Skip to main content

Evaluation of two sedation techniques in a casualty department

We compare the efficacy, adverse events, and recovery duration of etomidate and propofol for use in procedural sedation in the emergency department (ED). A randomized nonblinded prospective trial of adult patients undergoing procedural sedation for painful procedures in the ED was made. Patients received either propofol or etomidate. Doses, vital signs, nasal end-tidal CO2 (etco2), pulse oximetry, and bispectral electroencephalogram analysis scores were recorded. Subclinical respiratory depression was defined as a change in etco2 greater than 10 mmHg, an oxygen saturation of less than 92% at any time, or an absent etco2 waveform at any time. Clinical events related to respiratory depression, including an increase in supplemental oxygen, the use of a bag-valve-mask apparatus, airway repositioning, or stimulation to induce breathing, were noted. Etomidate and propofol appear equally safe for ED procedural sedation. Etomidate had a lower rate of procedural success and induced myoclonus in 20% of patients (see Table 1).

Table 1 abstract P422

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Moustafa, M., Borai, M. Evaluation of two sedation techniques in a casualty department. Crit Care 11, P422 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1186/cc5582

Download citation

Keywords

  • Emergency Department
  • Clinical Event
  • Vital Sign
  • Oxygen Saturation
  • Prospective Trial