Search

BackgroundProcedural sedation is a core skill of the emergency physician. Bolus administration of propofol is widely used in UK EDs. Titrated to an end point of sedation, it has a rapid effect but has been associated with adverse incidents. The use of a target-controlled infusion (TCI) of propofol is not routine but may reduce the incidence of adverse incidents.The primary aims of this single-arm feasibility study were patient satisfaction and to establish recruitment rates for a randomised controlled trial comparing propofol TCI to bolus administration.MethodsFour EDs in Scotland, UK, participated. Patients aged 18-65 years, with anterior shoulder dislocation, weight ≥ 50kg, fasted ≥ 90 min were screened. Patients underwent reduction of their dislocated shoulder using TCI propofol. The primary end point was patient satisfaction recorded on a Visual Analogue Scale.ResultsBetween 3 April 2017 and 31 December 2018, 25 patients were recruited with a recruitment rate of 20% for the 16-month recruitment window, with a temporary pause to allow amendment of drug dosage.Two patients were excluded. Twenty achieved adequate sedation, defined as a Modified Observer’s Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Scale (OAA/S) 3. Successful reduction was achieved in all adequately sedated. Patient satisfaction was documented in 14 patients, mean±SD of 97±9 and time to sedation was 25±8 min. No adverse events were recorded using the Society of Intravenous Anaesthesia adverse event reporting tool.ConclusionPropofol TCI was acceptable as a method of procedural sedation for patients. The lower than expected recruitment rates highlight the need for dedicated research support.Trial registration numberNCT03442803.

BackgroundBone fractures are a common reason for children and adolescents to seek evaluation in the ED. Little is known about the pain experienced after cast immobilisation and discharge from the ED and its optimal management. We aimed to investigate the administration of pharmacological analgesia in the first days after cast immobilisation and to identify possible influencing variables.MethodsA prospective observational cross-sectional study was conducted at the ED of the children’s hospital, Institute for Maternal and Child Health of Trieste, Italy, from October 2019 to June 2020. Patients aged 0–17 years with bone fractures were included. The primary outcome was the administration of analgesia during the 10 days following discharge, while secondary outcomes were the associated variables, including age, gender, fracture type and location, the mean limitation in usual activities and the frequency of re-evaluation at the ED for pain. Data were recorded through a questionnaire, completed by caregivers and collected by the researchers mainly through a telephone interview. The primary endpoint was evaluated as the ratio between the number of children who took at least one analgesic dose and the total enrolled children, while Χ2 or Fisher’s exact tests were used to assess secondary outcomes.ResultsDuring the study period, 213 patients, mean age 10 years (IQR: 8–13), were enrolled. Among them, 137 (64.3%) did not take any analgesic during follow-up. Among children who were administered analgesia, 22 (28.9%) received it only on the first day, and 47 (61.8%) for less than 5 days. One hundred and sixty one patients (75.6%) did not report any limitation in usual activities because of pain. The administration of analgesia was not related to the child’s age, gender or fracture site. Displaced fractures were associated with significantly more frequent analgesia being taken (OR 5.5, 95% CI 1.4 to 21.0).ConclusionAlthough some studies recommend scheduled analgesic treatment after discharge for bone fractures, this study would suggest analgesia on demand in children with non-displaced fractures, limiting scheduled analgesia to children with displaced fractures.

Dear Editor, We would like to thank Amir-Behghadami and Janati for sharing their thoughts and comments on our systematic review.1 They emphasise that formulating a PICO question aids in optimising the structure of a systematic review. We think it is important to adhere to the PRISMA guidelines for performing a systematic review. In the PRISMA statement, it is advised that a structured approach should be used in order to facilitate the …

Objective: To describe our experience performing ED procedural sedation in a country where emergency medicine (EM) is a relatively new specialty. Methods: This is a prospective observational study of adult patients undergoing procedural sedation by emergency physicians (EPs) or EM residents in eight hospitals in the Netherlands. Data were collected on a standardised form, including patient characteristics, sedative and analgesic used, procedural success, adverse events (classified according to World SIVA) and rescue interventions. Results: 1711 adult cases were included from 2006 to 2013. Propofol, midazolam and esketamine (S+ enantiomer of ketamine) were the most used sedatives (63%, 29% and 8%). We had adverse event data on all patients. The overall adverse event rate was 11%, mostly hypoxia or apnoea. There was no difference in adverse event rate between EPs and EM residents. However, there was a significantly higher success rate of the procedure when EPs did the procedural sedation (92% vs 84%). No moderate (unplanned hospital admission or escalation of care) or sentinel SIVA outcomes occurred ( pulmonary aspiration syndrome, death or permanent neurological deficit). Conclusion: Adverse events during procedural sedation occurred in 11% of patients. There were no moderate or sentinel outcomes. All events could be managed by the sedating physician. In a country where EM is a relatively new specialty, procedural sedation appears to be safe when performed by EPs or trained EM residents and has comparable adverse event rates to international studies.

Objective To evaluate the short-term efficacy and safety of methoxyflurane for the treatment of acute pain in patients presenting to an emergency department (ED) with minor trauma. Methods STOP! was a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, placebo-controlled study conducted at six sites in the UK. A total of 300 patients, 90 of whom were adolescent patients (age 12–17 years), were randomised 150:150 to receive either methoxyflurane via a Penthrox inhaler or placebo. The primary end point of the study was the change in pain intensity as measured using the visual analogue scale (VAS) from baseline to 5, 10, 15 and 20 min after the start of study drug inhalation. Patients were supplied with one inhaler containing 3 mL methoxyflurane or 5 mL placebo after enrolment and initial assessments. Age group (adolescent/adult) and baseline VAS score were controlled for in the statistical analyses. Results A total of 149 patients received methoxyflurane, and 149 patients received placebo. Demographic and baseline characteristics were comparable between the groups. Methoxyflurane reduced pain severity significantly more than placebo (p

Recurrent abdominal pain accounts for a significant proportion of attenders and high impact users in the emergency department. Due to the heterogeneity of presentation and the broad spectrum of possible causes, abdominal pain presents as a significant clinical challenge within the emergency department, particularly as distress and pain are commonly elevated. Patients in this group are routinely prescribed opiate-based interventions and repeated investigations in a ‘better safe than sorry’ culture which saturates the field of persistent physical symptoms. This approach is contributing to the growing problem, and fuelling a cycle of repeated attendance and failure to resolve. This article reviews the current clinical and psychophysiological understanding of recurrent abdominal pain, critiquing guidelines and approaches to diagnosis and management. We offer an alternative evidence-based biopsychosocial approach using the mnemonic ‘ERROR’, recommending five steps to assessment and clinical management of recurrent abdominal pain in the emergency department.

Study objective The objective of this study was to determine the analgesic efficacy and safety of intravenous, single-dose paracetamol versus dexketoprofen versus morphine in patients presenting with mechanical low back pain (LBP) to the emergency department (ED). Methods This randomised double-blind study compared the efficacy of intravenous 1 gm paracetamol, 50 mg dexketoprofen and 0.1 mg/kg morphine in patients with acute mechanical LBP. Visual analogue scale (VAS) was used for pain measurement at baseline, after 15 and after 30 min. Results A total of 874 patients were eligible for the study, and 137 of them were included in the final analysis: 46 patients from the paracetamol group, 46 patients in the dexketoprofen group and 45 patients in the morphine group. The mean age of study subjects was 31.5±9.5 years, and 60.6% (n=83) of them were men. The median reduction in VAS score at the 30th minute for the paracetamol group was 65 mm (95% CI 58 to 72), 67 mm (95% CI 60 to 73) for the morphine group and 58 mm (95% CI 50 to 64) for the dexketoprophen group. Although morphine was not superior to paracetamol at 30 min (difference: 3.8±4.9 (95% CI -6 to 14), the difference between morphine and dexketoprofen in reducing pain was 11.2±4.7 (95% CI 2 to 21). At least one adverse effect occurred in 8.7% (n=4) of the cases in the paracetamol group, 15.5% (n=7) of the morphine group, and 8.7% (n=4) of the dexketoprophen group (p=0.482). Conclusions Intravenous paracetamol, dexketoprofen and morphine are not superior to each other for the treatment of mechanical LBP in ED.