age 68 years, male 64%). Sedation was performed for electrical cardioversion (66.3%), orthopedic procedures (23.2%), or other procedures (10.5%). Propofol (67%) and midazolam (24.2%) were the two most frequently used sedatives and 70.6% of the patients achieved a deep level of sedation.Procedural failure occurred in 4.6% of cases, with no significant differences between procedure types or drugs used. Recall of the procedure and procedural related pain were reported by 2.9% and 2.6% of patients, respectively, and were more frequently related to orthopedic procedures, midazolam use - if compared with propofol, and lower levels of sedation.A total of 135 adverse events were observed, with an overall incidence of 10%: 38 minimal adverse events (2.8%), 38 minor adverse events (2.8%), and 59 moderate adverse events (4.4%). There were no adverse events requiring unplanned hospital admission or escalation of care, and no sentinel adverse events were observed. All adverse events were resolved with simple and noninvasive treatments. The incidence of adverse events was greater with higher American Society of Anesthesiologists class, intermediate/difficult airway, and deeper sedation levels.
Procedural sedation performed in Italian EDs by emergency physicians, with propofol as main sedative, was effective and safe, and has comparable adverse event rates with previous international studies.
有效且安全的程序性镇静对于急诊科的医疗质量至关重要。
本研究旨在评估意大利急诊科急诊医生进行程序性镇静的可行性、有效性和安全性。
设计/地点与参与者/干预措施:在对工作人员进行特定培训并采用标准化方案后,收集了2019年至2022年期间意大利10家急诊科对成年患者进行程序性镇静的登记信息;记录了以下基本数据:人口统计学和临床信息、操作指征、使用的药物、预定义和实际的镇静水平。
从三个参数评估有效性:操作成功完成、无操作疼痛、对操作无记忆;不良事件根据世界静脉麻醉学会标准分类,并结合临床和操作变量进行评估。
该研究纳入1349例患者(中位年龄68岁,男性占64%)。进行镇静的操作包括电复律(66.3%)、骨科手术(23.2%)或其他操作(10.5%)。丙泊酚(67%)和咪达唑仑(24.2%)是最常用的两种镇静剂,70.6%的患者达到深度镇静。4.6%的病例出现操作失败,不同操作类型或使用的药物之间无显著差异。分别有2.9%和2.6%的患者报告对操作有记忆和操作相关疼痛,且这些情况在骨科手术、使用咪达唑仑(与丙泊酚相比)以及较低镇静水平时更常见。共观察到135例不良事件,总发生率为10%:38例轻微不良事件(2.8%)、38例轻度不良事件(2.8%)和59例中度不良事件(4.4%)。没有不良事件需要非计划住院或升级护理,也未观察到严重不良事件。所有不良事件均通过简单的非侵入性治疗得到解决。美国麻醉医师协会分级较高、气道为中/困难以及镇静水平较深时,不良事件的发生率更高。
意大利急诊科急诊医生以丙泊酚为主要镇静剂进行的程序性镇静是有效且安全的,不良事件发生率与以往国际研究相当。