院前使用氯胺酮与咪达唑仑镇静急性严重躁动患者

Charles Johndro, Sean Caffyn, Jasmine Chen, David Bailey, Michelle Burak, Emily Perriello, Daniel Youngstrom
{"title":"院前使用氯胺酮与咪达唑仑镇静急性严重躁动患者","authors":"Charles Johndro, Sean Caffyn, Jasmine Chen, David Bailey, Michelle Burak, Emily Perriello, Daniel Youngstrom","doi":"10.56068/rhlt6550","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: Acute severe agitation often requires pharmacologic sedation. While benzodiazepines and antipsychotics are traditional first-line medications for this purpose, recent evidence has shown that prehospital intramuscular (IM) administration of ketamine results in rapid, effective sedation. However, ketamine may be associated with adverse clinical events including a higher intubation rate. The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of IM ketamine versus IM midazolam as medications to achieve sedation in the prehospital setting.\nMethods: This is a retrospective cohort study of agitated patients with an initial Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) score of at least 3, who were sedated and transported by ambulance to Hartford Hospital. The primary endpoint was incidence of endotracheal intubation occurring during transportation and within one hour after arrival to the emergency department (ED). Secondary endpoints included the percentage of patients who achieved an improved RASS score post drug administration, the use of additional sedating agents and the need for airway and breathing support, and differences in adverse events.\nResults: 66 patients in the ketamine group and 68 patients in the midazolam group met inclusion criteria. While more patients in the midazolam group achieved target RASS score of -1, 0, or 1 post drug administration, patients in the ketamine group had a lower mean RASS score post drug administration. There was no difference in endotracheal intubation rates between the two groups (6.1% versus 2.9%, respectively; p = 0.383). However, upon arrival to the ED, more patients in the ketamine group required additional sedating agents as well as airway or respiratory support\nConclusion: Both ketamine and midazolam are relatively safe and efficacious in the prehospital environment. IM ketamine resulted in deeper sedation without increasing intubation rate. However, ED providers receiving patients treated with IM ketamine should prepare for additional sedating agents and airway interventions.","PeriodicalId":73465,"journal":{"name":"International journal of paramedicine","volume":"2 23","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prehospital Use of Ketamine Versus Midazolam for Sedation in Acute Severe Agitation\",\"authors\":\"Charles Johndro, Sean Caffyn, Jasmine Chen, David Bailey, Michelle Burak, Emily Perriello, Daniel Youngstrom\",\"doi\":\"10.56068/rhlt6550\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective: Acute severe agitation often requires pharmacologic sedation. While benzodiazepines and antipsychotics are traditional first-line medications for this purpose, recent evidence has shown that prehospital intramuscular (IM) administration of ketamine results in rapid, effective sedation. However, ketamine may be associated with adverse clinical events including a higher intubation rate. The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of IM ketamine versus IM midazolam as medications to achieve sedation in the prehospital setting.\\nMethods: This is a retrospective cohort study of agitated patients with an initial Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) score of at least 3, who were sedated and transported by ambulance to Hartford Hospital. The primary endpoint was incidence of endotracheal intubation occurring during transportation and within one hour after arrival to the emergency department (ED). Secondary endpoints included the percentage of patients who achieved an improved RASS score post drug administration, the use of additional sedating agents and the need for airway and breathing support, and differences in adverse events.\\nResults: 66 patients in the ketamine group and 68 patients in the midazolam group met inclusion criteria. While more patients in the midazolam group achieved target RASS score of -1, 0, or 1 post drug administration, patients in the ketamine group had a lower mean RASS score post drug administration. There was no difference in endotracheal intubation rates between the two groups (6.1% versus 2.9%, respectively; p = 0.383). However, upon arrival to the ED, more patients in the ketamine group required additional sedating agents as well as airway or respiratory support\\nConclusion: Both ketamine and midazolam are relatively safe and efficacious in the prehospital environment. IM ketamine resulted in deeper sedation without increasing intubation rate. However, ED providers receiving patients treated with IM ketamine should prepare for additional sedating agents and airway interventions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":73465,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International journal of paramedicine\",\"volume\":\"2 23\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International journal of paramedicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.56068/rhlt6550\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of paramedicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.56068/rhlt6550","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:急性严重躁动通常需要药物镇静。虽然苯二氮卓类药物和抗精神病药物是传统的一线镇静药物,但最近的证据显示,院前肌肉注射氯胺酮(IM)可以快速、有效地镇静。然而,氯胺酮可能与不良临床事件有关,包括较高的插管率。本研究旨在比较院前环境中使用氯胺酮和咪达唑仑作为镇静药物的有效性和安全性:这是一项回顾性队列研究,研究对象是初始里士满躁动镇静量表(RASS)评分至少为 3 分的躁动患者,这些患者被镇静后由救护车送往哈特福德医院。主要终点是在转运途中和到达急诊科(ED)后一小时内发生的气管插管发生率。次要终点包括用药后RASS评分提高的患者比例、额外镇静剂的使用、气道和呼吸支持的需求以及不良事件的差异:氯胺酮组和咪达唑仑组分别有66名和68名患者符合纳入标准。虽然咪达唑仑组更多患者在用药后达到-1、0或1分的目标RASS评分,但氯胺酮组患者在用药后的平均RASS评分较低。两组患者的气管插管率没有差异(分别为 6.1% 对 2.9%;P = 0.383)。结论:氯胺酮和咪达唑仑两种镇静剂都有镇静作用,但在到达急诊室后,氯胺酮组有更多患者需要额外的镇静剂以及气道或呼吸支持:结论:氯胺酮和咪达唑仑在院前环境中都相对安全有效。IM氯胺酮能产生更深层的镇静效果,但不会增加插管率。不过,急诊室医护人员在接诊使用 IM 氯胺酮治疗的患者时应准备好额外的镇静剂和气道干预措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Prehospital Use of Ketamine Versus Midazolam for Sedation in Acute Severe Agitation
Objective: Acute severe agitation often requires pharmacologic sedation. While benzodiazepines and antipsychotics are traditional first-line medications for this purpose, recent evidence has shown that prehospital intramuscular (IM) administration of ketamine results in rapid, effective sedation. However, ketamine may be associated with adverse clinical events including a higher intubation rate. The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of IM ketamine versus IM midazolam as medications to achieve sedation in the prehospital setting. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study of agitated patients with an initial Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) score of at least 3, who were sedated and transported by ambulance to Hartford Hospital. The primary endpoint was incidence of endotracheal intubation occurring during transportation and within one hour after arrival to the emergency department (ED). Secondary endpoints included the percentage of patients who achieved an improved RASS score post drug administration, the use of additional sedating agents and the need for airway and breathing support, and differences in adverse events. Results: 66 patients in the ketamine group and 68 patients in the midazolam group met inclusion criteria. While more patients in the midazolam group achieved target RASS score of -1, 0, or 1 post drug administration, patients in the ketamine group had a lower mean RASS score post drug administration. There was no difference in endotracheal intubation rates between the two groups (6.1% versus 2.9%, respectively; p = 0.383). However, upon arrival to the ED, more patients in the ketamine group required additional sedating agents as well as airway or respiratory support Conclusion: Both ketamine and midazolam are relatively safe and efficacious in the prehospital environment. IM ketamine resulted in deeper sedation without increasing intubation rate. However, ED providers receiving patients treated with IM ketamine should prepare for additional sedating agents and airway interventions.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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