Management of Acute Undifferentiated Agitation in the Emergency Department: A Randomized Double-Blind Trial of Droperidol, Ziprasidone, and Midazolam

Objectives: To compare the efficacy of sedation, need for rescue sedation, rates of respiratory depression, and complications of droperidol, ziprasidone, and midazolam when used for the treatment of emergency department (ED) patients requiring sedation for acute undifferentiated agitation. Methods: A prospective, randomized, double-blind trial of agitated ED patients requiring emergent sedation was performed. Patients were randomized to receive droperidol 5 mg, ziprasidone 20 mg, or midazolam 5 mg intramuscularly. Interval measurements were made at 0, 15, 30, 45, 60, and 120 minutes and included Altered Mental Status Scale (AMS) scores, oxygen saturations, and end-tidal carbon dioxide levels. Results: A total of 144 patients were enrolled; 50 patients received droperidol, 46 received ziprasidone, and 48 received midazolam. Adequate sedation (mean AMS score <0) was achieved at 15 minutes in patients receiving midazolam (mean AMS score, −0.81) and 30 minutes for patients receiving droperidol (mean AMS score, −1.3) and ziprasidone (mean AMS score, −0.74). Rescue medication for sedation was necessary in 38 of 144 patients (droperidol, 5 of 50; ziprasidone, 9 of 46; midazolam, 24 of 48; p < 0.05). No cardiac dysrhythmias were identified in any treatment group. Respiratory depression that clinically required treatment with supplemental oxygen occurred in 21 of 144 patients (droperidol, 4 of 50; ziprasidone, 7 of 46; midazolam, 10 of 48; p = 0.20). No patients required endotracheal intubation. Conclusions: Acutely agitated ED patients sedated with droperidol or ziprasidone required rescue medications to achieve adequate sedation less frequently than those sedated with midazolam. The onset of adequate sedation is delayed with ziprasidone, relative to the other agents.     

A Randomized Clinical Trial of Oral versus Intramuscular Delivery of Steroids in Acute Exudative Pharyngitis

Previous study has shown that the use of intramuscular (IM) steroid leads to improved symptoms in patients with group A beta-hemolytic streptococcus (GABHS). OBJECTIVE: To compare oral with IM steroids as an adjunct to antibiotic therapy in the treatment of acute exudative pharyngitis. The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in effectiveness of oral versus IM steroids. METHODS: The study was a randomized, double-blind outpatient clinical trial. After consent was obtained, each patient was asked to rate his or her pain on a 10-cm numbered visual analog scale (VAS; 0-10). All of the patients received injectable benzathine penicillin or, if allergic to penicillin, a ten-day course of polyenteric-coated erythromycin. Each patient was randomized to receive either injectable steroid plus oral placebo or injectable placebo plus oral steroid. All medications were given in the emergency department. All patients were contacted by telephone at 24 hours (first follow-up) and 48 hours (second follow-up) by one of the study investigators and asked to rate their pain based on another VAS. If their pain was not resolved by 48 hours, they were called again daily for the third to seventh day after the initial visit. The time to total resolution of the sore throat was documented. The main outcome measures were time to complete relief of pain and VAS scores. Pain medication was not controlled; however, use of pain medications and amounts were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 78 patients were initially enrolled in the study. Eight patients were excluded from the statistical analysis because of inability to follow up. A total of 70 were entered, with 35 randomized to IM steroid plus oral placebo and 35 to IM placebo plus oral steroid. There was no difference in pain scores for the oral versus IM group at first follow-up (p = 0.13) and second follow-up (p = 0.82), and in number of hours to relief of pain (p = 0.06). Using repeated-measures analysis of variance, no difference in the effects of the two medications over time was detected (p = 0.83). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this clinical trial suggest that oral steroid and IM steroid provide similar levels of pain relief in acute exudative pharyngitis.     

Droperidol vs. Prochlorperazine for Benign Headaches in the Emergency Department

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of droperidol with that of prochlorperazine for the treatment of benign headaches in emergency department (ED) patients. METHODS: Prospective, randomized clinical trial in an urban ED. Patients were given either droperidol, 5 mg intramuscular (IM) or 2.5 mg intravenous (IV), or prochlorperazine, 10 mg IM or 10 mg IV. Measurements included side effects and the patient's pain perception as measured on a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS) at baseline, 30, and 60 minutes after the medication was given. Data were analyzed using chi-square, two-tailed t-tests, and two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) when appropriate. RESULTS: During an eight-month period, 168 patients were enrolled. Eighty-two (48.8%) of the patients received droperidol; 86 (51.2%) received prochlorperazine. In the droperidol group, 49 (59.6%) received IM administration and 33 (40.4%) IV. In the prochlorperazine group, 57 (66.3%) received IM administration and 29 (33.7%) IV. Sixty minutes after the medication, the mean decrease in the VAS scores was 81.4% for droperidol and 66.9% for prochlorperazine (p = 0.001). At 30 minutes, 60.9% of the patients receiving droperidol and 44.2% of the patients receiving prochlorperazine had obtained at least a 50% reduction in their VAS scores (p = 0.09). At 60 minutes, 90.2% of the patients receiving droperidol and 68.6% of the patients receiving prochlorperazine had at least a 50% reduction in their VAS scores (p = 0.017). No difference between IM dosing and IV dosing was detected. Side effects, including dystonia, akathisia, and decreased level of consciousness, were seen in 15.2% of the patients receiving droperidol and 9.61% of the patients receiving prochlorperazine. No significant or persisting morbidity was detected. CONCLUSIONS: Droperidol was more effective than prochlorperazine in relieving pain associated with benign headaches.     

Shared-Task Worklists Improve Clinical Trial Recruitment Workflow in an Academic Emergency Department

Background  Clinical trials performed in our emergency department at Barnes-Jewish Hospital utilize a centralized infrastructure for alerting, screening, and enrollment with rule-based alerts sent to clinical research coordinators. Previously, all alerts were delivered as text messages via dedicated cellular phones. As the number of ongoing clinical trials increased, the volume of alerts grew to an unmanageable level. Therefore, we have changed our primary notification delivery method to study-specific, shared-task worklists integrated with our pre-existing web-based screening documentation system. Objective  To evaluate the effects on screening and recruitment workflow of replacing text-message delivery of clinical trial alerts with study-specific shared-task worklists in a high-volume academic emergency department supporting multiple concurrent clinical trials. Methods  We analyzed retrospective data on alerting, screening, and enrollment for 10 active clinical trials pre- and postimplementation of shared-task worklists. Results  Notifications signaling the presence of potentially eligible subjects for clinical trials were more likely to result in a screen ( p  < 0.001) with the implementation of shared-task worklists compared with notifications delivered as text messages for 8/10 clinical trials. The change in workflow did not alter the likelihood of a notification resulting in an enrollment ( p  = 0.473). The Director of Research reported a substantial reduction in the amount of time spent redirecting clinical research coordinator screening activities. Conclusion  Shared-task worklists, with the functionalities we have described, offer a viable alternative to delivery of clinical trial alerts via text message directly to clinical research coordinators recruiting for multiple concurrent clinical trials in a high-volume academic emergency department.     

Diazepam and Meclizine Are Equally Effective in the Treatment of Vertigo: An Emergency Department Randomized Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Trial

Background

Vertigo is a debilitating disease that is commonly encountered in the emergency department (ED). Diazepam and meclizine are oral medications that are commonly used to alleviate symptoms.

Impact of a Triage Liaison Physician on Emergency Department Overcrowding and Throughput: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background Triage liaison physicians (TLPs) have been employed in overcrowded emergency departments (EDs); however, their effectiveness remains unclear.
Objectives To evaluate the implementation of TLP shifts at an academic tertiary care adult ED using comprehensive outcome reporting.
Methods A six-week TLP clinical research project was conducted between December 9, 2005, and February 9, 2006. A TLP was deployed for nine hours (11 ^am to 8 ^pm) daily to initiate patient management, assist triage nurses, answer all medical consult or transfer calls, and manage ED administrative matters. The study was divided into three two-week blocks; within each block, seven days were randomized to TLP shifts and the other seven to control shifts. Outcomes included patient length of stay, proportion of patients who left without complete assessment, staff satisfaction, and episodes of ambulance diversion.
Results TLPs assessed a median of 14 patients per shift (interquartile range, 13–17), received 15 telephone calls per shift (interquartile range, 14–20), and spent 17–81 minutes per shift consulting on the telephone. The number of patients and their age, gender, and triage score during the TLP and control shifts were similar. Overall, length of stay was decreased by 36 minutes compared with control days (4:21 vs. 4:57; p = 0.001). Left without complete assessment cases decreased from 6.6% to 5.4% (a 20% relative decrease) during the TLP coverage. The ambulance wait time and number of episodes of ambulance diversion were similar on TLP and control days.
Conclusions A TLP improved important outcomes in an overcrowded ED and could improve delivery of emergency medical care in similar tertiary care EDs.     

Randomized Clinical Trial of Propofol Versus Ketamine for Procedural Sedation in the Emergency Department

Objectives: The objective was to compare the occurrence of respiratory depression, adverse events, and recovery duration of propofol versus ketamine for use in procedural sedation in the emergency department (ED). Methods: This was a randomized nonblinded prospective clinical trial of adult patients undergoing procedural sedation for painful procedures in the ED. Patients with pain before the procedure were treated with intravenous (IV) morphine sulfate until their pain was adequately treated at least 20 minutes before starting the procedure. Patients were randomized to receive either propofol 1 mg/kg IV followed by 0.5 mg/kg every 3 minutes as needed or ketamine 1.0 mg/kg IV followed by 0.5 mg/kg every 3 minutes as needed. Doses, vital signs, nasal end‐tidal CO₂ (ETCO₂), and pulse oximetry were recorded. Subclinical respiratory depression was defined as a change in ETCO₂ of >10 mm Hg, an oxygen saturation of <92% at any time, or an absent ETCO₂ waveform at any time. Clinical interventions related to respiratory depression were noted during the procedure, including the addition of or increase in the flow rate of supplemental oxygen, the use of a bag‐valve mask apparatus, airway repositioning, or stimulation to induce breathing. After the procedure, patients were asked if they experienced pain during the procedure and had recall of the procedure. Physicians were asked to describe any adverse events or the occurrence of recovery agitation. Results: One‐hundred patients were enrolled; 97 underwent sedation and were included in the analysis. Fifty patients received propofol and 47 received ketamine. Subclinical respiratory depression was seen in 20 of 50 patients in the propofol group and 30 of 47 patients in the ketamine group (p = 0.019, effect size 22.8%; 95% CI = 4.0% to 43.6%). Clinical interventions related to respiratory depression were used in 26 of 50 propofol patients and 19 of 47 ketamine patients (p = 0.253, effect size = ?13.7%; 95% CI = ?33.8% to 6.4%). The median times of the procedures were 11 minutes (range = 4 to 33 minutes) for the ketamine group versus 10 minutes (range = 5 to 33 minutes) for the propofol group (p = 0.256). The median time to return to baseline mental status after the procedure was completed was 14 minutes (range = 2 to 47 minutes) for the ketamine group and 5 minutes (range = 1 to 32 minutes) for the propofol group (p < 0.001). Pain during the procedure was reported by 3 of 50 patients in the propofol group and 1 of 47 patients in the ketamine group (effect size = ?3.9%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = ?11.9 to 4.1). Recall of some part of the procedure was reported by 4 of 50 patients in the propofol group and 6 of 47 patients in the ketamine group (effect size = 4.8%, 95% CI = ?7.6% to 17.1%). Forty‐eight of 50 procedures were successful in the propofol group and 43 of 47 in the ketamine group (p = 0.357, effect size = 0.3%; 95% CI = ?7.8% to 8.4%). Recovery agitation was reported in 4 of 50 in the propofol group and 17 of 47 in the ketamine group (effect size = 28.2%, 95% CI = 12.4% to 43.9%). Conclusions: This study detected a higher rate of subclinical respiratory depression in patients in the ketamine group than the propofol group. There was no difference in the rate of clinical interventions related to respiratory depression, pain, or recall of the procedure between the groups. Recovery agitation was seen more frequently in patients receiving ketamine than in those receiving propofol. The time to regain baseline mental status was longer in the ketamine group than the propofol group. This study suggests that the use of either ketamine or propofol is safe and effective for procedural sedation in the ED. ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2010; 17:604–611 © 2010 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine     

A Retrospective Review of the Use and Safety of Droperidol in a Large, High-risk, Inner-city Emergency Department Patient Population

Droperidol (DROP) is used in the emergency department (ED) for sedation, analgesia, and its antiemetic effect. Its ED safety profile has not yet been reported in patients (pts). OBJECTIVES: To document the use of DROP in high-risk pts (those with head injury, alcohol or cocaine intoxication, and/or remote or recent seizures), and to determine the number of serious and minor adverse events (AEs)-seizures, hypotension, extrapyramidal side effects (EPSEs)-after DROP. METHODS: The ED database (EmSTAT) was queried to determine who received intramuscular or intravenous DROP in the ED in 1998; further chart review was done if the patient was considered high risk for or had experienced an AE. Multiple regression analysis using a random-effects model determined the significance of each variable in the occurrence of AEs. RESULTS: 2,468 patients (aged 20 months to 98 years; 112 < or =17 years; 141 > or =66 years) received DROP for agitation (n = 1,357), pain (1,135), anxiety (99), vomiting (173), or other reasons (50). There were 945 pts considered high risk; 933 charts were reviewed (DROP mean dose 4.1 +/- 2.0 mg); of these, 50 patient visits did not meet the criteria for high risk. There were 622 pts with head trauma (401 with alcohol use), including 47 with computed tomography (CT) scans positive for brain injury, 64 with cocaine use, and 197 with recent or remote seizures (137 with alcohol use). Minor AEs such as transient hypotension occurred in 96 pts after DROP (73 with alcohol use); 20 received intravenous fluids, while an additional 28 pts (8 with alcohol use) received rescue medications for EPSEs. Six possible serious AEs occurred in pts with serious comorbidities; 2 cases of respiratory depression, 3 post-DROP seizures, and 1 cardiac arrest (resuscitated) 11 hours after DROP in a cocaine-intoxicated pt (normal QT interval). There was no significant difference among high-risk groups in the occurrence of AEs. CONCLUSIONS: The vast majority of pts who received DROP in the ED did not experience an AE. A few serious AEs were noted following DROP in patients with serious comorbidities; it is not clear that DROP was causative.     

Droperidol versus ondansetron for nausea treatment within the emergency department

Objective

A randomised single-blind trial was undertaken in an adult ED population, comparing the effectiveness of droperidol 2.5 mg IV with ondansetron 8 mg IV for the treatment of nausea and vomiting.

Methods

Patients were randomly allocated to receive droperidol (n = 60) or ondansetron (n = 60). Patients rated their nausea severity on a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) immediately before and 30 min after drug administration. The primary outcome was of symptom improvement, defined by a VAS change ≥−8 mm 30 min post-treatment. Mean VAS change and percentage experiencing desired effect were secondary outcomes compared.

Results

Of 120 study patients, 60 (50%) received droperidol or ondansetron. Symptom improvement occurred in 93% (56 of 60) and 87% (52 of 60), respectively (P = 0.362). Mean VAS change was −38 mm and −29 mm, respectively (P = 0.031). Percentage of patients indicating desired effect was 85% and 63%, respectively (P = 0.006). Additional antiemetics were required for 16% and 37% of subjects, respectively (P = 0.006).

Conclusion

There was no statistically significant difference in the primary outcome of symptom improvement between droperidol and ondansetron. Secondary outcomes which favour droperidol warrant further exploration.     

A Double-blind Randomized Clinical Trial Evaluating the Analgesic Efficacy of Ketorolac versus Butorphanol for Patients with Suspected Biliary Colic in the Emergency Department

Objectives: Patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with suspected biliary colic often require intravenous (IV) analgesia. The choice of IV analgesia typically includes opioids and ketorolac. Although ultrasound (US) is the initial diagnostic study in these patients, nondiagnostic scans and a high clinical suspicion may require the patient to undergo hepatobiliary scintigraphy (HIDA). Opioids such as morphine interfere with the HIDA scan and thus may limit its value as an analgesic in the ED for these patients. Analgesics that do not interfere with HIDA scanning include ketorolac and butorphanol, an opioid agonist–antagonist. This study evaluates the efficacy of IV ketorolac compared to butorphanol for the treatment of biliary colic pain in the ED. Methods: Between June 2005 and February 2007, a convenience sample of patients presenting to the ED with abdominal pain suspected to be biliary colic were randomized to receive either 30 mg of IV ketorolac or 1 mg of IV butorphanol. Pain level was assessed using a 1 to 10 “faces” visual analog pain scale initially, as well as 15 and 30 minutes after medication infusion. Side effect profiles and the need for rescue analgesia were also assessed. Patients and clinicians were blinded to the study drug given. Results: Forty‐six patients were enrolled in the study. Both groups had similar demographics and baseline pain scores. The mean (±standard deviation [SD]) pain score in the butorphanol group decreased from 7.1 (±1.7) to 2.1 (±2.2) after 30 minutes. The mean (±SD) pain score in the ketorolac group decreased from 7.4 (±2.0) to 3.1 (±3.3) after 30 minutes. Both groups had similar needs for rescue analgesia. Side effects included dizziness and sedation with butorphanol and nausea with ketorolac. Conclusions: Although limited by small sample size and convenience sample, this study demonstrates that both ketorolac and butorphanol provide pain relief in biliary colic. Both agents should be considered reasonable options in the ED treatment of biliary colic, especially in patients that may undergo HIDA.     

Randomized Clinical Trial of Propofol versus Methohexital for Procedural Sedation during Fracture and Dislocation Reduction in the Emergency Department

Although methohexital has been well studied for use in emergency department (ED) procedural sedation (PS), propofol has been evaluated less extensively for ED use. OBJECTIVE: The authors hypothesized that there is no difference in the depth of sedation and the rate of respiratory depression (RD) between propofol and methohexital in PS during the reduction of fractures and dislocations in the ED. METHODS: This was a randomized prospective study of nonintoxicated adult patients undergoing PS for fracture or dislocation reduction in the ED between July 2001 and March 2002. Patients were randomized to receive either propofol or methohexital, 1 mg/kg intravenously, followed by repeat boluses of 0.5 mg/kg every 2 minutes until adequate sedation was achieved. Doses, vital signs, end-tidal CO(2) (ETCO(2)) by nasal cannulae, pulse oximetry, and bispectral electroencephalogram analysis (BIS) scores were recorded. RD was defined as an ETCO(2) greater than 50 torr, an oxygen saturation less than 90% at any time, or an absent ETCO(2) waveform. After returning to baseline mental status, patients completed three 100-mm visual analog scales (VASs) regarding pain associated with the procedure, recall of the procedure, and satisfaction. RD rates and VAS outcomes were compared with chi-square tests. RESULTS: There were 109 patients enrolled; six were excluded for study protocol violations. Of the remaining 103 patients, 52 received methohexital (reduction successful in 94%) and 51 received propofol (98% successful). No cardiac rhythm abnormalities or significant decline in systolic blood pressure (>20%) was detected. Six patients required bag-valve-mask-assisted ventilations during the procedure, all for less than 1 minute; four of these patients received methohexital, and two received propofol. By the authors' definition, RD was seen in 25 of 52 (48%) patients receiving methohexital and 25 of 51 (49%) patients receiving propofol (p = 0.88). The mean minimum recorded BIS score was 66.2 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 62 to 70) for methohexital and 66 (95% CI = 60 to 71) for propofol. VAS results showed similar rates of reported pain, recall, and satisfaction for the two agents. CONCLUSIONS: The authors were unable to detect a significant difference in the level of subclinical RD or the level of sedation by BIS between the two agents. The use of either agent seems to be safe in the ED.     

Randomized Clinical Trial of Propofol With and Without Alfentanil for Deep Procedural Sedation in the Emergency Department

Objectives: The objectives were to compare the efficacy, occurrence of adverse events, and recovery duration of propofol with and without alfentanil for use in procedural sedation in the emergency department (ED). Methods: This was a randomized nonblinded prospective trial of adult patients undergoing procedural sedation for painful procedures in the ED. Patients with pain before the procedure were given intravenous (IV) morphine sulfate until their pain was adequately treated at least 20 minutes before starting the procedure. Patients received 1 mg/kg propofol either with or without a supplemental dose of 10 μg/kg alfentanil for deep procedural sedation. Doses, vital signs, nasal end‐tidal CO₂ (ETCO₂), pulse oximetry, and bispectral electroencephalographic (EEG) analysis scores were recorded. Subclinical respiratory depression was defined as a change in ETCO₂ of >10 mmHg, an oxygen saturation of <92% at any time, or an absent ETCO₂ waveform at any time. Clinical events related to respiratory depression were noted during the procedure, including the addition of or increase in the flow rate of supplemental oxygen, the use of a bag‐valve mask apparatus, airway repositioning, or stimulation to induce breathing. After the procedure, patients were asked if they experienced pain during the procedure or had recall of the procedure. Results: A total of 150 patients were enrolled; 146 underwent sedation and were included in the analysis. Seventy‐four patients received propofol, and 71 received propofol with alfentanil. No clinically significant complications were noted. Subclinical respiratory depression was seen in 24/74 patients in the propofol group and 30/71 patients in the propofol/alfentanil group (effect size = 9.8%, 95% CI = –5.8% to 25.5%). Clinical signs of respiratory depression included an increase in supplemental oxygen use in 25 of the 74 propofol patients and 31 of the 71 propofol/alfentanil patients (effect size 9.9%, 95% CI = –5.9% to 25.7%), the use of bag‐valve mask apparatus in seven patients in the propofol group and 12 in the propofol/alfentanil group (effect size = 5.6%, 95% CI = –3.5% to 18.4%), airway repositioning in 13 propofol patients and 20 propofol/alfentanil patients (effect size = 10.6%, 95% CI = –3.0% to 24.2%), and stimulation to induce breathing in 11 propofol patients and 20 propofol/alfentanil patients (effect size = 13.3%, 95% CI = 0.1% to 26.5%). The total time of the procedure was longer for the alfentanil/propofol group (median = 11 minutes, range = 5–22 minutes) than for the propofol group (median = 9 minutes, range = 1 to 43 minutes; effect size = 1.93 minutes, 95% CI = 0.73 to 2.58, p = 0.02). Pain during the procedure was reported by 10 of the 74 patients in the propofol group and 7 of the 71 patients in the propofol/alfentanil group (effect size = 4.5%, 95% CI = –6.8% to 14.1%). Recall of some part of the procedure was reported by 12 patients in the propofol group and 9 in the propofol/alfentanil group (effect size = 3.5%, 95% CI = –7.9% to 15.0%). All procedures were successfully completed. Conclusions: The use of supplemental alfentanil with propofol for procedural sedation did not result in a difference in reported pain or recall immediately after the procedure. There was an increase in the proportion of patients who required stimulation to induce respiration during the procedure in patients who received propofol with supplemental alfentanil. The addition of supplemental opioid to procedural sedation with propofol does not appear beneficial.     

Oral versus Intravenous Opioid Dosing for the Initial Treatment of Acute Musculoskeletal Pain in the Emergency Department

Objectives: The objective was to compare the time to medication administration, the side effects, and the analgesic effect at sequential time points after medication administration of an oral treatment strategy using oxycodone solution with an intravenous (IV) treatment strategy using morphine sulfate for the initial treatment of musculoskeletal pain in emergency department (ED) patients. Methods: This was a prospective randomized clinical trial of patients >6 years old who were going to receive IV morphine sulfate for the treatment of musculoskeletal pain but did not yet have an IV. Consenting patients were randomized to have the treating physician order either 0.1 mg/kg morphine sulfate IV or 0.125 mg/kg oxycodone orally in a 5 mg/5 mL suspension as their initial treatment for pain. The time from the placement of the order to the administration of the medication was recorded. Pain was measured using a 100‐mm visual analog scale (VAS) and recorded at 0, 10, 20, 30 and 40 minutes after drug administration. Results: A total of 405 eligible patients were identified during the study period; 328 (81.0%) patients consented to be in the study. A total of 158 patients were randomized to the IV morphine sulfate treatment group, and 162 were randomized to the oral oxycodone treatment group. Of the patients who were randomized to IV therapy, 34 were withdrawn from the study prior to drug administration; leaving 125 patients in the IV group for analysis. Of the patients who randomized to oral therapy, 22 were withdrawn from the study prior to drug administration, leaving 140 patients for analysis. No serious adverse events were detected. There was a 12‐minute difference between the median time of the order and the administration of oral oxycodone (8.5 minutes) and IV morphine (20.5 minutes). The mean percent change in VAS score was larger for patients in the IV therapy group than those in the oral therapy group at 10 and 20 minutes. At 30 and 40 minutes, the authors could no longer detect a difference. The satisfaction scale score was higher after treatment for the morphine group (median = 4; interquartile range [IQR] = 4 to 5) than for the oxycodone group (median = 4; IQR = 2 to 5; p = 0.008). Conclusions: The oral loading strategy was associated with delayed onset of analgesia and decreased patient satisfaction, but a shorter time to administration. The oral loading strategy using an oxycodone solution provided similar pain relief to the IV strategy using morphine 30 minutes after administration of the drug. Oral 0.125 mg/kg oxycodone represents a feasible alternative to 0.1 mg/kg IV morphine in the treatment of severe acute musculoskeletal pain when difficult or delayed IV placement greater than 30 minutes presents a barrier to treatment.     

Intramuscular Ketorolac vs Oral Ibuprofen in Emergency Department Patients with Acute Pain

Objective: To determine whether IM ketorolac is superior to oral ibuprofen in patients presenting to an ED in moderate to severe pain.
Methods: This prospective, randomized, double-blind study involved a convenience sample of 119 patients aged a 18 years who presented to an urban teaching hospital ED with a self-assessed pain intensity score of 5, 6, 7, or 8 (on a numerical rating scale of 0–10). Patients were randomized to receive either 60 mg of IM ketorolac and a placebo capsule or 800 mg of oral ibuprofen and a saline injection. Pain scores were measured at 0, 15, 30, 45, 60, 90, and 120 minutes after dosing. Supplemental analgesics were allowed in accordance with standard medical practice.
Results: There were 18 patients excluded who did not remain in the ED for the full 2-hour study period. Of those completing the trial, 53 patients received ketorolac and 48 patients received ibuprofen. There were no significant differences in pain scores between ketorolac and ibuprofen at any time during the study. However, there was a statistically significant decrease in pain over time in both treatment groups. Yet, 40% of the patients continued to report pain intensity scores of 5–8 at 2 hours after treatment.
Conclusions: IM ketorolac and oral ibuprofen provide comparable levels of analgesia in ED patients presenting with moderate to severe pain. Unfortunately, 40% of all the patients had inadequate pain relief (pain score ≥5) from either ketorolac or ibuprofen.     

Ranolazine and Microvascular Angina by PET in the Emergency Department: Results From a Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

Purpose

Coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) is a common but underdiagnosed cause of chest pain. Literature is scant regarding effective treatments. We explored the effect of ranolazine on coronary flow reserve (CFR) among symptomatic patients with CMD.

The Emergency Department as a Potential Site for Smoking Cessation Intervention: A Randomized, Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of physician counseling and referral on smoking cessation rates and attendance at a smoking cessation program. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized clinical trial set in a suburban, community teaching hospital emergency department (ED). During study hours, dedicated research associates enrolled consecutive, stable, oriented patients who were smokers. Eligible, consenting patients were randomized to one of two intervention groups. The control group received a two-page "Stop Smoking" pamphlet from the American Heart Association (AHA). Patients in the intervention group were given the AHA pamphlet along with pharmacologic information and standardized counseling by the attending emergency physician, including written and oral referral to a smoking cessation program. The primary outcome measures were telephone contact/attendance at the smoking cessation program by the intervention group and the rate of smoking cessation in both study groups at three months post-ED visit. Categorical data were analyzed by chi-square and Fisher's exact tests. Rank data were analyzed by Mann-Whitney tests and continuous data by t-tests. All tests were two-tailed with alpha set at 0.05. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-two patients were enrolled; 78 were randomized to the intervention group. Nearly 70% of patients (103) were available for telephone follow-up. The study groups were statistically similar with regard to baseline demographic characteristics and the prevalence of moderate or severe nicotine addiction. None of the patients (0%) in the intervention group contacted or attended the smoking cessation program during the study period (95% CI = 0-4%). The percentages of patients who stopped smoking after three months were similar in the two groups [10.4% (5/48) control vs 10.9% (6/55) intervention; p = 1]. CONCLUSION: The authors found no difference in the smoking cessation rates between ED patients who received written material and those who were counseled by emergency physicians. Referral of patients who smoked to a cessation program was unsuccessful.     

A Randomized Clinical Trial to Assess the Efficacy of the Epley Maneuver in the Treatment of Acute Benign Positional Vertigo

OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy of the Epley maneuver with that of a placebo maneuver in patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with benign positional vertigo (BPV). METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, single-blind placebo-controlled trial. Consecutive adult ED patients presenting to a university teaching hospital with BPV were randomized to treatment with either the Epley or placebo maneuver. The severity of vertigo was evaluated on a 0 to 10-point scale before and after the maneuvers. RESULTS: Eleven patients were randomized to the Epley group and 11 to the placebo group before the trial was terminated, based on a planned interim analysis. The median decreases in vertigo severity were 6 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] = 4 to 9) for the Epley group and 1 (95% CI = 0 to 3) for the placebo group (p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The Epley maneuver is a simple bedside maneuver that appears to be more efficacious than a placebo maneuver in the treatment of acute BPV among ED patients.     

Magnesium Sulfate versus Placebo for Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Objectives: The objective was to investigate the efficacy of magnesium sulfate (MgSO₄) in decreasing the ventricular rate in emergency department (ED) patients presenting with new‐onset, rapid atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods: A double‐blinded, placebo‐controlled randomized clinical trial was conducted in an adult university hospital. Patients aged ≥18 years with AF onset of less than 48 hours and a sustained ventricular rate of >100 beats/min were randomized to either intravenous (IV) MgSO₄ 10 mmol or normal saline (NSal). Rhythm and instantaneous heart rate as measured by the monitor were recorded at baseline and every 15 minutes for 2 hours after starting the trial drug. Heart rate and rhythm were compared at 2 hours. A multilevel modeling analysis was performed to adjust for differences in baseline heart rate and any additional treatment and to examine changes in heart rate over time. Results: Twenty‐four patients were randomized to MgSO₄ and 24 to NSal. Baseline heart rate was lower in the MgSO₄ group (mean ± standard deviation [±SD] = 125 ± 24 vs. 140 ± 21 beats/min]. One and 3 patients in the MgSO₄ and NSal groups, respectively, were given another antiarrhythmic or were electrically cardioverted within 2 hours after starting the trial drug. Heart rate (mean ± SD) at 2 hours in both MgSO₄ (116 ± 30 beats/min) and NSal groups (114 ± 31 beats/min) decreased below their respective baseline levels. However, the rate of heart rate decrease across time did not differ between groups (p = 0.124). The proportion of patients who converted to sinus rhythm 2 hours post–trial drug did not differ (MgSO₄ 8.7% vs. NSal 25.0%, p = 0.25). Conclusions: This study was unable to demonstrate a difference between IV MgSO₄ 10 mmol and saline placebo for reducing heart rate or conversion to sinus rhythm at 2 hours posttreatment in ED patients with AF of less than 48 hours duration.