Prehospital emergency care · 2018
Procedural Sedation and Analgesia in Trauma Patients in an Out-of-Hospital Emergency Setting: A Prospective Multicenter Observational Study.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Galinski Michel, Hoffman Laure, Bregeaud Delphine, Kamboua Mounir, Ageron François-Xavier, Rouanet Catherine, Hubert Jean-Christophe, Istria Jacques, Ruscev Mirko, Tazarourte Karim, Pevirieri Florence, Lapostolle Frédéric, Adnet Frédéric
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The quality of procedural analgesia and sedation among trauma patients has not been studied much in the prehospital setting. The main objective of this study was to characterize the quality of procedural analgesia sedation practices in prehospital settings in trauma patients.
METHODS: This was an open-label observational prospective multicenter study (January 01, 2012-December 31, 2013). We included all consecutive trauma victims undergoing a potentially painful procedure on the accident scene. The primary endpoint was the procedural pain intensity.
RESULTS: Data for 210 patients aged 11 to 98 years were analyzed. The most common lesions were limb fractures or dislocations. The most common procedures were limb realignment and splinting. Overall, 25 different drug combinations [with paracetamol [acetaminophen], non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, nefopam, opioids, loco-regional anesthesia, Equimolar Mixture of Oxygen/Nitrous Oxide (EMONO), sedative drugs] were used by the emergency medical services (EMS). One hundred seventeen patients (55%) received either one or two sedative drugs (among ketamine, propofol, and midazolam), 171 patients (81%) received morphine that was combined with a sedative drug in 54% of cases. During the procedure, 95 patients, 45% [95% Confidence Interval (CI) 39-52] experienced intense to severe pain. Among patients who received sedative drugs, 27% (32/117) had intense to severe pain vs. 68% (63/93) in patients who did not, that is, 40% difference [95% CI 33.8-47.0]. Seventeen patients (8%) experienced 18 adverse events of which 6 were respiratory adverse events. A deep sedation occurred in 17 patients. No center had any specific protocols for procedural sedation analgesia.
CONCLUSION: Procedural sedation-analgesia was inadequate in almost half of the trauma patients in the out-of-hospital setting. The reasons of these failures were probably multiple. The non-administration of a sedative drug despite an indication or non-adapted doses, in the context of a lack of specific protocols, was certainly one of them.
METHODS: This was an open-label observational prospective multicenter study (January 01, 2012-December 31, 2013). We included all consecutive trauma victims undergoing a potentially painful procedure on the accident scene. The primary endpoint was the procedural pain intensity.
RESULTS: Data for 210 patients aged 11 to 98 years were analyzed. The most common lesions were limb fractures or dislocations. The most common procedures were limb realignment and splinting. Overall, 25 different drug combinations [with paracetamol [acetaminophen], non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, nefopam, opioids, loco-regional anesthesia, Equimolar Mixture of Oxygen/Nitrous Oxide (EMONO), sedative drugs] were used by the emergency medical services (EMS). One hundred seventeen patients (55%) received either one or two sedative drugs (among ketamine, propofol, and midazolam), 171 patients (81%) received morphine that was combined with a sedative drug in 54% of cases. During the procedure, 95 patients, 45% [95% Confidence Interval (CI) 39-52] experienced intense to severe pain. Among patients who received sedative drugs, 27% (32/117) had intense to severe pain vs. 68% (63/93) in patients who did not, that is, 40% difference [95% CI 33.8-47.0]. Seventeen patients (8%) experienced 18 adverse events of which 6 were respiratory adverse events. A deep sedation occurred in 17 patients. No center had any specific protocols for procedural sedation analgesia.
CONCLUSION: Procedural sedation-analgesia was inadequate in almost half of the trauma patients in the out-of-hospital setting. The reasons of these failures were probably multiple. The non-administration of a sedative drug despite an indication or non-adapted doses, in the context of a lack of specific protocols, was certainly one of them.