↓ Skip to main content

Profiling adverse respiratory events and vomiting when using propofol for emergency department procedural sedation

Overview of attention for article published in Emergency Medicine Australasia, August 2007
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Profiling adverse respiratory events and vomiting when using propofol for emergency department procedural sedation
Published in
Emergency Medicine Australasia, August 2007
DOI 10.1111/j.1742-6723.2007.00982.x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anthony Bell, Greg Treston, Charley McNabb, Kathy Monypenny, Robert Cardwell

Abstract

To evaluate the rate of adverse respiratory events and vomiting among ED patients undergoing procedural sedation with propofol. This was a prospective, observational series of patients undergoing procedural sedation. Titrated i.v. propofol was administered via protocol. Fasting status was recorded. Four hundred patients undergoing sedation were enrolled. Of these 282 (70%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 66-75%) had eaten or drunken within 6 and 2 h, respectively. Median fasting times from a full meal, snack or drink were 7 h (interquartile range [IQR] 5-9 h), 6 h (IQR 4-8 h) and 4 h (IQR 2-6 h), respectively. Overall a respiratory event occurred in 86 patients (22%, 95% CI 18-26%). An airway intervention occurred in 123 patients (31%, 95% CI 26-35%). In 111 cases (90%, 95% CI 60-98%) basic airway manoeuvres were all that was required. No patients were intubated. Two patients vomited (0.5%, 95% CI 0.0-1.6%), one during sedation, one after patient became conversational. One patient developed transient laryngospasm (0.25%, 95% CI 0-1.2%) unrelated to vomiting. There were nil aspiration events (0%, 95% CI 0-0.74%). Seventy per cent of patients undergoing ED procedural sedation are not fasted. No patient had a clinically evident adverse outcome. Transient respiratory events occur but can be managed with basic airway interventions making propofol a safe alternative for emergency physicians to provide emergent procedural sedation.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 6 14%
Student > Bachelor 6 14%
Student > Postgraduate 5 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Researcher 3 7%
Other 8 19%
Unknown 11 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 5%
Unspecified 2 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 2%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 10 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 May 2018.
All research outputs
#3,257,169
of 24,602,766 outputs
Outputs from Emergency Medicine Australasia
#418
of 1,881 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,583
of 70,293 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Emergency Medicine Australasia
#2
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,602,766 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,881 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 70,293 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.