Risk Factors for Adverse Events in Emergency Department Procedural Sedation for Children
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Importance: Procedural sedation for children undergoing painful procedures is standard practice in emergency departments worldwide. Previous studies of emergency department sedation are limited by their single-center design and are underpowered to identify risk factors for serious adverse events (SAEs), thereby limiting their influence on sedation practice and patient outcomes. Objective: To examine the incidence and risk factors associated with sedation-related SAEs. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective, multicenter, observational cohort study was conducted in 6 pediatric emergency departments in Canada between July 10, 2010, and February 28, 2015. Children 18 years or younger who received sedation for a painful emergency department procedure were enrolled in the study. Of the 9657 patients eligible for inclusion, 6760 (70.0%) were enrolled and 6295 (65.1%) were included in the final analysis. Exposures: The primary risk factor was receipt of sedation medication. The secondary risk factors were demographic characteristics, preprocedural medications and fasting status, current or underlying health risks, and procedure type. Main Outcomes and Measures: Four outcomes were examined: SAEs, significant interventions performed in response to an adverse event, oxygen desaturation, and vomiting. Results: Of the 6295 children included in this study, 4190 (66.6%) were male and the mean (SD) age was 8.0 (4.6) years. Adverse events occurred in 736 patients (11.7%; 95% CI, 6.4%-16.9%). Oxygen desaturation (353 patients [5.6%]) and vomiting (328 [5.2%]) were the most common of these adverse events. There were 69 SAEs (1.1%; 95% CI, 0.5%-1.7%), and 86 patients (1.4%; 95% CI, 0.7%-2.1%) had a significant intervention. Use of ketamine hydrochloride alone resulted in the lowest incidence of SAEs (17 [0.4%]) and significant interventions (37 [0.9%]). The incidence of adverse sedation outcomes varied significantly with the type of sedation medication. Compared with ketamine alone, propofol alone (3.7%; odds ratio [OR], 5.6; 95% CI, 2.3-13.1) and the combinations of ketamine and fentanyl citrate (3.2%; OR, 6.5; 95% CI, 2.5-15.2) and ketamine and propofol (2.1%; OR, 4.4; 95% CI, 2.3-8.7) had the highest incidence of SAEs. The combinations of ketamine and fentanyl (4.1%; OR, 4.0; 95% CI, 1.8-8.1) and ketamine and propofol (2.5%; OR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.2-3.8) had the highest incidence of significant interventions. Conclusions and Relevance: The incidence of adverse sedation outcomes varied significantly with type of sedation medication. Use of ketamine only was associated with the best outcomes, resulting in significantly fewer SAEs and interventions than ketamine combined with propofol or fentanyl.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».