Search

Introduction: Management of sedation, analgesia, and anxiolysis are cornerstone therapies in the emergency department (ED). Dexmedetomidine (DEX), a central alpha-2 agonist, is increasingly being used, and intensive care unit (ICU) data demonstrate improved outcomes in patients with respiratory failure. However, there is a lack of ED-based data. We therefore sought to: 1) characterize ED DEX use; 2) describe the incidence of adverse events; and 3) explore factors associated with adverse events among patients receiving DEX in the ED. Methods: This was a single-center, retrospective, cohort study of consecutive ED patients administered DEX (January 1, 2017–July 1, 2019) at an academic, tertiary care ED with an annual census of ~90,000 patient visits. All included patients (n= 103) were analyzed for characterization of DEX use in the ED. The primary outcome was a composite of adverse events, bradycardia and hypotension. Secondary clinical outcomes included ventilator-, ICU-, and hospital-free days, and hospital mortality. To examine for variables associated with adverse events, we used a multivariable logistic regression model. Results: We report on 103 patients. Dexmedetomidine was most commonly given for acute respiratory failure, including sedation for mechanical ventilation (28.9%) and facilitation of non-invasive ventilation (17.4%). Fifty-four (52.4%) patients experienced the composite adverse event, with hypotension occurring in 41 patients (39.8%) and bradycardia occurring in 18 patients (17.5%). Dexmedetomidine was stopped secondary to an adverse event in eight patients (7.8%). Duration of DEX use in the ED was associated with an increase adverse event risk (adjusted odds ratio, 1.004; 95% confidence interval, 1.001, 1.008). Conclusion: Dexmedetomidine is most commonly administered in the ED for patients with acute respiratory failure. Adverse events are relatively common, yet DEX is discontinued comparatively infrequently due to adverse events. Our results suggest that DEX could be a viable option for analgesia, anxiolysis, and sedation in ED patients.

Background. Fixed, large volume resuscitation with intravenous fluids (IVFs) in septic shock can cause inadvertent hypervolemia, increased medical interventions, and death when unguided by point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS). The primary study objective was to evaluate whether total IVF volume differs for emergency department (ED) septic shock patients receiving POCUS versus no POCUS. Methods. We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study from 7/1/2018 to 8/31/2021 of atraumatic adult ED patients with septic shock. We agreed upon a priori variables and defined septic shock as lactate ≥4 and hypotension (SBP <90 or MAP <65). A sample size of 300 patients would provide 85% power to detect an IVF difference of 500 milliliters between POCUS and non-POCUS cohorts. Data are reported as frequencies, median (IQR), and associations from bivariate logistic models. Results. 304 patients met criteria and 26% (78/304) underwent POCUS. Cardiac POCUS demonstrated reduced ejection fraction in 15.4% of patients. Lung ultrasound showed normal findings in 53% of patients. The POCUS vs. non-POCUS cohorts had statistically significant differences for the following variables: higher median lactate (6.7 [IQR 5.2–8.7] vs. 5.6], p = 0.003), lower systolic blood pressure (77.5 [IQR 61–86] vs. 85.0, p < 0.001), more vasopressor use (51% vs. 34%, p = 0.006), and more positive pressure ventilation (38% vs. 24%, p = 0.017). However, there were no statistically significant differences between POCUS and non-POCUS cohorts in total IVF volume ml/kg (33.02 vs. 32.1, p = 0.47), new oxygen requirement (68% vs. 59%, p = 0.16), ED death (3% vs. 4%, p = 0.15), or hospital death (31% vs. 27%, p = 0.48). There were similar distributions of lactate, total fluids, and vasopressors in patients with CHF and severe renal failure. Conclusions. Among ED patients with septic shock, POCUS was more likely to be used in sicker patients. Patients who had POCUS were given similar volume of crystalloids although these patients were more critically ill. There were no differences in new oxygen requirement or mortality in the POCUS group compared to the non-POCUS group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]