Lawrence L M, Wright S W
Department of Emergency Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN 27232, USA.
Pediatr Emerg Care. 1998 Dec;14(6):393-5. doi: 10.1097/00006565-199812000-00003.
Sedating children can facilitate minor laceration repair by minimizing physical and psychic discomfort. However, some clinicians are reluctant to use sedation, in part because of concern about increased patient charges and fear that the emergency department (ED) stay will be prolonged. The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to which sedative use during the repair of simple facial lacerations in children increased the length of ED stay and patient charges.
This was a retrospective cohort study of 152 children with small, simple, facial lacerations. Patients with complex lacerations and those requiring specialty consultation were excluded. Patients, at the discretion of the treating physician, received either intramuscular ketamine (n = 14), intranasal or rectal midazolam (n = 38), or no sedation (n = 100). Length of ED stay and the total patient charges were analyzed.
Groups were equal with respect to age, sex, and length of the wound. The mean patient time in the ED, from placement in examination room to discharge, was significantly longer for those given ketamine (149+/-37 minutes) and midazolam (98+/-31 minutes) compared with those given no sedation (82+/-28 minutes). Patient charges were also higher in those given ketamine ($695+/-172) or midazolam ($498+/-153) compared with those receiving no sedation ($390+/-86).
The results of this study demonstrate that sedation with ketamine or midazolam increases the length of ED stay compared with using no sedation. However, the increased lengths of stay were modest, particularly for midazolam. Fear of prolonged recovery time should not dissuade clinicians from using either sedative for minor procedures. The patient charges are considerably higher with both midazolam and ketamine, but they may not reflect the actual cost of patient care.
使儿童镇静可通过将身体和精神上的不适降至最低来促进小伤口的修复。然而,一些临床医生不愿使用镇静剂,部分原因是担心患者费用增加以及担心急诊室(ED)停留时间会延长。本研究的目的是确定在儿童简单面部伤口修复过程中使用镇静剂会在多大程度上增加急诊室停留时间和患者费用。
这是一项对152例患有小而简单的面部伤口的儿童进行的回顾性队列研究。复杂伤口患者和需要专科会诊的患者被排除在外。根据治疗医生的判断,患者接受肌肉注射氯胺酮(n = 14)、鼻内或直肠注射咪达唑仑(n = 38)或不进行镇静(n = 100)。分析了急诊室停留时间和患者总费用。
各组在年龄、性别和伤口长度方面相当。与未接受镇静的患者(82±28分钟)相比,接受氯胺酮(149±37分钟)和咪达唑仑(98±31分钟)的患者从进入检查室到出院在急诊室的平均停留时间明显更长。接受氯胺酮(695±172美元)或咪达唑仑(498±153美元)的患者的费用也高于未接受镇静的患者(390±86美元)。
本研究结果表明,与不使用镇静剂相比,使用氯胺酮或咪达唑仑镇静会增加急诊室停留时间。然而,停留时间的增加幅度不大,尤其是对于咪达唑仑。对恢复时间延长的担忧不应阻止临床医生在小手术中使用任何一种镇静剂。咪达唑仑和氯胺酮的患者费用都要高得多,但它们可能无法反映患者护理的实际成本。