Comparison of the incidence of recovery agitation with two different doses of ketamine in procedural sedation: A randomized clinical trial.

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Academic Emergency Medicine Pub Date : 2025-08-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-29 DOI:10.1111/acem.15116
Çağrı Türkücü, İsmet Parlak, Kamil Kokulu, Ekrem T Sert, Hüseyin Mutlu
{"title":"Comparison of the incidence of recovery agitation with two different doses of ketamine in procedural sedation: A randomized clinical trial.","authors":"Çağrı Türkücü, İsmet Parlak, Kamil Kokulu, Ekrem T Sert, Hüseyin Mutlu","doi":"10.1111/acem.15116","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The objective was to compare the incidence of recovery agitation and efficacy of two different intravenous (IV) doses of ketamine (0.5 mg/kg vs. 1 mg/kg) in adult patients who presented to the emergency department (ED) requiring procedural sedation with ketamine.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This randomized, prospective clinical trial included patients aged 18-75 years who required procedural sedation with ketamine in the ED. Patients were randomized to receive IV ketamine at either 0.5 mg/kg (low dose) or 1 mg/kg (high dose). The primary outcome was the incidence of recovery agitation, assessed by the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) at 5, 15, and 30 min following the procedure, in both dosage groups. Secondary outcomes included overall efficacy, sedation duration, and changes in vital signs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 108 patients were enrolled in the study, 54 in each group. The median (IQR) RASS scores at 5, 15, and 30 min were -4 (-5 to -4), -1 (-1.3 to 0), and 0 (-1 to 0.5), respectively, in the low-dose group and -4 (-5 to -4), -1 (-3 to 0), and 0 (0 to 0), respectively, in the high-dose group. The incidence of recovery agitation was similar between the low- and high-dose groups (difference 1.9%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -14.8% to 18.4%). No significant difference was observed in sedation duration between the two groups (difference 0%, 95% CI -3.0% to 4.0%). While no additional ketamine was required in the high-dose group, four patients (7.4%) in the low-dose group required an additional half-dose (difference 7.4%, 95% CI -2.3% to 18.7%). Changes in vital signs were similar between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There was no significant difference in recovery agitation, sedation duration, and changes in vital signs between 0.5 and 1 mg/kg IV ketamine for procedural sedation in the ED.</p>","PeriodicalId":7105,"journal":{"name":"Academic Emergency Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"857-862"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12352472/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Academic Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.15116","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: The objective was to compare the incidence of recovery agitation and efficacy of two different intravenous (IV) doses of ketamine (0.5 mg/kg vs. 1 mg/kg) in adult patients who presented to the emergency department (ED) requiring procedural sedation with ketamine.

Methods: This randomized, prospective clinical trial included patients aged 18-75 years who required procedural sedation with ketamine in the ED. Patients were randomized to receive IV ketamine at either 0.5 mg/kg (low dose) or 1 mg/kg (high dose). The primary outcome was the incidence of recovery agitation, assessed by the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) at 5, 15, and 30 min following the procedure, in both dosage groups. Secondary outcomes included overall efficacy, sedation duration, and changes in vital signs.

Results: A total of 108 patients were enrolled in the study, 54 in each group. The median (IQR) RASS scores at 5, 15, and 30 min were -4 (-5 to -4), -1 (-1.3 to 0), and 0 (-1 to 0.5), respectively, in the low-dose group and -4 (-5 to -4), -1 (-3 to 0), and 0 (0 to 0), respectively, in the high-dose group. The incidence of recovery agitation was similar between the low- and high-dose groups (difference 1.9%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -14.8% to 18.4%). No significant difference was observed in sedation duration between the two groups (difference 0%, 95% CI -3.0% to 4.0%). While no additional ketamine was required in the high-dose group, four patients (7.4%) in the low-dose group required an additional half-dose (difference 7.4%, 95% CI -2.3% to 18.7%). Changes in vital signs were similar between the two groups.

Conclusions: There was no significant difference in recovery agitation, sedation duration, and changes in vital signs between 0.5 and 1 mg/kg IV ketamine for procedural sedation in the ED.

两种不同剂量氯胺酮在程序镇静中恢复躁动发生率的比较:一项随机临床试验。
目的:目的是比较两种不同静脉(IV)剂量氯胺酮(0.5 mg/kg vs. 1 mg/kg)在急诊科(ED)需要氯胺酮程序性镇静的成年患者中恢复躁动的发生率和疗效。方法:这项随机的前瞻性临床试验纳入了年龄在18-75岁之间,在急症治疗中需要氯胺酮镇静的患者。患者随机接受静脉注射氯胺酮0.5 mg/kg(低剂量)或1mg /kg(高剂量)。主要结果是恢复躁动的发生率,在手术后5、15和30分钟用Richmond躁动-镇静量表(RASS)评估。次要结局包括总体疗效、镇静持续时间和生命体征变化。结果:共有108例患者入组,每组54例。低剂量组5、15、30 min时RASS中位评分(IQR)分别为-4(-5 ~ -4)、-1(-1.3 ~ 0)、0(-1 ~ 0.5),高剂量组分别为-4(-5 ~ -4)、-1(-3 ~ 0)、0(0 ~ 0)。低剂量组和高剂量组恢复躁动的发生率相似(差异为1.9%,95%可信区间[CI] -14.8%至18.4%)。两组患者镇静时间无显著差异(差异0%,95% CI -3.0% ~ 4.0%)。虽然高剂量组不需要额外的氯胺酮,但低剂量组中有4名患者(7.4%)需要额外的半剂量(差异7.4%,95% CI -2.3%至18.7%)。两组患者的生命体征变化相似。结论:0.5 mg/kg氯胺酮与1 mg/kg氯胺酮程序性镇静在急症患者恢复躁动、镇静持续时间及生命体征变化方面无显著差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Academic Emergency Medicine
Academic Emergency Medicine 医学-急救医学
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
6.80%
发文量
207
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Academic Emergency Medicine (AEM) is the official monthly publication of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) and publishes information relevant to the practice, educational advancements, and investigation of emergency medicine. It is the second-largest peer-reviewed scientific journal in the specialty of emergency medicine. The goal of AEM is to advance the science, education, and clinical practice of emergency medicine, to serve as a voice for the academic emergency medicine community, and to promote SAEM''s goals and objectives. Members and non-members worldwide depend on this journal for translational medicine relevant to emergency medicine, as well as for clinical news, case studies and more. Each issue contains information relevant to the research, educational advancements, and practice in emergency medicine. Subject matter is diverse, including preclinical studies, clinical topics, health policy, and educational methods. The research of SAEM members contributes significantly to the scientific content and development of the journal.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信