Predictors of Emesis and Recovery Agitation With Emergency Department Ketamine Sedation: An Individual-Patient Data Meta-Analysis of 8,282 Children
Study objective
Ketamine is widely used in emergency departments (EDs) to facilitate painful procedures; however, existing descriptors of predictors of emesis and recovery agitation are derived from relatively small studies.
Methods
We pooled individual-patient data from 32 ED studies and performed multiple logistic regression to determine which clinical variables would predict emesis and recovery agitation. The first phase of this study similarly identified predictors of airway and respiratory adverse events.
Results
In 8,282 pediatric ketamine sedations, the overall incidence of emesis, any recovery agitation, and clinically important recovery agitation was 8.4%, 7.6%, and 1.4%, respectively. The most important independent predictors of emesis are unusually high intravenous (IV) dose (initial dose of ≥2.5 mg/kg or a total dose of ≥5.0 mg/kg), intramuscular (IM) route, and increasing age (peak at 12 years). Similar risk factors for any recovery agitation are low IM dose (<3.0 mg/kg) and unusually high IV dose, with no such important risk factors for clinically important recovery agitation.
Conclusion
Early adolescence is the peak age for ketamine-associated emesis, and its rate is higher with IM administration and with unusually high IV doses. Recovery agitation is not age related to a clinically important degree. When we interpreted it in conjunction with the separate airway adverse event phase of this analysis, we found no apparent clinically important benefit or harm from coadministered anticholinergics and benzodiazepines and no increase in adverse events with either oropharyngeal procedures or the presence of substantial underlying illness. These and other results herein challenge many widely held views about ED ketamine administration.
To access this article, please choose from the options below
Provide feedback for this article at the journal's Web site, www.annemergmed.com.
Supervising editors: Kathy N. Shaw, MD, MSCE; Michael L. Callaham, MD
Dr. Shaw and Dr. Callaham were the supervising editors on this article. Dr. Green did not participate in the editorial review or decision to publish this article.
Author contributions: SMG conceived and designed the study. The methodology was critiqued and revised with extensive input from MGR, BK, LB, DA, RDP, JEW, and GT. All authors reviewed and recoded their data to comply with study definitions, and before data analysis the study protocol was critiqued and refined by all authors. SMG performed the data analysis, and a writing committee composed of SMG, MGR, and BK then created the article. All authors critiqued the draft and there were substantial revisions. SMG takes responsibility for the paper as a whole.
Funding and support: By Annals policy, all authors are required to disclose any and all commercial, financial, and other relationships in any way related to the subject of this article that might create any potential conflict of interest. The authors have stated that no such relationships exist. See the Manuscript Submission Agreement in this issue for examples of specific conflicts covered by this statement.
Publication date: Available online June 6, 2009.
Reprints not available from the authors.
PII: S0196-0644(09)00372-2
doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2009.04.004
© 2009 American College of Emergency Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
