Ketamine in Adult Emergency Medicine: Controversies and Recent Advances
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review the evidence for the use of ketamine in adult emergency medicine for procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) and rapid sequence intubation (RSI), as well as to focus on the issues of recovery agitation, combination with propofol for PSA, and the use of ketamine as an induction agent in patients with acute head injury in need of definitive airway management. DATA SOURCES: PubMed (1949-July 2011), EMBASE (1980-July 2011), Google Scholar (to July 2011), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1964-July 2011), and Cochrane databases were searched independently. A manual search of references was also performed. STUDY SELECTION: English-language, full reports of experimental and observational studies evaluating ketamine in adults undergoing PSA and RSI in the emergency department (ED) were included if they reported efficacy or safety outcomes. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently assessed each article for inclusion, data extraction, and study limitations. DATA SYNTHESIS: Six studies that used ketamine for PSA were included. The majority reported adequate sedation with high patient satisfaction and lack of pain and procedural recall. There is no evidence to support the superiority of a combination of ketamine and propofol compared to propofol alone for PSA in adults. Recovery agitation is common but can be minimized with premedication with midazolam (number needed to treat 6). Two studies were identified that evaluated the role of ketamine for induction during RSI in the ED. Although ketamine is not a first-line agent for RSI, it is an alternative and may be used as an induction agent in patients requiring endotracheal intubation. CONCLUSIONS: Ketamine is an effective agent in adults undergoing PSA and RSI in the ED. The best available evidence provides sufficient confidence to consider use of this agent in the ED.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".