Impact of addition of propofol to ED formulary

Senula, Gary; Sacchetti, Alfred; Moore, Sandra; Cortese, Teena

doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2009.04.035

Cited by 5 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[3] As EPs in the US have become more comfortable with performing deep sedation, propofol has emerged as a preferred agent for brief procedures, such as dislocation reductions. [14] This is because of propofol's rapid onset and short duration of action, [4,7,11] making it ideal for an environment in which patients are quickly evaluated, treated, and then dispositioned. Longer acting agents may adversely affect length of stay and turnaround time, impacting patient throughput and leading to increased ED overcrowding.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of the United States propofol ban on emergency providers' procedural sedation agent choice and patient length of stay

Pester

Robinson

Prestosh

et al. 2012

World Journal of Emergency Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND: In the recent past, propofol was temporarily removed from the emergency department (ED) for use in procedural sedation. We sought to determine which agents replaced it in clinical practice and the impact this change had on turnaround times (TAT) for sedated patients. METHODS: This study is a retrospective chart review at a level one trauma center. Patients receiving sedative agents (propofol, ketamine, midazolam, and etomidate) were identified by pharmacy codes, and their charts were then reviewed for demographics and TAT. Propofol was unavailable in the emergency department (ED) between May 2010 and February 2011. The study period extended from May 2009 until May 2011. Patients receiving sedation by non-emergency medicine physicians and those receiving sedation related to intubation were excluded. RESULTS: In total 2466 charts were reviewed and 209 met inclusion criteria. When propofol was available, the most commonly used sedative agent was etomidate (40%), followed by propofol (28%), ketamine (20%), and midazolam (6%). When propofol was unavailable, etomidate remained the most commonly used agent (43%), followed by ketamine (41%), and midazolam (11%). When propofol was available, the median TAT for sedated patients was 163 minutes compared to 178 minutes when propofol was unavailable (P=0.83). When propofol was the primary sedative agent used, the median TAT was 166 minutes as compared with a median TAT of 172 minutes for all other sedative agents combined (P=0.87). CONCLUSION: When propofol was unavailable, ketamine became a preferred ED sedation agent. Removal of propofol from the sedation armamentarium did not affect ED TAT.

show abstract