STUDY OBJECTIVE: We determine whether a 1:1 mixture of ketamine and propofol (ketofol) for emergency department (ED) procedural sedation results in a 13% or more absolute reduction in adverse respiratory events compared with propofol alone. METHODS: Participants were randomized to receive either ketofol or propofol in a double-blind fashion. Inclusion criteria were aged 14 years or older and American Society of Anesthesiology class 1 to 3 status. The primary outcome was the number and proportion of patients experiencing an adverse respiratory event as defined by the Quebec Criteria. Secondary outcomes were sedation consistency, efficacy, and time; induction time; and adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 284 patients were enrolled, 142 per group. Forty-three (30%) patients experienced an adverse respiratory event in the ketofol group compared with 46 (32%) in the propofol group (difference 2%; 95% confidence interval -9% to 13%; P=.80). Three ketofol patients and 1 propofol patient received bag-valve-mask ventilation. Sixty-five (46%) patients receiving ketofol and 93 (65%) patients receiving propofol required repeated medication dosing or progressed to a Ramsay Sedation Score of 4 or less during their procedure (difference 19%; 95% confidence interval 8% to 31%; P=.001). Six patients receiving ketofol were treated for recovery agitation. Other secondary outcomes were similar between the groups. Patients and staff were highly satisfied with both agents. CONCLUSION: Ketofol for ED procedural sedation does not result in a reduced incidence of adverse respiratory events compared with propofol alone. Induction time, efficacy, and sedation time were similar; however, sedation depth appeared to be more consistent with ketofol.
RCT Entities:
STUDY OBJECTIVE: We determine whether a 1:1 mixture of ketamine and propofol (ketofol) for emergency department (ED) procedural sedation results in a 13% or more absolute reduction in adverse respiratory events compared with propofol alone. METHODS:Participants were randomized to receive either ketofol or propofol in a double-blind fashion. Inclusion criteria were aged 14 years or older and American Society of Anesthesiology class 1 to 3 status. The primary outcome was the number and proportion of patients experiencing an adverse respiratory event as defined by the Quebec Criteria. Secondary outcomes were sedation consistency, efficacy, and time; induction time; and adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 284 patients were enrolled, 142 per group. Forty-three (30%) patients experienced an adverse respiratory event in the ketofol group compared with 46 (32%) in the propofol group (difference 2%; 95% confidence interval -9% to 13%; P=.80). Three ketofolpatients and 1 propofolpatient received bag-valve-mask ventilation. Sixty-five (46%) patients receiving ketofol and 93 (65%) patients receiving propofol required repeated medication dosing or progressed to a Ramsay Sedation Score of 4 or less during their procedure (difference 19%; 95% confidence interval 8% to 31%; P=.001). Six patients receiving ketofol were treated for recovery agitation. Other secondary outcomes were similar between the groups. Patients and staff were highly satisfied with both agents. CONCLUSION:Ketofol for ED procedural sedation does not result in a reduced incidence of adverse respiratory events compared with propofol alone. Induction time, efficacy, and sedation time were similar; however, sedation depth appeared to be more consistent with ketofol.
Authors: Marija Stevic; Nina Ristic; Ivana Budic; Nebojsa Ladjevic; Branislav Trifunovic; Ivan Rakic; Marko Majstorovic; Ivana Burazor; Dusica Simic Journal: Lasers Med Sci Date: 2017-07-12 Impact factor: 3.161
Authors: Maala Bhatt; David W Johnson; Jason Chan; Monica Taljaard; Nick Barrowman; Ken J Farion; Samina Ali; Suzanne Beno; Andrew Dixon; C Michelle McTimoney; Alexander Sasha Dubrovsky; Nadia Sourial; Mark G Roback Journal: JAMA Pediatr Date: 2017-10-01 Impact factor: 16.193
Authors: Alfredo González-Gil; Rosa Ana Picazo; Paul de Bruyn; Juan Carlos Illera Journal: J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci Date: 2018-05-01 Impact factor: 1.232
Authors: Jocelyn R Grunwell; Curtis Travers; Anne G Stormorken; Patricia D Scherrer; Corrie E Chumpitazi; Jana A Stockwell; Mark G Roback; Joseph Cravero; Pradip P Kamat Journal: Pediatr Crit Care Med Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 3.624
Authors: Alessia Mastrodonato; Ina Pavlova; Noelle C Kee; Van Anh Pham; Josephine C McGowan; J John Mann; Christine A Denny Journal: Int J Neuropsychopharmacol Date: 2022-06-21 Impact factor: 5.678
Authors: Alice Gallo de Moraes; Carlos J Racedo Africano; Sumedh S Hoskote; Dereddi Raja S Reddy; Rudy Tedja; Lokendra Thakur; Jasleen K Pannu; Elizabeth C Hassebroek; Nathan J Smischney Journal: Am J Case Rep Date: 2015-02-13
Authors: M Fernanda Bellolio; Waqas I Gilani; Patricia Barrionuevo; M Hassan Murad; Patricia J Erwin; Joel R Anderson; James R Miner; Erik P Hess Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2016-01-22 Impact factor: 3.451