CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT02404610Updated Nov 30, 2021Results posted

Moderate Versus Deep Procedural Sedation With Propofol in the Emergency Department

A Phase 4 interventional study of Moderate Procedural Sedation with a sedative medication. and Deep Procedural Sedation with a sedative medication. in Pain, sponsored by Hennepin Healthcare Research Institute. Completed at 1 site in United States. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2021-11-30.

Sponsored by Hennepin Healthcare Research Institute · Phase 4, Interventional, and Treatment

Phase
Phase 4
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
107
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

This study is a clinical trial of moderate sedation versus deep sedation with propofol for procedural sedation in the Emergency Department. The purpose of this study is to compare the rate of amnesia and respiratory depression rate in patients who receive moderate sedation to those that receive deep sedation.

Read the detailed description

Purpose: For the pilot phase, if the visual memory assessment test developed in this study can adequately assess periods of amnesia during the procedure, then it can be used for the phase of the study that randomizes patients to moderate or deep sedation. The purpose of the randomized phase is to compare the rate of amnesia and respiratory depression in patients who receive moderate sedation to those that received deep sedation. The goal is to determine whether moderate sedation could provide a safer sedation while still resulting in adequate amnesia of the procedure. Secondary goals would be to compare the duration of sedation, the success of the procedures for which the patient is sedated, procedural difficulty, the rate of hypotension and other adverse events, and the patient perception of the quality of the sedation (pain or recall of procedure).

Background: Adequate pain control and alleviation of anxiety improves quality of care and patient satisfaction. Numerous studies have found that procedural sedation (PS) in the ED is safe, and when properly administered, the incidence of reported complications, including clinically significant respiratory depression, is rare. Procedural sedation is used for procedures such as fracture reduction, dislocation reduction, cardioversion, incision and drainage, and chest tube placement. Propofol is an anesthetic agent frequently used for PS in the Emergency Department (ED) and produces sedation, hypnosis, and amnesia, but lacks analgesic properties. In studies conducted at Hennepin County Medical Center (HCMC), we have found that patients are unable to recall whether or not they experienced pain during the procedure when sedated with propofol. However, there is the possibility that certain parts of the procedure can be later recalled by the patient. If extensive parts of the procedure can be recalled, then this is not an effective sedation. Previous studies of memory during sedation at HCMC have used verbal prompts only, but research has shown that people can more readily remember images. Images may provide a more sensitive way to determine the degree of amnesia during sedation.

02

Conditions studied

  • Pain

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • propofol
  • moderate procedural sedation
  • deep procedural sedation
  • memory
  • emergency department
03

In context

Emergencies

1,692 studies on the registry are indexed under Emergencies; 333 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 107 is below the median of 145 across 931 interventional studies indexed under Emergencies.

Browse Emergencies studies →

Lead sponsor

Hennepin Healthcare Research Institute is the lead sponsor of 69 studies on the registry; 4 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

  • Adults undergoing procedural sedation with propofol in the emergency department

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • \< 18 years old
  • Pregnant
  • Previous allergic reaction to propofol
  • Prisoner
  • Unable to provide informed consent
05

Study design

Phase
Phase 4
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
None (open label)
Enrollment
107 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Moderate Procedural Sedation

    Subjects will undergo procedural sedation for an indicated urgent medical procedure with a target sedation level of moderate sedation. Moderate procedural sedation is a specific term referring to procedural sedation with a target depth of moderate.

    Procedure: Moderate Procedural Sedation with a sedative medication. · Drug: propofol

  • Experimental
    Deep Procedural Sedation

    Subjects will undergo procedural sedation for an indicated urgent medical procedure with a target sedation level of deep sedation. Deep procedural sedation is a specific term referring to procedural sedation with a target depth of deep.

    Procedure: Deep Procedural Sedation with a sedative medication. · Drug: propofol

Interventions

  • ProcedureModerate Procedural Sedation with a sedative medication.

    procedural sedation with a target sedation depth of moderate. Moderate sedation is not a drug specific intervention, it is achieved with the use of a sedative or a combination of sedations and opioids.

  • ProcedureDeep Procedural Sedation with a sedative medication.

    procedural sedation with a target sedation depth of deep. Deep sedation is not a drug specific intervention, it is achieved with the use of a sedative or a combination of sedations and opioids.

  • Drugpropofol
06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Patients With Clinical Signs of Respiratory Depression or Sub Clinical Respiratory Depressions Measured by Capnography and Pulse Oximetry.

    adverse respiratory events measured using capnography, pulse oximetry, and airway maneuvers performed during the sedation procedure

    Time frame: From start of procedure until the patient has returned to baseline mental status after the conclusion of the sedation procedure, an expected average time of 30 minutes

07

Results

Posted May 24, 2019

Participant flow

Participant flow — Overall Study
MilestoneModerate Procedural SedationDeep Procedural Sedation
Started5453
Completed5453
Not completed00

Outcome measures

PrimaryPatients With Clinical Signs of Respiratory Depression or Sub Clinical Respiratory Depressions Measured by Capnography and Pulse Oximetry.

adverse respiratory events measured using capnography, pulse oximetry, and airway maneuvers performed during the sedation procedure

Time frame:
From start of procedure until the patient has returned to baseline mental status after the conclusion of the sedation procedure, an expected average time of 30 minutes
Reported as:
Count of participants · Participants
Patients With Clinical Signs of Respiratory Depression or Sub Clinical Respiratory Depressions Measured by Capnography and Pulse Oximetry.
ParticipantsModerate Procedural SedationDeep Procedural Sedation
Patients With Clinical Signs of Respiratory Depression or Sub Clinical Respiratory Depressions Measured by Capnography and Pulse Oximetry.2221

Adverse events

Collected over From 3 minutes prior to the start of the sedation encounter up until the time the patient regained their baseline mental status up to 24 hours.. Non-serious events are listed at a 0% frequency threshold.

Adverse event summary by group
GroupDeathsSeriousOther
Moderate Procedural Sedation0/54 (0%)0/54 (0%)21/54 (38.9%)
Deep Procedural Sedation0/53 (0%)0/53 (0%)24/53 (45.3%)
Most frequent other events
Most frequent other events
EventModerate Procedural SedationDeep Procedural Sedation
adverse respiratory eventRespiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders21/5424/53

Baseline characteristics

Age, Categorical
Age, Categorical(Participants)Moderate Procedural SedationDeep Procedural SedationTotal
<=18 years000
Between 18 and 65 years5149100
>=65 years347
Age, Continuous
Age, Continuous(years)Moderate Procedural SedationDeep Procedural SedationTotal
Median41.5 (18 to 78)39 (20 to 73)40 (18 to 78)
Sex: Female, Male
Sex: Female, Male(Participants)Moderate Procedural SedationDeep Procedural SedationTotal
Female302555
Male242852
Race and Ethnicity Not Collected
Race and Ethnicity Not Collected(Participants)Moderate Procedural SedationDeep Procedural SedationTotal
Count of participants——0
Region of Enrollment
Region of Enrollment(participants)Moderate Procedural SedationDeep Procedural SedationTotal
United States5453107
08

Study locations

1 site
  • Hennepin County Medical Center
    Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415, United States
09

References and documents

Publications

  • Miner JR, Danahy M, Moch A, Biros M. Randomized clinical trial of etomidate versus propofol for procedural sedation in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med. 2007 Jan;49(1):15-22. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2006.06.042. Epub 2006 Sep 25. PubMed 16997421 ↗
  • Miner JR, Biros M, Krieg S, Johnson C, Heegaard W, Plummer D. Randomized clinical trial of propofol versus methohexital for procedural sedation during fracture and dislocation reduction in the emergency department. Acad Emerg Med. 2003 Sep;10(9):931-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2003.tb00646.x. PubMed 12957974 ↗
  • Miner JR, Biros MH, Seigel T, Ross K. The utility of the bispectral index in procedural sedation with propofol in the emergency department. Acad Emerg Med. 2005 Mar;12(3):190-6. doi: 10.1197/j.aem.2004.10.004. PubMed 15741580 ↗

Study documents

  • Protocol and statistical analysis plan · Dec 30, 2014

Documents are hosted by the registry — open the source record to download them.

10

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Nov 30, 2021, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
11

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT02404610
Lead sponsor
Hennepin Healthcare Research Institute
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Mar 31, 2015
Start date
Jul 2014
Primary completion
Oct 1, 2018
Completion
Dec 1, 2018
Results posted
May 24, 2019
Last update
Nov 30, 2021

Study contacts

Alexandra Schick
principal investigator · Hennepin Healthcare Research Institute

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Nov 2021. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion