You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 150 No. 7, July 1996 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  ARTICLE
 This Article
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal

Intramuscular ketamine is superior to meperidine, promethazine, and chlorpromazine for pediatric emergency department sedation

E. M. Petrack, C. M. Marx and M. S. Wright
Rainbow Babies and Childrens Hospital, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.

OBJECTIVE: To compare ketamine hydrochloride (KET) with combined meperidine hydrochloride, promethazine hydrochloride, and chlorpromazine hydrochloride (MPC) for pediatric emergency department sedation with respect to onset, duration, and efficacy. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial. SETTING: Pediatric emergency department in an urban university hospital. PATIENTS: Convenience sample of 29 patients, 6 months to 6 years of age, requiring sedation for suturing, wound or burn debridement, or lumbar puncture. INTERVENTION: Children received intramuscular KET (4 mg/kg) with atropine sulfate (0.01 mg/kg) or MPC (meperidine hydrochloride 2 mg/kg, promethazine hydrochloride 1 mg/kg, chlorpromazine hydrochloride 1 mg/kg). Data collection included demographics, vital signs, and onset of sedation; procedural distress using the Observational Scale of Behavioral Distress; and time to recovery. The operator was questioned on satisfaction with the drug, and parents received follow-up to assess parental satisfaction. RESULTS: Of the 29 patients enrolled in the study, 2 were excluded for protocol violation, 15 received KET, and 12 received MPC. Demographics and baseline vital signs did not differ. Although patients in the 2 groups had a similar duration of sedation (KET, 82 min vs MPC, 97 min, P = .15), patients receiving KET had more rapid onset of sedation (3 min vs 18 min, P < .01) a shorter time to discharge (85 min vs 113 min, P 0 .01) and lower Observational Scale of Behavioral Distress scores (9.9 vs 19.2, P = .003). All 15 physicians using KET would request it again vs 5 of 12 (42%) of the physicians using MPC (P < .001). No serious adverse reactions occurred. There were no differences in parental satisfaction. CONCLUSION: Ketamine has a faster onset and results in more rapid discharge from the pediatric emergency department while providing for less patient distress during procedures. Ketamine is also associated with greater physician satisfaction than MPC.

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Ketamine is a safe, effective, and appropriate technique for emergency department paediatric procedural sedation
Green and Krauss
Emerg. Med. J. 2004;21:271-272.
FULL TEXT  

The Safety of Ketamine Sedation in the Treatment of Traumatic Fractures in Children
Vas et al.
JBJS 2001;83:1593-1594.
FULL TEXT  

Intravenous ketamine plus midazolam is superior to intranasal midazolam for emergency paediatric procedural sedation
Acworth et al.
Emerg. Med. J. 2001;18:39-45.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Accident and emergency department led implementation of ketamine sedation in paediatric practice and parental response
Holloway et al.
Emerg. Med. J. 2000;17:25-28.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Comparison of Fentanyl/Midazolam With Ketamine/Midazolam for Pediatric Orthopedic Emergencies
Kennedy et al.
Pediatrics 1998;102:956-963.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The Pediatric Sedation Unit: A Mechanism for Pediatric Sedation
Lowrie et al.
Pediatrics 1998;102:e30-e30.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Use of Ketamine in a Pain Management Protocol for Repetitive Procedures
Rauch
Pediatrics 1998;102:404-404.
FULL TEXT  

KETAMINE FOR PEDIATRIC SEDATION
JWatch General 1996;1996:6-6.
FULL TEXT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1996 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.