Is propofol an optimal agent for procedural sedation and rapid sequence intubation in the emergency department?
OBJECTIVE
We conducted a qualitative systematic review to evaluate the efficacy and safety of propofol for direct current cardioversion (DCC), rapid sequence intubation (RSI) and procedural sedation in adult emergency department (ED) patients.


METHODS
MEDLINE (1966 to September 2000), PubMed (to September 2000), EMBASE (1988 to September 2000), Database of Systematic Reviews (to September 2000), Best Evidence (1991 to September 2000) and Current Contents (1996 to September 2000) databases.


METHODS
English-language, randomized, comparative evaluations of propofol for procedures routinely conducted in adults (>18 years) were included. Direct current cardioversion, RSI and procedural sedation were considered.


METHODS
Efficacy and safety endpoints were evaluated for all trials. For DCC and procedural sedation trials, efficacy measures included induction and recovery times, as well as the association for successful procedure. For the RSI trials, optimal intubating conditions were evaluated as the primary efficacy endpoint. Safety measures included hemodynamic changes, apnea rates and adverse effects.


RESULTS
In the setting of DCC, efficacy and safety outcomes were similar for propofol, thiopental, etomidate and methohexital. All of these agents provided markedly shorter induction and recovery times than midazolam. Patients who were pre-medicated with fentanyl exhibited prolonged recovery times and greater decreases in blood pressure. When used for RSI, propofol administration was associated with satisfactory intubating conditions that were comparable to those seen with thiopental and etomidate. Blood pressure reductions were seen in both DCC and RSI studies. Apneic episodes (>30 seconds) occurred in 23% of propofol recipients, 28% of thiopental recipients and 7% of etomidate and midazolam recipients. Apart from the DCC studies described, no procedural sedation studies met our predefined review eligibility criteria.


CONCLUSIONS
The body of literature evaluating propofol for DCC and RSI in the ED is limited. There is evidence to support the use of propofol for DCC and RSI, but this evidence comes from stable patients in non-ED settings. Further ED-based randomized comparative trials should be conducted before propofol is adopted for widespread use in the ED.
Wilbur
K
K
Internal Medicine, Vancouver Hospital and Health Sciences Centre, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Zed
P J
PJ