一项随机对照试验,比较氯胺酮与芬太尼在急诊科为肢体孤立受伤的成人进行手术镇静的效果。

IF 0.6 Q4 ORTHOPEDICS Malaysian Orthopaedic Journal Pub Date : 2024-03-01 DOI:10.5704/MOJ.2403.015
M Srinivasarangan, S Jagadeesh, A Bheemanna, A Sivasankar, A Patil, B Basavaraju, A Sattur
{"title":"一项随机对照试验,比较氯胺酮与芬太尼在急诊科为肢体孤立受伤的成人进行手术镇静的效果。","authors":"M Srinivasarangan, S Jagadeesh, A Bheemanna, A Sivasankar, A Patil, B Basavaraju, A Sattur","doi":"10.5704/MOJ.2403.015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Alleviating pain and anxiety of patients during procedures is an essential skill for an Emergency Physician (EP). Several sedatives and dissociative agents are used for PSA (Procedural Sedation and Analgesia). In this study, we aimed to compare two drugs that is, ketamine and fentanyl for procedural sedation in adults with isolated limb injuries in the Emergency Department (ED).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>In this prospective, randomised controlled interventional trial, patients aged between 18 to 65 years with isolated extremity injury requiring PSA in the ED were recruited. A total of 200 subjects were included in the study and randomly allocated to either the fentanyl (n=100) or the ketamine (n=100) group. Patients were blinded to the intervention and subsequently premedicated with Midazolam. Following this, they received either ketamine or fentanyl based on the group they were allocated to. Vital signs, including but not limited to the level of sedation, were measured at predetermined time intervals. A Modified Aldrete Score of >8 was used as a criterion for disposition from the ED. Data were collected in a pre-designed proforma. We aimed to compare the effectiveness as well as ascertain the safety profile of the two drugs for PSA in the ED.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was no significant difference between the two groups when age, gender, mechanism of injury and comorbidities were compared. We found that there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups when blood pressure, respiratory rate and depth of sedation were compared. In both groups, there was a significant decrease in pain on the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) following drug administration from 8 to 3 (p<0.001). Patients in the fentanyl group had an increased incidence of transient oxygen desaturation (p<0.001). Vomiting was more common in the ketamine group (p<0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>PSA is a safe and efficacious procedure for patients undergoing painful procedures in ED. Patients in both the groups maintained hemodynamic stability throughout the procedure. From our study, we were able to conclude that both ketamine and fentanyl are similar in efficacy for PSA in the ED for adults with isolated limb injuries. In addition, no significant cardiovascular adverse events were noted in either group in our study.</p>","PeriodicalId":45241,"journal":{"name":"Malaysian Orthopaedic Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11023337/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Randomised Controlled Trial Comparing Ketamine <i>versus</i> Fentanyl for Procedural Sedation in the Emergency Department for Adults with Isolated Extremity Injury.\",\"authors\":\"M Srinivasarangan, S Jagadeesh, A Bheemanna, A Sivasankar, A Patil, B Basavaraju, A Sattur\",\"doi\":\"10.5704/MOJ.2403.015\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Alleviating pain and anxiety of patients during procedures is an essential skill for an Emergency Physician (EP). Several sedatives and dissociative agents are used for PSA (Procedural Sedation and Analgesia). In this study, we aimed to compare two drugs that is, ketamine and fentanyl for procedural sedation in adults with isolated limb injuries in the Emergency Department (ED).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>In this prospective, randomised controlled interventional trial, patients aged between 18 to 65 years with isolated extremity injury requiring PSA in the ED were recruited. A total of 200 subjects were included in the study and randomly allocated to either the fentanyl (n=100) or the ketamine (n=100) group. Patients were blinded to the intervention and subsequently premedicated with Midazolam. Following this, they received either ketamine or fentanyl based on the group they were allocated to. Vital signs, including but not limited to the level of sedation, were measured at predetermined time intervals. A Modified Aldrete Score of >8 was used as a criterion for disposition from the ED. Data were collected in a pre-designed proforma. We aimed to compare the effectiveness as well as ascertain the safety profile of the two drugs for PSA in the ED.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was no significant difference between the two groups when age, gender, mechanism of injury and comorbidities were compared. We found that there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups when blood pressure, respiratory rate and depth of sedation were compared. In both groups, there was a significant decrease in pain on the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) following drug administration from 8 to 3 (p<0.001). Patients in the fentanyl group had an increased incidence of transient oxygen desaturation (p<0.001). Vomiting was more common in the ketamine group (p<0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>PSA is a safe and efficacious procedure for patients undergoing painful procedures in ED. Patients in both the groups maintained hemodynamic stability throughout the procedure. From our study, we were able to conclude that both ketamine and fentanyl are similar in efficacy for PSA in the ED for adults with isolated limb injuries. In addition, no significant cardiovascular adverse events were noted in either group in our study.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45241,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Malaysian Orthopaedic Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11023337/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Malaysian Orthopaedic Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5704/MOJ.2403.015\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Malaysian Orthopaedic Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5704/MOJ.2403.015","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介:减轻患者在手术过程中的疼痛和焦虑是急诊医生(EP)的一项基本技能。有几种镇静剂和解离剂可用于 PSA(程序性镇静和镇痛)。在这项研究中,我们旨在比较氯胺酮和芬太尼这两种药物在急诊科(ED)成人孤立肢体损伤患者手术镇静中的应用:在这项前瞻性随机对照干预试验中,招募了 18 至 65 岁在急诊科需要 PSA 的孤立性肢体损伤患者。共有 200 名受试者参与研究,并随机分配到芬太尼组(100 人)或氯胺酮组(100 人)。患者对干预措施保持盲视,随后使用咪达唑仑进行预处理。之后,根据分配到的组别,患者接受氯胺酮或芬太尼治疗。在预定的时间间隔内测量生命体征,包括但不限于镇静程度。将改良阿尔德雷特评分大于 8 作为离开急诊室的标准。数据以预先设计的表格收集。我们的目的是比较两种药物对急诊室 PSA 的疗效并确定其安全性:结果:比较两组患者的年龄、性别、受伤机制和合并症后发现,他们之间没有明显差异。我们发现,在比较血压、呼吸频率和镇静深度时,两组之间没有统计学意义上的显著差异。用药后,两组患者的数字评定量表(NRS)上的疼痛均明显减轻,从 8 度降至 3 度(p):对于在急诊室接受疼痛治疗的患者来说,PSA 是一种安全有效的治疗方法。两组患者在整个过程中都保持了血流动力学稳定。根据我们的研究,我们可以得出结论:氯胺酮和芬太尼对在急诊室接受 PSA 的成人孤立肢体损伤患者具有相似的疗效。此外,在我们的研究中,两组患者均未出现明显的心血管不良反应。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
A Randomised Controlled Trial Comparing Ketamine versus Fentanyl for Procedural Sedation in the Emergency Department for Adults with Isolated Extremity Injury.

Introduction: Alleviating pain and anxiety of patients during procedures is an essential skill for an Emergency Physician (EP). Several sedatives and dissociative agents are used for PSA (Procedural Sedation and Analgesia). In this study, we aimed to compare two drugs that is, ketamine and fentanyl for procedural sedation in adults with isolated limb injuries in the Emergency Department (ED).

Materials and methods: In this prospective, randomised controlled interventional trial, patients aged between 18 to 65 years with isolated extremity injury requiring PSA in the ED were recruited. A total of 200 subjects were included in the study and randomly allocated to either the fentanyl (n=100) or the ketamine (n=100) group. Patients were blinded to the intervention and subsequently premedicated with Midazolam. Following this, they received either ketamine or fentanyl based on the group they were allocated to. Vital signs, including but not limited to the level of sedation, were measured at predetermined time intervals. A Modified Aldrete Score of >8 was used as a criterion for disposition from the ED. Data were collected in a pre-designed proforma. We aimed to compare the effectiveness as well as ascertain the safety profile of the two drugs for PSA in the ED.

Results: There was no significant difference between the two groups when age, gender, mechanism of injury and comorbidities were compared. We found that there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups when blood pressure, respiratory rate and depth of sedation were compared. In both groups, there was a significant decrease in pain on the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) following drug administration from 8 to 3 (p<0.001). Patients in the fentanyl group had an increased incidence of transient oxygen desaturation (p<0.001). Vomiting was more common in the ketamine group (p<0.001).

Conclusion: PSA is a safe and efficacious procedure for patients undergoing painful procedures in ED. Patients in both the groups maintained hemodynamic stability throughout the procedure. From our study, we were able to conclude that both ketamine and fentanyl are similar in efficacy for PSA in the ED for adults with isolated limb injuries. In addition, no significant cardiovascular adverse events were noted in either group in our study.

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
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
104
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊介绍: The Malaysian Orthopaedic Journal is a peer-reviewed journal that publishes original papers and case reports three times a year in both printed and electronic version. The purpose of MOJ is to disseminate new knowledge and provide updates in Orthopaedics, trauma and musculoskeletal research. It is an Open Access journal that does not require processing fee or article processing charge from the authors. The Malaysian Orthopaedic Journal is the official journal of Malaysian Orthopaedic Association (MOA) and ASEAN Orthopaedic Association (AOA).
期刊最新文献
Bibliometric Analysis of Malaysian Orthopaedic Journal using Scopus Database. Complete Suprapatellar Plica in a Handball Player: A Case Report. Creating Novel Standards for Datapoints on an Elective Orthopaedic Theatre List Document. Deafening Silence of Malaysian Medical and Surgical Fraternities to the Gaza Genocide. Functional Outcomes and a Review of Management Options for Revision Shoulder Arthroplasty.
×
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