CJEM Articles: David W. Harrison
Displaying 1-5 of 5 results
-
May
2008
10
3
David W. Harrison, Peter J. Zed, Riyad B. Abu-Laban, Seamus Donaghy
-
November
2007
9
6
David W. Harrison, Peter J. Zed, Riyad B. Abu-Laban, Winnie W.Y. Chan
Objective: We evaluated the efficacy, safety and patient satisfaction with the use of propofol for procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department (ED).
Methods: All patients receiving propofol for procedural sedation and analgesia in the ED between December 1, 2003, and November 30, 2005, were prospectively assessed. Propofol was administered using a standardized protocol, which included an initial dose of 0.25-0.5 mg/kg followed by 10-20 mg/minute until sedated. Efficacy was evaluated using procedural success rate, recovery time and physician satisfaction. Adverse respiratory effects were defined as apnea for more than 30 seconds or an oxygen saturation of less than 90%. Hypotension was defined as systolic blood pressure < 90 mm Hg or > 20% decrease from baseline. Patient and physician satisfaction were determined using 5-point Likert scales.
Results: Our study included 113 patients with a mean age of 50 (standard deviation [SD] 19) years; 62% were male. The most common procedures were orthopedic manipulation (44%), cardioversion (37%), and abscess incision and drainage (13%). The mean total propofol dose required was 1.6 (SD 0.9) mg/kg. Procedural success was achieved in 90% of cases and the mean patient recovery time was 7.6 (SD 3.4) minutes. No patient (0%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0%-3%) experienced apnea; however, 1 patient (1%, 95% CI 0%-5%) experienced emesis, which resulted in an oxygen saturation < 90%. Nine patients (8%, 95% CI 4%-15%) experienced hypotension and 7 (6%, 95% CI 3%-12%) experienced pain on injection. All patients were very satisfied (92%, 95% CI 85%-96%) or satisfied (8%, 95% CI 4%-15%), and 94% (95% CI 88%-98%) reported no recollection of the procedure. The majority of physicians were very satisfied (85%, 95% CI 77%-91%) or satisfied (6%, 95% CI 3%-12%) with the sedation and the conditions achieved.
Conclusion: When administered as part of a standardized protocol, propofol appears to be a safe and effective agent for performing procedural sedation and analgesia in the ED, and is associated with high patient and physician satisfaction.
-
July
2006
8
4
David W. Harrison, George Kovacs, Kirk MacQuarrie, Nick Kuzak, Peter J. Zed, Sam Campbell
-
July
2006
8
4
David W. Harrison, Nick Kuzak, Peter J. Zed
-
March
2006
8
2
David W. Harrison, Nick Kuzak, Peter J. Zed
Introduction: Autoregulation is dysfunctional in the injured brain. Increases in intracranial and arterial pressure may therefore result in extension of the primary injury. Rapid sequence intubation (RSI) is a well-known cause of surges in both arterial pressure and intracranial pressure. Neuroprotective agents, namely lidocaine and fentanyl, have the potential to minimize the pressure surges implicated in secondary brain injury. The purpose of this study was to determine the frequency with which neuroprotective agents were used for neuroprotective RSI in the emergency department.
Methods: We conducted a retrospective chart review of all 139 patients intubated in the emergency department of Vancouver General Hospital between March and October 2003. Patients were eligible if there was an indication for neuroprotective agents defined as presumed intracranial pathology and a mean arterial pressure (MAP) > 85 mm Hg. Contraindications to fentanyl included MAP < 85 mm Hg or allergy to fentanyl.
Results: Seventy-seven patients were intubated for primary neurological indications. Indication for intubation included non-traumatic causes (n = 37) (including cerebrovascular accident or intracranial hemorrhage) and closed head injury (n = 40). The mean age (± standard deviation) was 52.3 ± 20.4 years, and 31.4% were female. Fifty-seven (74.0%) patients had indications for neuroprotective agents, without contraindications. When neuroprotective agents were indicated, lidocaine was used in 84.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 72.6%–91.5%) of patients while fentanyl was used in 33.3% (95%CI 22.4%–46.3%) of patients. Eleven percent of the intubations were performed with a fentanyl dose of ≥ 2 mcg/kg, which is the lower limit considered effective.
Conclusions: Despite the potential benefit of using lidocaine and fentanyl in appropriate patients undergoing neuroprotective RSI in the emergency department, our study identified a significant underutilization of optimal premedication. The identification of barriers to use and the implementation of strategies to optimize use are necessary.
