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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Analgesia and sedation are cornerstone therapies for mechanically ventilated patients. Despite data showing that early deep sedation in the ICU influences outcome, this has not been investigated in the ED. Therefore, ED-based sedation practices, and their influence on outcome, remain incompletely defined. This study's objectives were to describe ED sedation practices in mechanically ventilated patients and to test the hypothesis that ED sedation depth is associated with worse outcomes.Methods: This was a cohort study of a prospectively compiled ED registry of adult mechanically ventilated patients at a single academic medical center. Hospital mortality was the primary outcome and hospital-, ICU-, and ventilator-free days were secondary outcomes. A backward stepwise multivariable logistic regression model evaluated the primary outcome as a function of ED sedation depth. Sedation depth was assessed with the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS).Results: Four hundred fourteen patients were studied. In the ED, 354 patients (85.5%) received fentanyl, 254 (61.3%) received midazolam, and 194 (46.9%) received propofol. Deep sedation was observed in 244 patients (64.0%). After adjusting for confounders, a deeper ED RASS was associated with mortality (adjusted OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.63-0.94).Conclusions: Early deep sedation is common in mechanically ventilated ED patients and is associated with worse mortality. These data suggest that ED-based sedation is a modifiable variable that could be targeted to improve outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Objective: We evaluated the efficacy of an emergency department (ED)-based lung-protective mechanical ventilation protocol for the prevention of pulmonary complications.Methods: This was a quasi-experimental, before-after study that consisted of a preintervention period, a run-in period of approximately 6 months, and a prospective intervention period. The intervention was a multifaceted ED-based mechanical ventilator protocol targeting lung-protective tidal volume, appropriate setting of positive end-expiratory pressure, rapid oxygen weaning, and head-of-bed elevation. A propensity score-matched analysis was used to evaluate the primary outcome, which was the composite incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome and ventilator-associated conditions.Results: A total of 1,192 patients in the preintervention group and 513 patients in the intervention group were included. Lung-protective ventilation increased by 48.4% in the intervention group. In the propensity score-matched analysis (n=490 in each group), the primary outcome occurred in 71 patients (14.5%) in the preintervention group compared with 36 patients (7.4%) in the intervention group (adjusted odds ratio 0.47; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.31 to 0.71). There was an increase in ventilator-free days (mean difference 3.7; 95% CI 2.3 to 5.1), ICU-free days (mean difference 2.4; 95% CI 1.0 to 3.7), and hospital-free days (mean difference 2.4; 95% CI 1.2 to 3.6) associated with the intervention. The mortality rate was 34.1% in the preintervention group and 19.6% in the intervention group (adjusted odds ratio 0.47; 95% CI 0.35 to 0.63).Conclusion: Implementing a mechanical ventilator protocol in the ED is feasible and is associated with significant improvements in the delivery of safe mechanical ventilation and clinical outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: In mechanically ventilated patients, awareness with paralysis (AWP) can have devastating consequences, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and thoughts of suicide. Single-center data from the emergency department (ED) demonstrate an event rate for AWP factors higher than that reported from the operating room. However, there remains a lack of data on AWP among critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients. The objective was to assess the proportion of ED patients experiencing AWP and investigate modifiable variables associated with its occurrence.Design: An a priori planned secondary analysis of a multicenter, prospective, before-and-after clinical trial.Setting: The ED of three academic medical centers.Patients: Mechanically ventilated adult patients that received neuromuscular blockers.Interventions: None.Measurements and Main Results: All data related to sedation and analgesia were collected. AWP was the primary outcome, assessed with the modified Brice questionnaire, and was independently adjudicated by three expert reviewers. Perceived threat, in the causal pathway for PTSD, was the secondary outcome. A total of 388 patients were studied. The proportion of patients experiencing AWP was 3.4% ( n = 13), the majority of whom received rocuronium ( n = 12/13; 92.3%). Among patients who received rocuronium, 5.5% ( n = 12/230) experienced AWP, compared with 0.6% ( n = 1/158) among patients who did not receive rocuronium in the ED (odds ratio, 8.64; 95% CI, 1.11-67.15). Patients experiencing AWP had a higher mean ( sd ) threat perception scale score, compared with patients without AWP (15.6 [5.8] vs 7.7 [6.0]; p < 0.01).Conclusions: AWP was present in a concerning proportion of mechanically ventilated ED patients, was associated with rocuronium exposure in the ED, and led to increased levels of perceived threat, placing patients at greater risk for PTSD. Studies that aim to further quantify AWP in this vulnerable population and eliminate its occurrence are urgently needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Deep sedation in the emergency department (ED) is common, increases deep sedation in the ICU, and is negatively associated with outcome. Limiting ED deep sedation may, therefore, be a high-yield intervention to improve outcome. However, the feasibility of conducting an adequately powered ED-based clinical sedation trial is unknown. Our objectives were to assess trial feasibility in terms of: 1) recruitment, 2) protocol implementation and practice change, and 3) safety. Patient-centered clinical outcomes were assessed to better plan for a future large-scale clinical trial.Design: Pragmatic, multicenter ( n = 3), prospective before-after pilot and feasibility trial.Setting: The ED and ICUs at three medical centers.Patients: Consecutive, adult mechanically ventilation ED patients.Interventions: An educational initiative aimed at reliable ED sedation depth documentation and reducing the proportion of deeply sedated patients (primary outcome).Measurements and Main Results: Sedation-related data in the ED and the first 48 ICU hours were recorded. Deep sedation was defined as a Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale of -3 to -5 or a Sedation-Agitation Scale of 1-3. One thousand three hundred fifty-six patients were screened; 415 comprised the final population. Lighter ED sedation was achieved in the intervention group, and the proportion of deeply sedated patients was reduced from 60.2% to 38.8% ( p < 0.01). There were no concerning trends in adverse events (i.e., inadvertent extubation, device removal, and awareness with paralysis). Mortality was 10.0% in the intervention group and 20.4% in the preintervention group ( p < 0.01). Compared with preintervention, the intervention group experienced more ventilator-free days [22.0 (9.0) vs 19.9 (10.6)] and ICU-free days [20.8 (8.7) vs 18.1 (10.4)], p < 0.05 for both.Conclusions: This pilot trial confirmed the feasibility of targeting the ED in order to improve sedation practices and reduce deep sedation. These findings justify an appropriately powered clinical trial regarding ED-based sedation to improve clinical outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]