Article Text

Propofol Target-Controlled Infusion in Emergency Department Sedation (ProTEDS): a multicentre, single-arm feasibility study
  1. Fiona Marie Burton1,2,
  2. David John Lowe3,
  3. Jonathan Millar4,
  4. Alasdair R Corfield5,
  5. Malcolm J Watson4,
  6. Malcolm A B Sim2,4
  1. 1 Emergency Department, Hairmyres Hospital, East Kilbride, South Lanarkshire, UK
  2. 2 Glasgow University Section of Anaesthesia, Pain and Critical Care, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
  3. 3 Emergency Department, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, UK
  4. 4 Department of Anaesthesia and Critical Care, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, UK
  5. 5 Emergency Department, Royal Alexandra Hospital, Paisley, Renfrewshire, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Fiona Marie Burton, Emergency Department, Hairmyres Hospital, East Kilbride, South Lanarkshire, UK; fiona.burton{at}glasgow.ac.uk

Abstract

Background Procedural sedation is a core skill of the emergency physician. Bolus administration of propofol is widely used in UK EDs. Titrated to an end point of sedation, it has a rapid effect but has been associated with adverse incidents. The use of a target-controlled infusion (TCI) of propofol is not routine but may reduce the incidence of adverse incidents.

The primary aims of this single-arm feasibility study were patient satisfaction and to establish recruitment rates for a randomised controlled trial comparing propofol TCI to bolus administration.

Methods Four EDs in Scotland, UK, participated. Patients aged 18-65 years, with anterior shoulder dislocation, weight ≥ 50kg, fasted ≥ 90 min were screened. Patients underwent reduction of their dislocated shoulder using TCI propofol. The primary end point was patient satisfaction recorded on a Visual Analogue Scale.

Results Between 3 April 2017 and 31 December 2018, 25 patients were recruited with a recruitment rate of 20% for the 16-month recruitment window, with a temporary pause to allow amendment of drug dosage.

Two patients were excluded. Twenty achieved adequate sedation, defined as a Modified Observer’s Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Scale (OAA/S) 3. Successful reduction was achieved in all adequately sedated. Patient satisfaction was documented in 14 patients, mean±SD of 97±9 and time to sedation was 25±8 min. No adverse events were recorded using the Society of Intravenous Anaesthesia adverse event reporting tool.

Conclusion Propofol TCI was acceptable as a method of procedural sedation for patients. The lower than expected recruitment rates highlight the need for dedicated research support.

Trial registration number NCT03442803.

  • analgesia/pain control
  • fractures and dislocations
  • airway
  • emergency department management
  • safety
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Supplementary materials

Footnotes

  • Handling editor Katie Walker

  • Twitter @al_corfield

  • Contributors The research idea was conceived by DJL and JM and developed by FMB and MABS. FMB drafted the manuscript with editorial input from all authors. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

  • Funding Funding has been awarded by CareFusion BD.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Ethics approval Ethical and amendment approval was given by the West of Scotland Research Ethics Committee 5, reference number 17/WS/0020 on 24 January 2017. Individual consent from the patients was obtained.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data availability statement Data are available on reasonable request. Requests for data should be made to the Chief Investigator in the first instance. Data are held in a paper format in a secure archive facility (provided by Iron Mountain, Limited) and can be retrieved within 24 working hours from this facility.

  • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.