Procedural sedation in the emergency department by Italian emergency physicians: results of the SEED SIMEU registry.

IF 3.1 4区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Davide Lison, Bartolomeo Lorenzati, Elisabetta Segre, Emanuele Bernardi, Peiman Nazerian, Adriana Gianni, Alice Bruno, Federico Baldassa, Maria Tizzani, Valerio T Stefanone, Matteo Borselli, Luca Dutto, Maria Grazia Veglio, Andrea Landi, Flavia Soardo, Gian A Cibinel
{"title":"Procedural sedation in the emergency department by Italian emergency physicians: results of the SEED SIMEU registry.","authors":"Davide Lison, Bartolomeo Lorenzati, Elisabetta Segre, Emanuele Bernardi, Peiman Nazerian, Adriana Gianni, Alice Bruno, Federico Baldassa, Maria Tizzani, Valerio T Stefanone, Matteo Borselli, Luca Dutto, Maria Grazia Veglio, Andrea Landi, Flavia Soardo, Gian A Cibinel","doi":"10.1097/MEJ.0000000000001210","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and importance: </strong>Effective and safe procedural sedation is pivotal for the quality of care in the emergency department (ED).</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Design/setting and participants/intervention: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Outcome measures and analysis: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Main results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":11893,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MEJ.0000000000001210","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and importance: Effective and safe procedural sedation is pivotal for the quality of care in the emergency department (ED).

Objectives: 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.

Outcome measures and analysis: 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.

Main results: 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.

Conclusion: 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.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
27.30%
发文量
180
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Emergency Medicine is the official journal of the European Society for Emergency Medicine. It is devoted to serving the European emergency medicine community and to promoting European standards of training, diagnosis and care in this rapidly growing field. Published bimonthly, the Journal offers original papers on all aspects of acute injury and sudden illness, including: emergency medicine, anaesthesiology, cardiology, disaster medicine, intensive care, internal medicine, orthopaedics, paediatrics, toxicology and trauma care. It addresses issues on the organization of emergency services in hospitals and in the community and examines postgraduate training from European and global perspectives. The Journal also publishes papers focusing on the different models of emergency healthcare delivery in Europe and beyond. With a multidisciplinary approach, the European Journal of Emergency Medicine publishes scientific research, topical reviews, news of meetings and events of interest to the emergency medicine community. Submitted articles undergo a preliminary review by the editor. Some articles may be returned to authors without further consideration. Those being considered for publication will undergo further assessment and peer-review by the editors and those invited to do so from a reviewer pool. ​
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信