Adverse Events With Ketamine Versus Ketofol for Procedural Sedation on Adults: A Double-blind, Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVES: The goal of our study was to compare the frequency and severity of recovery reactions between ketamine and ketamine-propofol 1:1 admixture ("ketofol"). METHODS: We performed a multicentric, randomized, double-blind trial in which adult patients received emergency procedural sedations with ketamine or ketofol. Our primary outcome was the proportion of unpleasant recovery reactions. Other outcomes were frequency of interventions required by these recovery reactions, rates of respiratory or hemodynamic events, emesis, and satisfaction of patients as well as providers. RESULTS: A total of 152 patients completed the study, 76 in each arm. Compared with ketamine, ketofol determined a 22% reduction in recovery reactions incidence (p < 0.01) and less clinical and pharmacologic interventions required by these reactions. There was no serious adverse event in both groups. Rates in hemodynamic or respiratory events as well as satisfaction scores were similar. Significantly fewer patients experienced emesis with ketofol, with a threefold reduction in incidence compared with ketamine. CONCLUSION: We found a significant reduction in recovery reactions and emesis frequencies among adult patients receiving emergency procedural sedations with ketofol, compared with ketamine.

Factors associated with initiation of medical advanced cardiac life support after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

BACKGROUND: Termination of resuscitation rule permits to stop futile resuscitative efforts by paramedics. In a different setting, the decision to withhold resuscitation by emergency physician could be based on different factors. We aimed to identify the factors associated with the initiation of a medical ACLS in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients. METHODS: We prospectively collected the characteristics of all out-of hospital cardiac arrest patients occurring in a French district between March 2010 and December 2013 and managed by the emergency medical system. We analyzed the factors associated with the initiation of medical ACLS. RESULTS: Medical ACLS was initiated in 69 % of the 2690 patients included in the register. ACLS patients were younger (69 years [55-80] vs. 84 years [77-90]) and more frequently men. A higher percentage of witnessed cardiac arrest and BLS were observed. Duration of no-flow was shorter in the ACLS patients, whereas BLS duration was longer. A higher proportion of shockable rhythm and application of AED were found in this group. Mains factors associated with the initiation of medical ACLS were a suspected cardiac cause (1.73 [1.30-2.30]) and use of an automated external defibrillator (1.59 [1.18-2.16]), whereas factors associated with no medical ACLS were higher age (0.93 [0.92-0.94]), absence of BLS (0.62 [0.52-0.73]), asystole (0.31 [0.18-0.51]) and location in nursing home (0.23 [0.11-0.51]). CONCLUSIONS: The medical decision to not initiate ACLS in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients seems to rely on a complex combination of validated criteria used for termination of resuscitation and factors resulting from an intuitive perception of the outcome.