Wathen J E, Roback M G, Mackenzie T, Bothner J P
Department of Pediatrics, Section of Emergency Medicine, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center/The Children's Hospital, Denver, CO, USA.
Ann Emerg Med. 2000 Dec;36(6):579-88. doi: 10.1067/mem.2000.111131.
This study was conducted to investigate the frequency and severity of adverse effects, specifically emergence phenomena, experienced by patients receiving intravenous ketamine with or without midazolam for sedation in a pediatric emergency department.
Patients aged 4.5 months to 16 years receiving ketamine sedation were prospectively enrolled in a double-blind, randomized, controlled study at a university-affiliated children's hospital-pediatric ED. All patients received ketamine (1 mg/kg) and glycopyrrolate (5 microgram/kg) intravenously. Patients were randomly assigned to receive midazolam (0.1 mg/kg) intravenously or no midazolam. Total time of sedation, sedation efficacy, and adverse effects were recorded. Adverse effects were compared between patients receiving ketamine versus those who received ketamine and midazolam. Additional comparisons were made based on age and number of ketamine doses administered.
Two hundred sixty-six patients were studied; 129 received ketamine and 137 patients received ketamine and midazolam. Time of sedation and efficacy of sedation were equivalent between groups. Overall, adverse effects with ketamine sedation included respiratory events (12 [4.5%]), vomiting (50 [18.7%]), emergence phenomena in the pediatric ED (71 [26.7%]), and emergence phenomena at home (60 [22.4%]). Significant emergence phenomena in the pediatric ED (ie, nightmares, hallucinations, and severe agitation) occurred in 7.1% of the ketamine group and in 6.2% of the ketamine-midazolam group, a rate difference of 0.8 (95% confidence interval [CI] -5.3 to 7.0). The addition of midazolam led to an increased incidence of oxygen desaturation events (ketamine 1.6% versus ketamine-midazolam 7.3%; rate difference -5.7, 95% CI -10.6 to -0.9) but a decreased incidence of vomiting (ketamine 19.4%, ketamine-midazolam 9.6%, rate difference 9.8, 95% CI 1.4 to 18.2). The incidence of emergence phenomena and significant emergence phenomena was not affected by the addition of midazolam. However, the addition of midazolam was associated with more agitation in the pediatric ED in children 10 years or older (ketamine 5.7% versus ketamine-midazolam 35.7%; rate difference -30.0, 95% CI -10.7 to -49.3). Age breakdown further showed 6.3% (95% CI 0.9 to 11.6) more episodes of oxygen desaturation in the ketamine-midazolam group in children younger than 10 years, and 12.1% (95% CI 1.5 to 22.6) more vomiting episodes in the ketamine group in children younger than 10 years.
Ketamine and combined ketamine and midazolam provided equally effective sedation. The addition of midazolam did not alter the incidence of emergence phenomena. Vomiting occurred more frequently in the ketamine only group, whereas oxygen desaturation occurred more frequently in the ketamine-midazolam group. These findings were more pronounced in patients younger than 10 years. Parental and physician satisfaction remained high for all patients receiving intravenous ketamine sedation.
本研究旨在调查在儿科急诊科接受静脉注射氯胺酮(无论是否联合咪达唑仑)镇静的患者中不良反应(尤其是苏醒现象)的发生频率和严重程度。
在一所大学附属医院的儿科急诊科,对年龄在4.5个月至16岁接受氯胺酮镇静的患者进行前瞻性双盲、随机对照研究。所有患者均静脉注射氯胺酮(1mg/kg)和格隆溴铵(5μg/kg)。患者被随机分配接受静脉注射咪达唑仑(0.1mg/kg)或不接受咪达唑仑。记录镇静总时间、镇静效果和不良反应。比较接受氯胺酮治疗的患者与接受氯胺酮和咪达唑仑治疗的患者之间的不良反应。还根据年龄和氯胺酮给药次数进行了额外比较。
共研究了266例患者;129例接受氯胺酮治疗,137例接受氯胺酮和咪达唑仑治疗。两组的镇静时间和镇静效果相当。总体而言,氯胺酮镇静的不良反应包括呼吸事件(12例[4.5%])、呕吐(50例[18.7%])、儿科急诊科的苏醒现象(71例[26.7%])以及在家中的苏醒现象(60例[22.4%])。儿科急诊科显著的苏醒现象(即噩梦、幻觉和严重躁动)在氯胺酮组中发生率为7.1%,在氯胺酮 - 咪达唑仑组中为6.2%,率差为0.8(95%置信区间[CI] -5.3至7.0)。添加咪达唑仑导致氧饱和度下降事件发生率增加(氯胺酮组为1.6%,氯胺酮 - 咪达唑仑组为7.3%;率差 -5.7,95% CI -10.6至 -0.9),但呕吐发生率降低(氯胺酮组为19.4%,氯胺酮 - 咪达唑仑组为9.6%,率差9.8,95% CI 1.4至18.2)。添加咪达唑仑对苏醒现象和显著苏醒现象的发生率没有影响。然而,添加咪达唑仑与10岁及以上儿童在儿科急诊科的更多躁动有关(氯胺酮组为5.7%,氯胺酮 - 咪达唑仑组为35.7%;率差 -30.0,95% CI -10.7至 -49.3)。按年龄细分进一步显示,10岁以下儿童中,氯胺酮 - 咪达唑仑组的氧饱和度下降事件发生率比氯胺酮组高6.3%(95% CI 0.9至11.6),10岁以下儿童中,氯胺酮组的呕吐发作比氯胺酮 - 咪达唑仑组多12.1%(95% CI 1.5至22.6)。
氯胺酮以及氯胺酮与咪达唑仑联合使用提供了同样有效的镇静效果。添加咪达唑仑并未改变苏醒现象的发生率。仅使用氯胺酮的组呕吐更频繁发生,而氯胺酮 - 咪达唑仑组氧饱和度下降更频繁发生。这些发现在10岁以下患者中更为明显。所有接受静脉注射氯胺酮镇静的患者家长和医生的满意度仍然很高。