SAFETY AND EFFICACY OF FLUMAZENIL IN REVERSING CONSCIOUS SEDATION IN THE EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT

Authors
Citation
Cr. Chudnofsky, SAFETY AND EFFICACY OF FLUMAZENIL IN REVERSING CONSCIOUS SEDATION IN THE EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT, Academic emergency medicine, 4(10), 1997, pp. 944-950
Citations number
19
Categorie Soggetti
Emergency Medicine & Critical Care
Journal title
ISSN journal
10696563
Volume
4
Issue
10
Year of publication
1997
Pages
944 - 950
Database
ISI
SICI code
1069-6563(1997)4:10<944:SAEOFI>2.0.ZU;2-7
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of flumazenil vs place bo in reversing fentanyl and midazolam-induced conscious sedation in E D patients undergoing a short, painful procedure. Methods: This was a multicenter, randomized, parallel, double-blind, placebo-controlled st udy conducted at 9 university-affiliated teaching hospitals. Patients >18 years of age requiring conscious sedation for a painful procedure expected to last <20 minutes were eligible for inclusion in the study. Patients received 2 mu g/kg of fentanyl, followed by midazolam titrat ed to the desired level of sedation, Patients were then randomized to receive either flumazenil or placebo in a 3:1 ratio (flumazenil:placeb o). Vital signs, O-2 saturation, and alertness were recorded at regula r intervals. Prior to ED release, patients were asked to rate the amou nt of discomfort they experienced and the level of relaxation achieved on a 10-cm visual analog scale (VAS, They also were questioned about their recall for the procedure and satisfaction with the drug regimen. Physicians also rated their satisfaction with the drug regimen on a I O-cm VAS. Results: Overall, 133 patients received flumazenil and 46 pa tients received placebo. Patients in the 2 groups received similar dos es of midazolam. The patients who received flumazenil returned to base line alertness earlier (11.1 min vs 24.8 min, p < 0.001) and at a fast er rate than did the patients given placebo. Actual intervals from pro cedure completion until release from the ED did not differ between the 2 groups (98.2 +/- 3.6 min flumazenil vs 96.9 +/- 5.8 min placebo; p = 0.89). The amounts of discomfort experienced, levels of relaxation a chieved, recalls for the procedure, and both patient and physician sat isfactions were also similar for the 2 groups. There were no serious a dverse effects related to the study drug, and minor adverse effects we re similar for the 2 groups. Conclusion: Flumazenil is safe and effica cious in reversing midazolam-induced sedation in ED patients given a c ombination of fentanyl and midazolam to facilitate the performance of a short, painful procedure, The patients given flumazenil returned to baseline alertness earlier and at a faster rate than did the patients given placebo. However, flumazenil did not alter the actual interval f rom procedure completion until ED release.