Children treated in emergency rooms facing painful procedures are usually given a sedative. This news release on a Canadian study reports that the safest form of sedative among six different drug combinations is ketamine, according to the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Canada, which led the study.
This release does a good job of explaining the study methods but leaves out a couple important numbers — the total number of patients studied, and the absolute numbers when describing the safety benefit of ketamine in comparison to the other medications. From the published study we learn that there were about 6,300 participants from six different emergency centers and it took five years to collect the data. These numbers would have made the release stronger.
Each year, thousands of children are brought to the emergency room with injuries requiring painful procedures. How best to sedate children who must undergo these procedures has been an open question with a subtle balance between adequate sedation and independent respiration. There are different schools of thought regarding the best drugs to use with no clear answers overall. This large retrospective study demonstrates an overall adverse event rate of approximately 11 percent with the use of the drug ketamine demonstrating the lowest risk. This large well-designed study adds to clinician understanding of the best approaches to pain management in children arriving in the emergency room.
There was no mention of cost. The costs of a visit to the emergency room can be extensive with the cost of sedation a relatively small part of the overall cost. Even so, ballpark costs of sedation would have been helpful to include.
The release did not give absolute numbers for the benefits, just percentages. The main benefit statement is in the excerpt below. We wish the release had told us the number of patients in the groups with the highest and lowest risk for side effects.
“The results of the study show that choice of sedation medication had the biggest impact on the incidence of adverse events and need for significant interventions in response to those events. The incidence of serious adverse events was lowest among patients sedated with ketamine-alone and highest among patients sedated with combination drugs ketamine plus propofol or fentanyl.”
The release did a good job of explaining possible harms that occur in relation to different types of sedation. A few words about the specific adverse events seen with ketamine would have been of value. As a dissociative agent, ketamine is known for its ability to produce bizarre dreams, and hallucination as well as excessive salivation.
Here is an excerpt from the release:
“The overall incidence of adverse events in the study population was 11.7%. The most common events were a decrease in oxygen saturation (5.6%) and vomiting (5.2%). Significant interventions in response to an adverse event were rare, occurring in only 1.4% of children. Two other practices – receiving an opioid prior to sedation and having a laceration repair – were associated with the occurrence of vomiting, oxygen desaturation and need for significant interventions.”
The release describes the study as a multi-center observational study that included “children from six emergency departments across Canada, sedated with six different medication combinations.” We wish the release had told us the number of patients studied (6,300), how many received each type of sedation, and the length of the study (five years).
The release clearly notes that the study was funded by a federal Canadian program.
The release names propofol and fentanyl as two alternatives to ketamine, among the six medications evaluated. We give it credit for providing this general comparison of sedation drugs:
“The incidence of serious adverse events was lowest among patients sedated with ketamine-alone and highest among patients sedated with combination drugs ketamine plus propofol or fentanyl.”
The availability of the different sedation methods isn’t addressed. Readers must assume that the study looked at the common types of sedation used.
The release addresses novelty with the statement:
“According to the authors, this study represents the largest and most robust prospective emergency department procedural sedation cohort to date. It includes children from six emergency departments across Canada, sedated with six different medication combinations.”
While not definitive, this large well-designed study does add to clinician understanding of the best approaches to pain management in children arriving in the emergency room.
The release doesn’t rely on sensational language. We think the release may have strayed into unjustifiable territory by suggesting the study findings may be “practice-changing.” That remains to be seen but we’ll give the release the benefit of the doubt on this claim.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
We’ve written about the hype of liquid biopsies for years (see link in comment below). And now this…. https://www.statnews.com/2022/01/12/medicare-shouldnt-cover-liquid-biopsies-early-cancer-detection/
Case counts still matter. “(There) are stories that may not be told adequately if only hospitalizations and deaths are emphasized.” @garyschwitzer interviewed by @dbauder of @AP. https://apnews.com/article/omicron-changing-news-outlets-covid-data-da9272f7c4c8a109c3bfb56bed9e9c76
My friend Gary @garyschwitzer wrote to his city council representative in a Minnesota town about a Viva Las Vegas event scheduled for January.
The response he got seems to perfectly capture where we are now.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/12/2021-ends-with-covid-craziness-in-sports-and-politics/
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like