Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Capnografía versus monitorización estándar para la analgesia y la sedación durante la realización de procedimientos en el servicio de urgencias

Información

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010698.pub2Copiar DOI
Base de datos:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Versión publicada:
  1. 23 marzo 2017see what's new
Tipo:
  1. Intervention
Etapa:
  1. Review
Grupo Editorial Cochrane:

  1. Grupo Cochrane de Atención crítica y de emergencia

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2019 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cifras del artículo

Altmetric:

Citado por:

Citado 0 veces por enlace Crossref Cited-by

Contraer

Autores

  • Brian F Wall

    Correspondencia a: Department of Emergency Medicine, North York General Hospital, Toronto, Canada

    [email protected]

    [email protected]

    Department of Emergency Medicine, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Canada

  • Kirk Magee

    Department of Emergency Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada

  • Samuel G Campbell

    Department of Emergency Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada

  • Peter J Zed

    Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada

    Department of Emergency Medicine, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada

Contributions of authors

Brian F Wall (BFW), Kirk Magee (KDM), Samuel G Campbell (SGC), Peter J Zed (PJZ)

Conceiving the review: BFW, KDM, PJZ.

Co‐ordinating the review: BFW, KDM.

Undertaking manual searches: BFW, KDM.

Screening search results: BFW, KDM.

Organizing retrieval of papers: BFW.

Screening retrieved papers against inclusion criteria: BFW, KDM, SGC.

Appraising quality of papers: BFW, KDM.

Abstracting data from papers: BFW, KDM.

Writing to authors of papers for additional information: BFW.

Providing additional data about papers: BFW.

Obtaining and screening data on unpublished studies: BFW.

Data management for the review: BFW, KDM.

Entering data into Review Manager 5 (RevMan 2014): BFW, KDM.

RevMan statistical data: BFW, KDM.

Other statistical analysis not using RevMan: BFW, KDM.

Interpretation of data: BFW, KDM, PJZ.

Statistical inferences: BFW, KDM, PJZ.

Writing the review: BFW, KDM, PJZ.

Securing funding for the review: BFW, KDM.

Performing previous work that was the foundation of the present study: SGC, PJZ.

Guarantor for the review: BFW.

Person responsible for reading and checking review before submission: KDM.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • No sources of support supplied

External sources

  • Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians (CAEP) Research Grant, Canada.

    A national grant competition was won providing financial support to pay for statistician services and reference software.

Declarations of interest

Brian F Wall: none known.

Kirk Magee: was a listed author of one of the included studies in this review (Campbell 2016).

Samuel G Campbell: was a listed author of one of the included studies in this review (Campbell 2016).

Peter J Zed: was a listed author of one of the included studies in this review (Campbell 2016).

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Jane Cracknell (managing editor), Harald Herkner (content editor), Vibeke E Horstmann (statistical editor), Baruch Krauss, Teresa A Williams, Cheuk San Law (peer reviewers), and Janet Wale (consumer editor) for their help and editorial advice during the preparation of this systematic review.

Anna MacDonald helped with the task of data extraction for one study as an independent researcher (Campbell 2016).

We would also like to thank Melissa Langhan (included study author) for responding to our requests for unpublished data. Finally, we thank the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians for the resident research grant that helped fund this study (see Sources of support).

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2017 Mar 23

Capnography versus standard monitoring for emergency department procedural sedation and analgesia

Review

Brian F Wall, Kirk Magee, Samuel G Campbell, Peter J Zed

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010698.pub2

2013 Aug 14

Capnography versus standard monitoring for emergency department procedural sedation and analgesia

Protocol

Brian F Wall, Kirk Magee, Samuel G Campbell, Peter J Zed

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010698

Differences between protocol and review

We made the following changes to the published protocol (Wall 2013).

  1. An explanation for the definition of the primary outcome oxygen desaturation was added to the 'Types of outcome measures' section.

  2. The description in the 'Objectives' section was simplified to conform to Cochrane standards but no prespecified primary or secondary objectives were changed.

Keywords

MeSH

Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) Keywords

Medical Subject Headings Check Words

Humans;

PICO

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

El uso y la enseñanza del modelo PICO están muy extendidos en el ámbito de la atención sanitaria basada en la evidencia para formular preguntas y estrategias de búsqueda y para caracterizar estudios o metanálisis clínicos. PICO son las siglas en inglés de cuatro posibles componentes de una pregunta de investigación: paciente, población o problema; intervención; comparación; desenlace (outcome).

Para saber más sobre el uso del modelo PICO, puede consultar el Manual Cochrane.

Search flow diagram.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Search flow diagram.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 2

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 3

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Forest plot of comparison: capnography plus standard monitoring versus standard monitoring, outcome: 1.1 oxygen desaturation.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 4

Forest plot of comparison: capnography plus standard monitoring versus standard monitoring, outcome: 1.1 oxygen desaturation.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Forest plot of comparison: capnography plus standard monitoring) versus standard monitoring, outcome: 1.6 oxygen desaturation (sensitivity analysis based on definition of oxygen desaturation. Deitch 2010 excluded).
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 5

Forest plot of comparison: capnography plus standard monitoring) versus standard monitoring, outcome: 1.6 oxygen desaturation (sensitivity analysis based on definition of oxygen desaturation. Deitch 2010 excluded).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Forest plot of comparison: capnography plus standard monitoring versus standard monitoring, outcome: 1.7 airway interventions (subgroup analysis based on participant age).
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 6

Forest plot of comparison: capnography plus standard monitoring versus standard monitoring, outcome: 1.7 airway interventions (subgroup analysis based on participant age).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Capnography plus standard monitoring versus standard monitoring only, Outcome 1 Oxygen desaturation.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Capnography plus standard monitoring versus standard monitoring only, Outcome 1 Oxygen desaturation.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Capnography plus standard monitoring versus standard monitoring only, Outcome 2 Hypotension.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Capnography plus standard monitoring versus standard monitoring only, Outcome 2 Hypotension.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Capnography plus standard monitoring versus standard monitoring only, Outcome 3 Emesis, pulmonary aspiration.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Capnography plus standard monitoring versus standard monitoring only, Outcome 3 Emesis, pulmonary aspiration.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Capnography plus standard monitoring versus standard monitoring only, Outcome 4 Airway interventions.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Capnography plus standard monitoring versus standard monitoring only, Outcome 4 Airway interventions.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Capnography plus standard monitoring versus standard monitoring only, Outcome 5 Oxygen desaturation (subgroup analysis).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Capnography plus standard monitoring versus standard monitoring only, Outcome 5 Oxygen desaturation (subgroup analysis).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Capnography plus standard monitoring versus standard monitoring only, Outcome 6 Oxygen desaturation (sensitivity analysis), Deitch 2010 excluded.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 Capnography plus standard monitoring versus standard monitoring only, Outcome 6 Oxygen desaturation (sensitivity analysis), Deitch 2010 excluded.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Capnography plus standard monitoring versus standard monitoring only, Outcome 7 Airway interventions (subgroup analysis).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1 Capnography plus standard monitoring versus standard monitoring only, Outcome 7 Airway interventions (subgroup analysis).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva
Summary of findings for the main comparison. Capnography and standard monitoring compared with standard monitoring for emergency department patients undergoing procedural sedation and analgesia

Capnography and standard monitoring compared with standard monitoring for emergency department patients undergoing procedural sedation and analgesia

Patient or population: patients undergoing PSA

Settings: emergency departments in North America

Intervention: capnography and standard monitoring

Comparison: standard monitoring

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No of Participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

Standard monitoring

Capnography and standard monitoring

Oxygen desaturation

Medium risk population

RR 0.89 (0.48 to 1.63)

1272 participants (3 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
Moderateb

‐

8 per 1000a

7 per 1000
(4 to 13)

Hypotension

Medium risk population

RR 2.36 (0.98 to 5.69)

986 participants (1 study)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
Moderated

‐

6 per 1000c

14 per 1000
(6 to 34)

Emesis, pulmonary aspiration

Medium risk population

RR 3.10 (0.13 to 75.88)

986 participants (1 study)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
Moderated

None of the studies recorded pulmonary aspiration events.

4 per 1000e

4 per 1000

(1 to 304)

Airway interventions

Medium risk population

RR 1.26 (0.94 to 1.69)

1272 participants (3 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
Moderateg

2 studies included verbal/physical stimulation and supplemental oxygen as airway interventions (not consistent with our definition) but only reported total airway interventions (as dichotomous outcomes).

150 per 1000f

189 per 1000
(141 to 254)

Airway interventions adult subgroup analysis (aged ≥ 18 years)h

Medium risk population

RR 1.44 (1.16 to 1.79)

1118 participants (2 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
Moderatej

‐

190 per 1000i

274 per 1000
(220 to 340)

Recovery time

None of the studies reported recovery time.

*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).

CI: confidence interval; PSA: procedural sedation and analgesia; RR: risk ratio.

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

aCampbell 2006; Cudny 2013. No study found to determine assumed risk for all‐age population, combined incidence of these studies used as a surrogate. Hypoxia defined as oxygen saturation < 90% at any time with baseline oxygen saturation ≥ 95% for Campbell 2006. Unknown definition of hypoxia for Cudny 2013.

b Although statistics show low to moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 42%, P = 0.18), quality downgraded due to heterogeneity in study designs.

cCampbell 2006. Hypotension defined as systolic blood pressure < 85 mmHg at any time with baseline systolic blood pressure ≥ 100 mmHg.

d Downgraded for reporting bias in one study.

eLanghan 2012. Used this paediatric study as surrogate for all ages population.

fBurton 2006.

g Downgraded due to significant heterogeneity (I2 = 53%).

h The study by Campbell 2016 reported adults aged 16 years or greater whereas the study by Deitch 2010 reported adults aged greater than 18 years.

iCampbell 2016.

j Downgraded due to heterogeneity in outcome definitions as well as small number of studies.

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings for the main comparison. Capnography and standard monitoring compared with standard monitoring for emergency department patients undergoing procedural sedation and analgesia
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 1. Capnography plus standard monitoring versus standard monitoring only

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Oxygen desaturation Show forest plot

3

1272

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.89 [0.48, 1.63]

2 Hypotension Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3 Emesis, pulmonary aspiration Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4 Airway interventions Show forest plot

3

1272

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.26 [0.94, 1.69]

5 Oxygen desaturation (subgroup analysis) Show forest plot

3

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

5.1 Adults (aged ≥ 18 years)

2

1118

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.79 [0.37, 1.71]

5.2 Paediatric (aged <18 years)

1

154

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.33 [0.49, 3.66]

6 Oxygen desaturation (sensitivity analysis), Deitch 2010 excluded Show forest plot

2

1140

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.33 [0.66, 2.69]

7 Airway interventions (subgroup analysis) Show forest plot

3

1272

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.26 [0.94, 1.69]

7.1 Adults (aged ≥ 18 years)

2

1118

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.44 [1.16, 1.79]

7.2 Paediatric (aged < 18 years)

1

154

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.97 [0.71, 1.34]
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Capnography plus standard monitoring versus standard monitoring only
Ir a la tabla de la revisión