Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 285

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

End-tidal Carbon Dioxide Monitoring during Procedural Sedation

Miner, James R., Heegaard, William, Plummer, David·2002·Academic Emergency Medicine

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To prospectively determine whether end-tidal carbon dioxide (ETCO2) monitors can detect respiratory depression (RD) and the level of sedation in emergency department (ED) patients undergoing procedural sedation (PS). METHODS: This was a prospective observational study conducted in an urban county hospital of adult patients undergoing PS. Patients were monitored for vital signs, depth of sedation per the physician by the Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation scale (OAA/S), pulse oximetry, and nasal-sample ETCO2 during PS. Respiratory depression was defined as an oxygen saturation <90%, an ETCO2 >50 mm Hg, or an absent ETCO2 waveform at any time during the procedure. The physician also determined whether protective airway reflexes were lost during the procedure and assisted ventilation was required, or whether there were any other complications. Rates of RD were compared with the physician assessment of airway loss and between agents using chi-square statistics. Spearman's rho analysis was used to determine whether there was a correlation between ETCO2 and the OAA/S score. RESULTS: Seventy-four patients were enrolled in the study. Forty (54.1%) received methohexital, 21 (28.4%) received propofol, ten (13.5%) received fentanyl and midazolam, and three (4.1%) received etomidate. Respiratory depression was seen in 33 (44.6%) patients, including 47.5% of patients receiving methohexital, 19% receiving propofol (p = 0.008), 80% receiving fentanyl and midazolam, and 66.6% receiving etomidate. No correlation between OAA/S and ETCO2 was detected. Eleven (14.9%) patients required assisted ventilation at some point during the procedure, all of whom met the criteria for RD. Pulse oximetry detected 11 of the 33 patients with RD. Post-hoc analysis revealed that all patients with RD had an ETCO2 >50 mm Hg, an absent waveform, or an absolute change from baseline in ETCO2 >10 mm Hg. CONCLUSIONS: There was no correlation between ETCO2 and the OAA/S score. Using the criteria of an ETCO2 >50 mm Hg, an absolute change >10 mm Hg, or an absent waveform may detect subclinical RD not detected by pulse oximetry alone. The ETCO2 may add to the safety of PS by quickly detecting hypoventilation during PS in the ED.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2002.tb01318.x

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 14 references

Cited by

See all 285

Metadata

Authors
Miner, J. R., Heegaard, W., & Plummer, D.
Venue
Academic Emergency Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-04
Volume
9
Issue
4
Pages
275-280
ISSN
  • 1069-6563 (ISSN-L)
  • 1553-2712
OpenAlex
W2128643063
Cited by
285
References
14
FWCI
17.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: End-tidal Carbon Dioxide Monitoring during Procedural Sedation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1553-2712.2002.tb01318.x
The paper
Miner, J. R., Heegaard, W., & Plummer, D. (2002). End-tidal Carbon Dioxide Monitoring during Procedural Sedation. Academic Emergency Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1553-2712.2002.tb01318.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.