Register for email alerts and news feeds:
This journal | BMJ Group
rss
Emergency Medicine Journal 2007;24:459-461; doi:10.1136/emj.2007.046714
© 2007 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and the College of Emergency Medicine.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Propofol for procedural sedation in the emergency department

Tamsin Dunn, David Mossop1, Alastair Newton2, Alison Gammon3

1 Emergency Department, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK
2 Emergency Department, St Thomas’ Hospital, London, UK
3 Accident and Emergency Department, Wexham Park Hospital, Slough, UK

Correspondence to:
Correspondence to:
Dr Tamsin Dunn
Emergency Department, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, OX3 9DU, UK; tamsindunn{at}doctors.org.uk

Objectives: To observe procedural sedation practice within a district general hospital emergency department (ED) that uses propofol for procedural sedation.

Methods: Prospective observation of procedural sedation over an 11 month period. Patients over 16 years of age requiring procedural sedation and able to give informed consent were recruited. The choice of sedation agent was at the discretion of the physician. The following details were recorded on a standard proforma for each patient: indication for procedural sedation; agent used; depth and duration of sedation; ease of reduction; use of a reversal agent; complications and reasons for delayed discharge from the ED.

Results: 48 patients were recruited; propofol was used in 32 cases and midazolam in 16 cases. The median period of sedation was considerably shorter in the propofol group (3 vs 45 min) but this did not confer a shorter median time in the ED (200 vs 175 min). There were no documented cases of over-sedation in the propofol group; however, four patients in the midazolam group were over-sedated, three requiring reversal with flumazenil. There were no other significant complications in either group. There was no difference in the median depth of sedation achieved or ease of reduction between the two groups.

Conclusions: Propofol is effective and safe for procedural sedation in the ED. Propofol has a considerably shorter duration of action than midazolam, thereby shortening the period of sedation.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

  • Vardy, J M, Dignon, N, Mukherjee, N, Sami, D M, Balachandran, G, Taylor, S (2008). Audit of the safety and effectiveness of ketamine for procedural sedation in the emergency department. Emerg. Med. J. 25: 579-582 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Newton, A, Fitton, L (2008). Intravenous ketamine for adult procedural sedation in the emergency department: a prospective cohort study. Emerg. Med. J. 25: 498-501 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Abdel-Latif, M. E., Oei, J., Awad, J., Lui, K. (2008). Effectiveness and Safety of Propofol in Newborn Infants: In Reply. Pediatrics 121: 448-449 [Full Text]  

This Article

Services
Citing Articles
Google Scholar
PubMed
Topic Collections
Bookmark with

Register for free content

The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.

Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.

 

The journal is co-owned by and the official journal of College of Emergency Medicine

Official journal of British Association for Immediate Care: BASICS, Faculty of Pre-Hospital Care, Irish Society for Immediate Care and Swedish Society for Emergency Medicine: SweSEM

Emergency Medicine Jobs

Emergency Medicine Jobs