scholarly journals Clinical and economic burden of procedural sedation-related adverse events and their outcomes: analysis from five countries

2018 ◽  
Vol Volume 14 ◽  
pp. 393-401 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rhodri Saunders ◽  
Jason A Davis ◽  
Peter Kranke ◽  
Rachel Weissbrod ◽  
David K Whitaker ◽  
...  
CJEM ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 15 (05) ◽  
pp. 279-288 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank Xavier Scheuermeyer ◽  
Gary Andolfatto ◽  
Hong Qian ◽  
Eric Grafstein

ABSTRACT Objectives: Injection drug users (IDUs) often undergo procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) as part of emergency department (ED) treatment. We compared adverse events (AEs) using a variety of sedation regimens. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of a PSA safety audit in two urban EDs. Consecutive self-reported IDUs were identified, and structured data describing comorbidities, vital signs, sedation regimens (propofol [P], propofol-fentanyl [PF], fentanyl-midazolam [FM], ketofol [1:1 ketamine:propofol, KF], and ketamine-propofol [KP]) and AEs were collected. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients in each sedation group having an AE; the secondary outcome was the proportion of patients having a cardiovascular or respiratory AE. Results: Data were collected on 276 IDUs (78 P, 82 PF, 65 FM, 25 KF, and 26 KP), and 18 patients had AEs (6.5%, 95% CI 4.0–10.3). The AE rates were 0.0%, 8.5%, 9.2%, 12.0%, and 7.6%, respectively, with propofol having a significantly lower rate (Pearson coefficient 14.9, p = 0.007). The cardiovascular/respiratory AE rates were significantly different as well, with P, KP, and KF having the lowest rates (Pearson coefficient 13.3, p = 0.01). Conclusions: For IDU PSA, the overall AE rate was 6.5%, and propofol appeared to have a significantly lower rate.


2017 ◽  
Vol 171 (10) ◽  
pp. 957 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maala Bhatt ◽  
David W. Johnson ◽  
Jason Chan ◽  
Monica Taljaard ◽  
Nick Barrowman ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (10) ◽  
pp. S827 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Subramanian ◽  
F. Laliberté ◽  
A. Fernandes ◽  
M. Pavilack ◽  
P. Jacques ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 61 (4) ◽  
pp. 171-179 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel E. Becker

Abstract The risk for complications while providing dental procedures is greatest when caring for patients having significant medical compromise. It is comforting that significant adverse events can generally be prevented by careful preoperative assessment, along with attentive intraoperative monitoring and support. Nevertheless, the office team must be prepared to manage untoward events should they arise. This continuing education article will address basic emergency drugs that should be available in all dental practices and additional agents that become essential for those practices providing various levels of procedural sedation or general anesthesia.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document