Paediatric procedural sedation and analgesia by emergency physicians in a country with a recent establishment of emergency medicine.

OBJECTIVES: Paediatric patients receive less procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) in the emergency department compared with adults, especially in countries where emergency medicine is at an early stage of development. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the adverse events and efficacy of paediatric PSA in a country with a recent establishment of emergency medicine and to describe which factors aided implementation. METHODS: This is a prospective, multicentre, observational study of paediatric patients undergoing PSA by the first trained emergency physicians (EPs) in The Netherlands. A standardized data collection form was used at all participating hospitals to collect data on adverse events, amnesia, pain scores, and procedure completion. A survey was used to interpret which factors had aided PSA implementation. RESULTS: We recorded 351 paediatric PSA. The mean age was 9.5 years (95% confidence interval: 9.1-10.0). Esketamine was most frequently used (42.4%), followed by propofol (34.7%). The adverse event rate was low (3.0%). Amnesia was present in 86.8%. The median pain score was 2 (out of 10) for patients without amnesia. Procedures were successfully completed in 93.9% of the cases. CONCLUSION: Paediatric PSA provided by the first EPs in The Netherlands showed appropriate levels of sedation and analgesia with a high rate of procedure completion and a low rate of adverse events. Our paper suggests that EPs provided with a proper infrastructure of mentorship, training and guidelines can implement effective paediatric PSA.

Prehospital antibiotics in the ambulance for sepsis: a multicentre, open label, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Emergency medical services (EMS) personnel have already made substantial contributions to improving care for patients with time-dependent illnesses, such as trauma and myocardial infarction. Patients with sepsis could also benefit from timely prehospital care. METHODS: After training EMS personnel in recognising sepsis, we did a randomised controlled open-label trial in ten large regional ambulance services serving 34 secondary and tertiary care hospitals in the Netherlands. We compared the effects of early administration of antibiotics in the ambulance with usual care. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using block-randomisation with blocks of size 4 to the intervention (open-label intravenous ceftriaxone 2000 mg in addition to usual care) or usual care (fluid resuscitation and supplementary oxygen). Randomisation was stratified per region. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 28 days and analysis was by intention to treat. To assess the effect of training, we determined the average time to antibiotics (TTA) in the emergency department and recognition of sepsis by EMS personnel before and after training. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01988428. FINDINGS: 2698 patients were enrolled between June 30, 2014, and June 26, 2016. 2672 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis: 1535 in the intervention group and 1137 in the usual care group. The intervention group received antibiotics a median of 26 min (IQR 19-34) before arriving at the emergency department. In the usual care group, median TTA after arriving at the emergency department was 70 min (IQR 36-128), compared with 93 min (IQR 39-140) before EMS personnel training (p=0·142). At day 28, 120 (8%) patients had died in the intervention group and 93 (8%) had died in the usual care group (relative risk 0·95, 95% CI 0·74-1·24). 102 (7%) patients in the intervention group and 119 (10%) in the usual care group were re-admitted to hospital within 28 days (p=0·0004). Seven mild allergic reactions occurred, none of which could be attributed to ceftriaxone. INTERPRETATION: In patients with varying severity of sepsis, EMS personnel training improved early recognition and care in the whole acute care chain. However, giving antibiotics in the ambulance did not lead to improved survival, regardless of illness severity. FUNDING: The NutsOhra Foundation, Netherlands Society of Internal Medicine (NIV).

Procedural sedation in the emergency department by Dutch emergency physicians: a prospective multicentre observational study of 1711 adults.

OBJECTIVE: To describe our experience performing ED procedural sedation in a country where emergency medicine (EM) is a relatively new specialty. METHODS: This is a prospective observational study of adult patients undergoing procedural sedation by emergency physicians (EPs) or EM residents in eight hospitals in the Netherlands. Data were collected on a standardised form, including patient characteristics, sedative and analgesic used, procedural success, adverse events (classified according to World SIVA) and rescue interventions. RESULTS: 1711 adult cases were included from 2006 to 2013. Propofol, midazolam and esketamine (S+ enantiomer of ketamine) were the most used sedatives (63%, 29% and 8%). We had adverse event data on all patients. The overall adverse event rate was 11%, mostly hypoxia or apnoea. There was no difference in adverse event rate between EPs and EM residents. However, there was a significantly higher success rate of the procedure when EPs did the procedural sedation (92% vs 84%). No moderate (unplanned hospital admission or escalation of care) or sentinel SIVA outcomes occurred (pulmonary aspiration syndrome, death or permanent neurological deficit). CONCLUSION: Adverse events during procedural sedation occurred in 11% of patients. There were no moderate or sentinel outcomes. All events could be managed by the sedating physician. In a country where EM is a relatively new specialty, procedural sedation appears to be safe when performed by EPs or trained EM residents and has comparable adverse event rates to international studies.

Study protocol for a Multi-centre, Investigator-initiated, Randomized Controlled Trial to Compare the Effects of Prehospital Antibiotic Treatment for Sepsis Patients with Usual Care after Training Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Personnel in Early Recognition (- The Prehospital ANTibiotics Against Sepsis (PHANTASi) trial.

INTRODUCTION: Sepsis is one of the most frequent reasons for referral to emergency departments (EDs) worldwide. Sepsis becomes more serious when left untreated with a high mortality rate, exceeding even those of myocardial infarction and stroke. Therefore, much effort has been put in to start with appropriate therapy as early as possible. Emergency medical services (EMS) personnel have already made a significant difference in improving care for patients with acute coronary syndrome, multiple trauma and stroke. Patients with severe sepsis or septic shock could also benefit from timely prehospital care. Earlier recognition and initiation of treatment by EMS personnel may improve survival of these critically ill patients. Methods and analysis: The Prehospital Antibiotics against Sepsis (PHANTASi) trial is an investigator- initiated, multicentre, randomized controlled open-label clinical trial nested within a step wedge design. This study compares the effects of usual care to that of training EMS personnel in recognizing and initiating treatment in the prehospital setting together with early administration of antibiotics for patients suspected of (severe) sepsis and septic shock. Primary outcome is 28 day mortality. Secondary outcomes include, length of hospital stay and admission to intensive care units. Ethics and dissemination: This study has been approved by the research ethics committee of VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands (Protocol 2013.458/ NL 42001.029.13). The results of the study will be disseminated at several research conferences and international peer reviewed journals. The study will be implemented and reported in line with the CONSORT statement.