Download PDFPDF
Comparison of the efficacy of ketamine– propofol versus sodium thiopental–fentanyl in sedation: a randomised clinical trial
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g.
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests


  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

  • Published on:
    Methodological issues on the sample size used to compare the efficacy of ketamine–propofol and sodium thiopental–fentanyl.

    Dear Editor,

    We read with great interest the EMJ article by Bahreini and colleagues (published August 2020).1 The authors aimed to compare the relative efficacy and side effect profiles of sodium thiopental–fentanyl (TF) and ketamine–propofol (KP) when used for procedural sedation of 96 adult patients prior to undergoing a painful procedure in the emergency department setting. This randomised double-blind clinical trial quantitatively compared recovery time and both patient and provider satisfaction between the two treatment groups. Additionally, the study aimed to assess the prevalence of adverse effects occurring during recovery and patient recall of the procedure. The authors concluded that there was a statistically significant improvement in both patient and provider satisfaction and degree of procedure recall when using KP compared to TF. However, there was no statistically significant difference in recovery time or adverse effects between the treatment groups.

    The authors discussed that the study was not adequately powered to assess the side effect profiles. However, using a systematic review of the effects of KP and propofol, it is possible to make comparisons with the current study regarding the KP side effect profile.2 In all cases, the occurrence of adverse events was greater in those studies included in the systemic review. For example, the POKER study reported that 14% of patients sedated with KP required an airway intervention 3 compared to only...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.