Sedative and analgesic effects of propofol–ketamine versus propofol–fentanyl for emergency department procedures

Abstract

Background:To manage and reduce painful procedures in the emergency wards, procedural sedation as well as analgesia can be used. Propofol combinations are the most common short‐acting intravenous sedative drugs in the field of emergency medicine.Objectives:This research aimed to compare the effectiveness, safety, and complications of intravenous infusion of ketofol with fentofol in painful emergency procedures.Methods:This study was a randomized, double‐blind clinical trial. Sampling was simple and used random assignment; 196 participants were randomly assigned to two groups of 98 patients each. In each group, injection was done with fentanyl–propofol or ketamine–propofol. For data gathering, pre‐procedure, and procedure, modified Aldrete's scoring checklist was used. In order to determine the levels of sedation, we used the Ramsay Sedation Scale. Data analysis was performed via SPSS Version 20 using statistical tests such as mean ± standard division, t‐test, chi‐square test, and analysis of variance.Results:Among the participants in this study, shoulder procedure was performed more than other procedures (56.6%). The mean of recovery time was significantly different in the two groups (ketofol: 5.65 ± 0.35 vs fentofol: 9.33 ± 0.78); the recovery time in group B (fentofol) was longer than that in group A (ketofol) (p = 0.001). Drug complications were statistically significant in the two groups, and complications by ketofol were less than those by fentofol (p = 0.001). “Hypotension and bradycardia” were observed with fentofol and “tachycardia” was observed with ketofol. The performance of these two drugs was not the same when subject to various procedures.Conclusion:Results of this study revealed that ketofol provided better analgesia and sedation, faster recovery time, lesser complications and adverse events, and reduced bradycardia and hypotension.