Procedural Sedation in the Emergency Department - An Observational Study: Does Nil Per Os Status Matter?

IF 1.8 3区 医学 Q2 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Brendan Peterson, Amy S Nowacki, Alexander Ulintz, Sharon E Mace
{"title":"Procedural Sedation in the Emergency Department - An Observational Study: Does Nil Per Os Status Matter?","authors":"Brendan Peterson, Amy S Nowacki, Alexander Ulintz, Sharon E Mace","doi":"10.5811/westjem.18561","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Procedural sedation (PS) is commonly performed in the emergency department (ED). Nil per os (nothing by mouth) (NPO) guidelines extrapolated from standards for patients undergoing elective procedures in the operating room have been applied to ED PS patients. There has been no large study of ED PS patients comparing differences in adverse events and PS success rates based on NPO status.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>From a cohort of consecutive ED PS patients of all ages in the 20 EDs of one hospital system-one quaternary ED, four tertiary EDs, six community hospital EDs, one rural ED, two pediatric EDs, and six freestanding EDs in two states in the Midwest and South-we conducted a retrospective analysis on a prospective database over 183 months from April 2000-June 2015. Primary outcome was the incidence of side effects and complications, which comprised the adverse effects. The side effects were nausea, vomiting, itching/rash, emergence reaction, myoclonus, paradoxical reaction, cough, and hiccups. Complications were oxygen desaturation <90%, respiratory depression (respiratory rate <8), apnea, tachypnea, hypotension, hypertension, bradycardia, and tachycardia. Normal vital signs were age dependent. Secondary outcome was successful sedation defined as completion of the procedure. We examined the association between adverse events and successful sedation with NPO status.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 3,274 visits, exact NPO status was known in 2,643 visits. Comparison of NPO <8 hours in 1,388 patients vs ≥ 8 hours in 1,255 patients revealed side effects 5.5% vs 4.5% (<i>P</i> = 0.28); complications 11.9% vs 17.7% (<i>P</i> < 0.001); adverse events 16.3% vs 21.5% (<i>P</i> < 0.001), interventions 4.1% vs 4.4% (<i>P</i> = 0.73), and procedural completions 94.3% vs 89.7% (<i>P</i> < 0.001). After adjustment for age, sex, transfer status, American Society of Anesthesiology physical status classification, race, primary sedative, multiple sedatives, sedative plus analgesic, and primary analgesic, we found no association between NPO status and side effects (<i>P</i> = 0.68), complications (<i>P</i> = 0.48), or adverse effects (<i>P</i> = 0.26); however, procedural completion rate remained significantly higher for NPO < 8 hours (<i>P</i> = 0.007).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A nil per os status ≥8 hours may have similar or worse outcomes than NPO <8 hours, which is contrary to many suggested guidelines. Strict adherence to NPO guidelines in ED procedural sedation patients may not be necessary.</p>","PeriodicalId":23682,"journal":{"name":"Western Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":"26 2","pages":"200-209"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11931707/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Western Journal of Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5811/westjem.18561","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Procedural sedation (PS) is commonly performed in the emergency department (ED). Nil per os (nothing by mouth) (NPO) guidelines extrapolated from standards for patients undergoing elective procedures in the operating room have been applied to ED PS patients. There has been no large study of ED PS patients comparing differences in adverse events and PS success rates based on NPO status.

Methods: From a cohort of consecutive ED PS patients of all ages in the 20 EDs of one hospital system-one quaternary ED, four tertiary EDs, six community hospital EDs, one rural ED, two pediatric EDs, and six freestanding EDs in two states in the Midwest and South-we conducted a retrospective analysis on a prospective database over 183 months from April 2000-June 2015. Primary outcome was the incidence of side effects and complications, which comprised the adverse effects. The side effects were nausea, vomiting, itching/rash, emergence reaction, myoclonus, paradoxical reaction, cough, and hiccups. Complications were oxygen desaturation <90%, respiratory depression (respiratory rate <8), apnea, tachypnea, hypotension, hypertension, bradycardia, and tachycardia. Normal vital signs were age dependent. Secondary outcome was successful sedation defined as completion of the procedure. We examined the association between adverse events and successful sedation with NPO status.

Results: Of 3,274 visits, exact NPO status was known in 2,643 visits. Comparison of NPO <8 hours in 1,388 patients vs ≥ 8 hours in 1,255 patients revealed side effects 5.5% vs 4.5% (P = 0.28); complications 11.9% vs 17.7% (P < 0.001); adverse events 16.3% vs 21.5% (P < 0.001), interventions 4.1% vs 4.4% (P = 0.73), and procedural completions 94.3% vs 89.7% (P < 0.001). After adjustment for age, sex, transfer status, American Society of Anesthesiology physical status classification, race, primary sedative, multiple sedatives, sedative plus analgesic, and primary analgesic, we found no association between NPO status and side effects (P = 0.68), complications (P = 0.48), or adverse effects (P = 0.26); however, procedural completion rate remained significantly higher for NPO < 8 hours (P = 0.007).

Conclusion: A nil per os status ≥8 hours may have similar or worse outcomes than NPO <8 hours, which is contrary to many suggested guidelines. Strict adherence to NPO guidelines in ED procedural sedation patients may not be necessary.

急诊科的程序性镇静——一项观察性研究:0 / o状态重要吗?
程序镇静(PS)通常在急诊科(ED)进行。从在手术室接受选择性手术的患者的标准中推断出的无口服(NPO)指南已应用于ED PS患者。目前还没有针对ED PS患者的大型研究,比较不良事件和基于NPO状态的PS成功率的差异。方法:从一个医院系统的20个急诊科(1个四级急诊科、4个三级急诊科、6个社区医院急诊科、1个农村急诊科、2个儿科急诊科和6个独立急诊科)的所有年龄的连续急诊科PS患者队列中,对2000年4月至2015年6月183个月的前瞻性数据库进行回顾性分析。主要结局为副反应和并发症的发生率,包括不良反应。副反应为恶心、呕吐、瘙痒/皮疹、涌现反应、肌阵挛、矛盾反应、咳嗽和打嗝。结果:在3274次就诊中,2643次确切的NPO状态是已知的。NPO比较P = 0.28);并发症11.9% vs 17.7% (P P = 0.73),手术完成率94.3% vs 89.7% (P P = 0.68),并发症(P = 0.48)或不良反应(P = 0.26);然而,NPO的手术完成率仍然显著高于NPO (P = 0.007)。结论:NPO≥8小时可能与NPO有相似或更差的结局
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
Western Journal of Emergency Medicine
Western Journal of Emergency Medicine Medicine-Emergency Medicine
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
3.20%
发文量
125
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: WestJEM focuses on how the systems and delivery of emergency care affects health, health disparities, and health outcomes in communities and populations worldwide, including the impact of social conditions on the composition of patients seeking care in emergency departments.
×
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