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

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE Academic Emergency Medicine Pub 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":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","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":"","PubModel":"","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.

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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
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.
期刊最新文献
Global emergency medicine: A scoping review of the literature from 2023. The problem with how we view medical (and diagnostic) error in emergency medicine. Response to Tangkamolsuk and La RE: Online public response to emergency department diagnostic error report: A qualitative study. Abortion care in the emergency department: A national survey of emergency physicians' perspectives. Implementation and assessment of a one-month sabbatical program for faculty in an academic emergency department.
×
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