Evaluating the safety of procedural sedation in emergency department settings among the pediatric population: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

IF 2.4 CJEM Pub Date : 2024-11-10 DOI:10.1007/s43678-024-00809-x
Muhammad Taha Khan, Ammar Ishaq, Samia Rohail, Samia Aziz Sulaiman, Fatima Ali Raza, Haris Habib, Aman Goyal
{"title":"Evaluating the safety of procedural sedation in emergency department settings among the pediatric population: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.","authors":"Muhammad Taha Khan, Ammar Ishaq, Samia Rohail, Samia Aziz Sulaiman, Fatima Ali Raza, Haris Habib, Aman Goyal","doi":"10.1007/s43678-024-00809-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Our meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the safety of procedural sedation and analgesia in pediatric emergency department (ED) settings by investigating the incidence of cardiac, respiratory, gastrointestinal, and neurological adverse events associated with different sedation medications.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In accordance with PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive database search for randomized controlled trials was performed across ten databases from January 2005 to June 2024. Our inclusion criteria included randomized controlled trials involving children under 18 years old undergoing pediatric sedation and analgesia in the ED. Data on medication types, dosages, administration routes, and adverse events were extracted and analyzed. Primary endpoints included cardiac, respiratory, gastrointestinal, and neurological adverse events.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seventeen studies met the inclusion criteria, a total of 2,302 procedural sedations. The most common adverse events were vomiting, agitation, and hypoxia, which occurred in 104.9 [95% CI = 76.9-132.9], 37.5 [95% CI = 20.6-54.4], 38.3 [95% CI = 23.9-52.6] of each 1000 sedations, respectively. Other adverse events included apnea, hypotension, and the need for bag-valve mask ventilation, which occurred in 8.6 [95% CI: 3.5-13.6], 9.3 [95% CI: -1.4 to 20.1], and 13.5 [95% CI: 3.2-23.8] of each 1,000 sedations, respectively. Severe adverse events were rare, with no reported instances of intubation and only one case of laryngospasm. Subgroup analyses revealed varying incidence rates of adverse events across different sedation protocols, with ketamine and its combinations showing higher rates of specific respiratory complications.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Procedural sedation in pediatric EDs is generally safe, with a low incidence of adverse events, such as vomiting, agitation, and hypoxia. Life-threatening respiratory adverse events are extremely rare. Our findings thus support the careful selection and monitoring of sedation protocols to minimize risks.</p>","PeriodicalId":93937,"journal":{"name":"CJEM","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CJEM","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43678-024-00809-x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Our meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the safety of procedural sedation and analgesia in pediatric emergency department (ED) settings by investigating the incidence of cardiac, respiratory, gastrointestinal, and neurological adverse events associated with different sedation medications.

Methods: In accordance with PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive database search for randomized controlled trials was performed across ten databases from January 2005 to June 2024. Our inclusion criteria included randomized controlled trials involving children under 18 years old undergoing pediatric sedation and analgesia in the ED. Data on medication types, dosages, administration routes, and adverse events were extracted and analyzed. Primary endpoints included cardiac, respiratory, gastrointestinal, and neurological adverse events.

Results: Seventeen studies met the inclusion criteria, a total of 2,302 procedural sedations. The most common adverse events were vomiting, agitation, and hypoxia, which occurred in 104.9 [95% CI = 76.9-132.9], 37.5 [95% CI = 20.6-54.4], 38.3 [95% CI = 23.9-52.6] of each 1000 sedations, respectively. Other adverse events included apnea, hypotension, and the need for bag-valve mask ventilation, which occurred in 8.6 [95% CI: 3.5-13.6], 9.3 [95% CI: -1.4 to 20.1], and 13.5 [95% CI: 3.2-23.8] of each 1,000 sedations, respectively. Severe adverse events were rare, with no reported instances of intubation and only one case of laryngospasm. Subgroup analyses revealed varying incidence rates of adverse events across different sedation protocols, with ketamine and its combinations showing higher rates of specific respiratory complications.

Conclusions: Procedural sedation in pediatric EDs is generally safe, with a low incidence of adverse events, such as vomiting, agitation, and hypoxia. Life-threatening respiratory adverse events are extremely rare. Our findings thus support the careful selection and monitoring of sedation protocols to minimize risks.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估急诊科在儿科人群中使用程序镇静剂的安全性:随机对照试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析。
目的我们的荟萃分析旨在通过调查与不同镇静药物相关的心脏、呼吸、胃肠道和神经系统不良事件的发生率,评估儿科急诊室(ED)手术镇静和镇痛的安全性:根据 PRISMA 指南,我们对 2005 年 1 月至 2024 年 6 月期间的 10 个数据库进行了随机对照试验的全面数据库检索。我们的纳入标准包括涉及在急诊室接受儿科镇静和镇痛治疗的 18 岁以下儿童的随机对照试验。我们提取并分析了有关药物类型、剂量、给药途径和不良事件的数据。主要终点包括心脏、呼吸、胃肠道和神经系统不良事件:17项研究符合纳入标准,共进行了2302次手术镇静。最常见的不良事件是呕吐、躁动和缺氧,在每1000次镇静中分别发生104.9次[95% CI = 76.9-132.9]、37.5次[95% CI = 20.6-54.4]、38.3次[95% CI = 23.9-52.6]。其他不良事件包括呼吸暂停、低血压和需要进行袋阀面罩通气,在每1000例镇静剂中分别发生8.6例[95% CI:3.5-13.6]、9.3例[95% CI:-1.4-20.1]和13.5例[95% CI:3.2-23.8]。严重不良事件很少发生,没有插管的报道,只有一例喉痉挛。亚组分析显示,不同镇静方案的不良事件发生率不同,氯胺酮及其复合制剂的特定呼吸系统并发症发生率较高:结论:在儿科急诊室进行手术镇静总体上是安全的,呕吐、躁动和缺氧等不良事件的发生率较低。危及生命的呼吸系统不良事件极为罕见。因此,我们的研究结果支持谨慎选择和监控镇静方案,以最大限度地降低风险。
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 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Machine learning outperforms the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) in predicting need for early critical care. The role of partial resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta in pre-hospital trauma. Just the facts: evaluation and management of epistaxis. Safety and accuracy of the computer interpretation of normal ECGs at triage. Correction: Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of rapid HIV testing in Canadian Emergency Departments: a mixed methods study.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1