ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To determine the agents used by emergency medicine (EM) physicians in pediatric procedural sedation and the associated adverse events (AEs) and to provide recommendations for optimizing drug therapy in pediatric patients. METHODS: We conducted a prospective study at Stanford Hospital's pediatric emergency department (ED) from April 2007 to April 2008 to determine the medications most frequently used in pediatric procedural sedation as well as their effectiveness and AEs. Patients, 18 years old or younger, who required procedural sedation in the pediatric ED were eligible for the study. The data collected included medical record number, sex, age, height, weight, procedure type and length, physician, and agents used. For each agent, the dose, route, time from administration to onset of sedation, duration of sedation, AEs, and sedation score were recorded. Use of supplemental oxygen and interventions during procedural sedation were also recorded. RESULTS: We found that in a convenience sample of 196 children (202 procedures) receiving procedural sedation in a university-based ED, 8 different medications were used (ketamine, etomidate, fentanyl, hydromorphone, methohexital, midazolam, pentobarbital, and thiopental). Ketamine was the most frequently used medication (88%), regardless of the procedure. Only twice in the study was the medication that was initially used for procedural sedation changed completely. Fracture reduction was the most frequently performed procedure (41%), followed by laceration/suture repair (32%). There were no serious AEs reported. CONCLUSION: EM-trained physicians can safely perform pediatric procedural sedation in the ED. In the pediatric ED, the most common procedure requiring conscious sedation is fracture reduction, with ketamine as the preferred agent.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Pharmaceutical company drug information center (PCDIC) responses to queries about adverse drug events (ADEs) were studied to determine whether PCDICs search sources other than the prescribing information on the package insert (PI) and whether the PCDICs' approach differs according to whether an ADE is listed in the PI (labeled) or not (unlabeled). METHODS: Companies were selected from a list of PCDICs in the Physicians' Desk Reference. One oral or injectable prescription drug from each company was selected. For each drug, a labeled ADE and an unlabeled ADE about which to query the PCDICs were randomly selected from the index of an annual publication on ADEs. The investigators telephoned the PCDICs with an open-ended inquiry about the incidence, timing, and management of the ADE as reported in the literature and the company's internal data; they clarified that the request did not concern a specific patient. Whether or not information was provided, the source searched was recorded (PI, literature, internal database), and the percentages of PCDICs that used each source for labeled and for unlabeled ADEs were analyzed. RESULTS: Results were obtained from 100 companies to questions about 100 drugs (200 ADEs). For ADEs overall, 80% used the PI, 50% the medical literature, and 38% internal data. For labeled versus unlabeled ADEs, respectively, the PI was used by 84% and 76%; literature, both 50%; and internal data, 35% and 41%. The PCDIC specialists referencing the PI did not always provide accurate or up-to-date information. Some specialists, when asked to query internal databases, said that was not an option. CONCLUSION: For both labeled and unlabeled ADEs, the PI was the primary source used by PCDICs to answer safety questions about their products, and internal data were the least-used source. Most resources used by PCDICs are readily available to practicing pharmacists.
