Should COVID-19 symptoms be used to cohort patients in the emergency department? A retrospective analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine how cohorting patients based on presenting complaints affects risk of nosocomial infection in crowded Emergency Departments (EDs) under conditions of high and low prevalence of COVID-19. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of presenting complaints and PCR tests collected during the COVID-19 epidemic from 4 EDs from a large hospital system in Bronx County, NY, from May 1, 2020 to April 30, 2021. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value (PPV, NPV) were calculated for a symptom screen based on the CDC list of COVID-19 symptoms: fever/chills, shortness of breath/dyspnea, cough, muscle or body ache, fatigue, headache, loss of taste or smell, sore throat, nasal congestion/runny nose, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. PPV was calculated for varying values of prevalence. RESULTS: There were 80,078 visits with PCR tests. The sensitivity of the symptom screen was 64.7% (95% CI: 63.6, 65.8), specificity 65.4% (65.1, 65.8). PPV was 16.8% (16.5, 17.0) and NPV was 94.5% (94.4, 94.7) when the observed prevalence of COVID-19 in the ED over the year was 9.7%. The PPV of fever/chills, cough, body and muscle aches and nasal congestion/runny nose were each approximately 25% across the year, while diarrhea, nausea, vomiting and headache were less predictive, (PPV 4.7%-9.6%) The combinations of fever/chills, cough, muscle/body aches, and shortness of breath had PPVs of 40-50%. The PPV of the screen varied from 3.7% (3.6, 3.8) at 2% prevalence of COVID-19 to 44.3% (44.0, 44.7) at 30% prevalence. CONCLUSION: The proportion of patients with a chief complaint of COVID-19 symptoms and confirmed COVID-19 infection was exceeded by the proportion without actual infection. This was true when prevalence in the ED was as high as 30%. Cohorting of patients based on the CDC's list of COVID-19 symptoms will expose many patients who do not have COVID-19 to risk of nosocomially acquired COVID-19. EDs should not use the CDC list of COVID-19 symptoms as the only strategy to minimize exposure.

Randomized Study of Metoclopramide Plus Diphenhydramine for Acute Posttraumatic Headache.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether IV metoclopramide 20 mg + diphenhydramine 25 mg (M + D) was more efficacious than IV placebo for acute moderate or severe posttraumatic headache in the emergency room. METHODS: We conducted this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study in 2 urban emergency departments (EDs). Participants who experienced head trauma and presented to our EDs within 10 days with a headache fulfilling criteria for acute posttraumatic headache were included. We randomized participants in a 1:1 ratio to M + D or placebo. Participants, caregivers, and outcome assessors were blinded to assignment. The primary outcome was improvement in pain on a scale of 0 to 10 between baseline and 1 hour after treatment. RESULTS: This study was completed between August 2017 and March 2020. We screened 414 patients for participation and randomized 160: 81 to M + D and 79 to placebo. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the groups. All enrolled participants provided primary outcome data. Patients receiving placebo reported mean improvement of 3.8 (SD 2.6), while those receiving M + D improved by 5.2 (SD 2.3), for a difference favoring metoclopramide of 1.4 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.7-2.2, p < 0.01). Adverse events were reported by 35 of 81 (43%) patients who received metoclopramide and 22 of 79 (28%) of patients who received placebo (95% CI 1-30 for difference of 15%, p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: M + D was more efficacious than placebo with regard to relief of posttraumatic headache in the ED. TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03220958. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class I evidence that for patients with acute moderate or severe posttraumatic headache, IV M + D significantly improved pain compared to placebo.

A randomized controlled trial of oxycodone/acetaminophen versus acetaminophen alone for emergency department patients with musculoskeletal pain refractory to ibuprofen.

BACKGROUND: Use of oral opioids does not result in more pain relief than nonopioid alternatives when administered to patients as first-line treatment for acute musculoskeletal pain. This study compared the efficacy of oxycodone/acetaminophen to that of acetaminophen alone as second-line treatment for patients with acute musculoskeletal pain who were administered prescription-strength ibuprofen and reported insufficient relief 1 h later. METHODS: A randomized, double-blind study was conducted in two urban emergency departments. Opioid-naïve patients ≥ 18 years with an acute musculoskeletal injury were administered ibuprofen 600 mg as part of the study protocol. Those who reported insufficient relief 1 h later were randomized (1:1 ratio) to oxycodone 10 mg/acetaminophen 650 mg or acetaminophen 650 mg. The primary outcome was improvement in 0 to 10 pain scale between randomization and 2 h later. We also assessed medication-associated adverse events. A sample size calculation, built around a minimum clinically important difference of 1.3 units, determined the need for 154 patients. RESULTS: We screened 924 patients and enrolled 393. All 393 received ibuprofen. A total of 159 (40%) patients reported inadequate relief after 1 h had elapsed. A total of 154 of these were randomized, 77 to oxycodone/acetaminophen and 77 to acetaminophen. Baseline characteristics were comparable. Among patients randomized to oxycodone/acetaminophen, mean (±SD) improvement in 0 to 10 pain scale was 4.0 (±2.6) versus 2.9 (±2.4) in the acetaminophen arm. The 95% confidence interval (CI) for the mean difference of 1.1 was 0.3 to 1.9. Among patients who received oxycodone/acetaminophen, 26 of 76 (34%) reported any medication-related adverse event versus seven of 74 (9%) participants who received acetaminophen. The 95% CI for the between-group difference of 25% was 12% to 37%). CONCLUSION: Among patients with acute musculoskeletal pain refractory to oral ibuprofen, oxycodone/acetaminophen resulted in slightly greater pain relief than acetaminophen, but this was associated with more medication-related adverse events.

A Randomized Trial Comparing the Efficacy of Five Oral Analgesics for Treatment of Acute Musculoskeletal Extremity Pain in the Emergency Department.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We compare the efficacy and adverse effects of 5 oral analgesics in emergency department (ED) patients aged 21 to 64 years with acute musculoskeletal pain. METHODS: This was a randomized clinical trial conducted in 2 urban EDs. Patients received 400 mg ibuprofen/1,000 mg acetaminophen, 800 mg ibuprofen/1,000 mg acetaminophen, 30 mg codeine/300 mg acetaminophen, 5 mg hydrocodone/300 mg acetaminophen, or 5 mg oxycodone/325 mg acetaminophen. The primary outcome was change in pain before administration of medication (baseline) to 1 hour postbaseline. A numeric rating scale was used, varying from 0="no pain" to 10="worst imaginable pain." Secondary outcomes included receipt of rescue medication and adverse effects at 1 and 2 hours postbaseline. ANOVA was used to test differences in the primary outcome between treatment groups. RESULTS: Six hundred participants, predominantly men and Latino, were enrolled. Change in pain from baseline to 60 minutes did not differ by treatment (P=.69). The mean change in pain in numeric rating scale units was 400 mg ibuprofen/1,000 mg acetaminophen 3.0 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.6 to 3.5); 800 mg ibuprofen/1,000 mg acetaminophen 3.0 (95% CI 2.5 to 3.5), 30 mg codeine/300 mg acetaminophen 3.4 (95% CI 2.9 to 3.9), 5 mg hydrocodone/300 mg acetaminophen 3.1 (95% CI 2.7 to 3.5), and 5 mg oxycodone/325 mg acetaminophen 3.3 (95% CI 2.8 to 3.7). Rescue medication was received before 1 hour had elapsed by 2 patients receiving 400 mg ibuprofen/1,000 mg acetaminophen (1.7%), 3 patients receiving 800 mg ibuprofen/1,000 mg acetaminophen (2.5%), zero patients receiving 30 mg codeine/300 mg acetaminophen (0.0%), 3 patients receiving 5 mg hydrocodone/300 mg acetaminophen (2.5%), and zero patients receiving 5 mg oxycodone/325 mg acetaminophen (0.0%) (P=.21). More patients who received opioids were nauseated or vomited compared with those who did not: 6.7% versus 1.7% (5.0% difference; 95% CI 1.7% to 8.2%). The findings at 2 hours were similar. CONCLUSION: No analgesic was more efficacious than others 1 or 2 hours after baseline. There was significantly more nausea and vomiting among patients treated with opioids.

Predicting the Transition to Chronic Pain 6 Months After an Emergency Department Visit for Acute Pain: A Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Acute pain can transition to chronic pain, a potentially debilitating illness. OBJECTIVE: We determined how often acute pain transitions to chronic pain among patients in the emergency department (ED) and whether persistent pain 1 week after the ED visit was associated with chronic pain. METHODS: An observational cohort study conducted in two EDs. We included adults with acute pain (≤10 days) if an oral opioid was prescribed. Exclusion criteria were recent opioid use and use of any analgesics regularly prior to onset of the pain. Research associates interviewed patients during the ED visit and 1 week and 6 months later. The primary outcome, chronic pain, was defined as pain on > 50% of days since ED discharge. We constructed logistic regression models to evaluate the association between persistent pain 1 week after an ED visit and chronic pain, while adjusting for demographic and treatment variables. RESULTS: During a 9-month period, we approached 733 patients for participation and enrolled 484; 450 of 484 (93%) provided 1-week outcomes data and 410 of 484 (85%) provided 6-month outcomes data. One week after the ED visit, 348 of 453 (77%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 73-80%) patients reported pain in the affected area. New-onset chronic pain at 6 months was reported by 110 of 408 (27%; 95% CI 23-31%) patients. Presence of pain 1 week after ED visit was associated with chronic pain (odds ratio 3.6; 95% CI 1.6-8.5). CONCLUSIONS: About one-quarter of ED patients with acute pain transition to chronic pain within 6 months. Persistence of pain 1 week after the ED visit can identify patients at risk of transition.

A Randomized, Double-Dummy, Emergency Department-Based Study of Greater Occipital Nerve Block With Bupivacaine vs Intravenous Metoclopramide for Treatment of Migraine.

BACKGROUND: Greater occipital nerve blocks (GONB) are used increasingly to treat acute migraine. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a randomized controlled trial to determine whether GONB was as effective as intravenous metoclopramide for migraine. METHODS: This was a double-dummy, double-blind, parallel-arm, non-inferiority study conducted in 2 emergency departments (EDs). Patients with migraine of moderate or severe intensity were randomized to receive bilateral GONB with each side administered 3 mL of bupivacaine 0.5% or metoclopramide 10 mg IV, the putative standard of care. The primary outcome was improvement in pain on a 0-10 scale between time 0 and 1 hour later. To reject the null hypothesis that metoclopramide would be more efficacious in relieving pain, we required that the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in pain improvement between those randomized to GONB vs those randomized to metoclopramide be >-1.3, a validated minimum clinically important difference. Secondary outcomes included sustained headache relief, defined as achieving and maintaining for 48 hours a headache level of mild or none without the use of additional analgesic medication, and the use of rescue medication in the ED. RESULTS: Over a 2.5-year study period, 1358 patients were screened for participation and 99 were randomized, 51 to GONB and 48 to metoclopramide. All of these patients were included in the primary analysis. Patients who received the GONB reported mean improvement of 5.0 (95% CI: 4.1, 5.8) while those who received metoclopramide reported a larger mean improvement of 6.1 (95% CI: 5.2, 6.9). The 95% CI for the between group difference of -1.1 was -2.3, 0.1. Sustained headache relief was reported by 11/51 (22%) GONB and 18/47 (38%) metoclopramide patients (95% CI for rounded difference of 17%: -1, 35%). Of the 51 GONB patients, 17 (33%) required rescue medication in the ED vs 8/48 (17%) metoclopramide patients (95% CI for rounded difference of 17%: 0, 33%). An adverse event was reported by 16/51 (31%) GONB patients and 18/48 (38%) metoclopramide patients (95% CI for (rounded) difference of 6%: -13, 25%). CONCLUSION: GONB with bupivacaine was not as efficacious as IV metoclopramide for the first-line treatment of migraine in the ED.

Opioid-induced Euphoria Among Emergency Department Patients With Acute Severe Pain: An Analysis of Data From a Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Parenteral opioids are commonly used to treat acute severe pain. We measured pleasurable sensations in patients administered intravenous analgesics to determine if these sensations were associated with receipt of an opioid, after controlling for relief of pain. Pleasurable sensations not accounted for by relief of pain were considered opioid-induced euphoria. METHODS: These data were from a randomized study of 1 mg of hydromorphone versus 120 mg of lidocaine for abdominal pain. To assess euphoria, participants were asked to provide a 0 to 10 response to each of these questions: 1) How good did the medication make you feel? 2) How high did the medication make you feel? and 3) How happy did the medication make you feel? Pain at baseline and 30 minutes was also measured on a 0 to 10 scale. To determine the relative importance of pain relief versus medication type, we built three linear regression models in which each euphoria question was the dependent variable and pain relief, medication type, and medication-induced side effects were the independent variables. RESULTS: Seventy-seven patients received lidocaine and 77 hydromorphone. Hydromorphone patients reported greater pain improvement than lidocaine patients (mean difference = 1.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.6 to 2.3) and higher scores on all three euphoria questions ("feeling good" difference = 1.9, 95% CI = 0.8 to 3.0; "feeling high" difference = 1.5, 95% CI = 0.4 to 2.7; "feeling happy" difference = 1.7, 95% CI = 0.6 to 2.8). In the regression models, hydromorphone administration (ß-coefficient = 0.16, p = 0.03) and pain relief (ß-coefficient = 0.45, p < 0.01) were both associated with "feeling good." "Feeling high" and "feeling happy" were associated with pain improvement (p < 0.01) but not with hydromorphone administration (p = 0.07 for "high" and p = 0.06 for "happy"). Medication-induced side effects were not associated with these measures of euphoria. CONCLUSION: Among emergency department patients with acute pain, hydromorphone-induced euphoria, though measurable, was generally less important for patients than relief of pain.

Randomized Clinical Trial of Intravenous (IV) Acetaminophen as an Adjunct to IV Hydromorphone for Acute Severe Pain in Emergency Department Patients.

BACKGROUND: A fundamental challenge for emergency department (ED) clinicians is to relieve severe, acute pain while simultaneously avoiding adverse events associated with opioid analgesics. Because there is evidence that intravenous (IV) acetaminophen is an effective adjuvant analgesic in postoperative settings, we examined whether it also has a role in the ED. METHODS: This was a two-arm, double-blind randomized clinical trial. All patients received 1 mg of IV hydromorphone. Patients were then randomized to receive 1 g of IV acetaminophen or placebo. The primary outcome was the between-group difference in change in pain from baseline (before treatment) to 60 minutes after administration of study drugs, measured on an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS). RESULTS: Of 828 patients screened, 162 were enrolled and 159 had the primary outcome. Patients allocated to acetaminophen + hydromorphone had a mean decline in pain from baseline to 60 minutes of 6.2 NRS units; those receiving placebo + hydromorphone had a mean decline of 5.4, a difference of 0.8 NRS units (95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.01 to 1.8). Two patients in each group received additional analgesics in the first 60 minutes of the study. At 120 minutes the NRS pain difference was 0.6 (95% CI = -0.4 to 1.6). A total of 26.9% of patients who received acetaminophen wanted more analgesia versus 37.7% of those given placebo (difference = -10.8%, 95% CI = -24.3% to 4.4%). The incidence of adverse effects was similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of 1 g of IV acetaminophen to 1 mg of IV hydromorphone provided neither clinically meaningful nor statistically superior analgesia than hydromorphone alone.

Disparities in Acute Pain Treatment by Cognitive Status in Older Adults With Hip Fracture.

BACKGROUND: We examined the disparities in emergency department (ED) pain treatment based on cognitive status in older adults with an acute hip fracture. METHODS: Observational study in an academic ED in the Bronx, New York. One hundred forty-four adults aged 65 years and older with acute hip fracture were administered the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status (TICS) while in the ED. The primary outcome was receipt of any parenteral analgesic. The risk factor of interest was cognitive impairment (TICS ≤ 25). Secondary outcomes included receipt of any opioid, receipt of any analgesic, total dose of analgesics in intravenous morphine equivalent units (MEQ), and time to receiving first analgesic. RESULTS: Of the 87 (60%) study patients who were cognitively impaired, 60% received a parenteral analgesic compared to 79% of the 57 cognitively unimpaired patients (RR 0.76 [95% CI 0.61, 0.94]). The effect of cognitive impairment on receiving any opioids (RR: 0.81, 95% CI 0.67, 0.98) and any analgesic (RR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.71, 1.01) was similar. The median analgesic dose in cognitively impaired patients was significantly lower than in cognitively unimpaired patients (4 MEQ vs 8 MEQ, p = .003). CONCLUSION: Among older adults presenting to the ED with acute hip fracture, cognitive impairment was independently associated with lower likelihood of receiving analgesia and lower amount of opioid analgesia.

Lead poisoning risk assessment of radiology workers using lead shields.

Purpose: Lead containing dust may be present on the exterior surfaces of shields used to prevent radiation exposure. We determined whether use of lead shields poses an exposure risk for radiology personnel.Methods: We collected hand dustwipe and blood samples from 58 Radiology Department employees of an academic hospital. Samples were analyzed for lead content by atomic absorption spectroscopy. Results were compared between lead apron users (46) and nonusers (12).Results: Hand dustwipe lead was undetectable (<3 µg/sample) in all cases. Blood lead levels ranged from 0-3 µg/dL.Conclusions: In this study of Radiology Department workers, we did not find an increased risk of lead contamination on their hands or in their blood. Although our sample size is small, we conclude that lead poisoning is unlikely to occur with high frequency in lead shield users.

Opioid Use During the Six Months After an Emergency Department Visit for Acute Pain: A Prospective Cohort Study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Despite the frequent use of opioids to treat acute pain, the long-term risks and analgesic benefits of an opioid prescription for an individual emergency department (ED) patient with acute pain are still poorly understood and inadequately quantified. Our objective was to determine the frequency of recurrent or persistent opioid use during the 6 months after the ED visit METHODS: This was a prospective, observational cohort study of opioid-naive patients presenting to 2 EDs for acute pain who were prescribed an opioid at discharge. Patients were followed by telephone 6 months after the ED visit. Additionally, we reviewed the statewide prescription monitoring program database. Outcomes included frequency of recurrent and persistent opioid use and frequency of persistent moderate or severe pain 6 months after the ED visit. Persistent opioid use was defined as filling greater than or equal to 6 prescriptions during the 6-month study period. RESULTS: During 9 months beginning in November 2017, 733 patients were approached for participation. Four hundred eighty-four met inclusion criteria and consented to participate. Four hundred ten patients (85%) provided 6-month telephone data. The prescription monitoring database was reviewed for all 484 patients (100%). Most patients (317/484, 66%; 95% confidence interval 61% to 70%) filled only the initial prescription they received in the ED. One in 5 patients (102/484, 21%; 95% confidence interval 18% to 25%) filled at least 2 prescriptions within the 6-month period. Five patients (1%; 95% confidence interval 0% to 2%) met criteria for persistent opioid use. Of these 5 patients, all but 1 reported moderate or severe pain in the affected body part 6 months later. CONCLUSION: Although 1 in 5 opioid-naive ED patients who received an opioid prescription for acute pain on ED discharge filled at least 2 opioid prescriptions in 6 months, only 1% had persistent opioid use. These patients with persistent opioid use were likely to report moderate or severe pain 6 months after the ED visit.

Randomized Clinical Trial of Intravenous Acetaminophen as an Analgesic Adjunct for Older Adults With Acute Severe Pain.

OBJECTIVES: Older adults are at risk for undertreatment of pain. We examined intravenous (IV) acetaminophen as an analgesic adjunct to IV opioids in the care of older emergency department (ED) patients with acute severe pain. METHODS: This was a randomized clinical trial conducted in two EDs in the Bronx, New York. Eligible adults aged 65 years and older with acute severe pain were randomized to 0.5 mg of IV hydromorphone and 1 g of IV acetaminophen or 0.5 mg of IV hydromorphone and 100 mL of normal saline placebo. The primary outcome was the between group difference in improvement of numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores at 60 minutes. Secondary outcomes were the between-group differences in the proportion of patients who chose to forgo additional pain medications at 60 minutes; the proportion who developed side effects; the proportion who required rescue analgesia; and between-group differences in NRS pain scores at 5, 15, 30, and 45 minutes. RESULTS: Eighty-one patients were allocated to each arm. Eighty patients in the IV acetaminophen arm and 79 patients in the placebo arm had sufficient data for analysis. At 60 minutes, patients in the hydromorphone + IV acetaminophen group improved by 5.7 NRS units while those in the hydromorphone + placebo group improved by 5.2 NRS units, for a difference of 0.6 NRS units (95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.4 to 1.5). A total of 28.7% of patients in the hydromorphone + IV acetaminophen group wanted more analgesia at 60 minutes versus 29.1% in the hydromorphone + placebo group, for a difference of -0.4% (95% CI = -14.3% to 13.5%). These differences were neither clinically nor statistically significant. Safety profiles were similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: In this randomized clinical trial, the addition of IV acetaminophen to IV hydromorphone as an adjunctive analgesic for acute, severe, pain in older adults provided neither clinically nor statistically superior pain relief when compared to hydromorphone alone within the first hour of treatment.

Randomized Controlled Trial of Intravenous Acetaminophen Versus Intravenous Hydromorphone for the Treatment of Acute Pain in the Emergency Department.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: As clinicians look to nonnarcotic analgesics in the emergency department (ED), it is essential to understand the effectiveness and adverse effects of nonopioid medications in comparison with existing opioid treatments. Studies of intravenous acetaminophen for acute pain in the ED demonstrate mixed results and suffer from small sample sizes and methodological limitations. This study compares intravenous hydromorphone with intravenous acetaminophen in adult ED patients presenting with acute pain. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, clinical trial comparing 1 g intravenous acetaminophen with 1 mg intravenous hydromorphone for treatment of adults with severe, acute pain in the ED. The primary outcome was between-group difference in change in numeric rating scale from baseline to 60 minutes postadministration of study medication. Secondary outcomes included the difference in proportion of patients in each group who declined additional analgesia at 60 minutes, received additional medication before 60 minutes, and developed nausea, vomiting, or pruritus. RESULTS: Of 220 subjects randomized, 103 patients in each arm had sufficient data for analysis. At 60 minutes, the mean decrease in numeric rating scale pain score was 5.3 in the hydromorphone arm and 3.3 in the acetaminophen arm, a difference of 2.0 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2 to 2.7) favoring hydromorphone. A greater proportion of patients in the hydromorphone arm also declined additional analgesia at 60 minutes (65% versus 44%; difference 21%; (95% CI 8% to 35%). There was no difference in the proportion of patients receiving rescue analgesia before 60 minutes. Significantly more subjects in the hydromorphone group developed nausea (19% versus 3%; difference 16%; 95% CI 4% to 28%) and vomiting (14% versus 3%; difference 11%; 95% CI 0% to 23%). CONCLUSION: Although both 1 mg intravenous hydromorphone and 1 g intravenous acetaminophen provided clinically meaningful reductions in pain scores, treatment with hydromorphone provided both clinically and statistically greater analgesia than acetaminophen, at the cost of a higher incidence of nausea and vomiting.

Pain One Week After an Emergency Department Visit for Acute Low Back Pain Is Associated With Poor Three-month Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is responsible for more than 2.5 million visits to U.S. emergency departments (EDs) annually. Nearly 30% of patients who present to an ED with acute LBP report functional impairment or pain 3 months later. These patients are at risk of chronic LBP, a highly debilitating condition. In this study, we assessed whether three variables assessable shortly after symptom onset could independently predict poor 3-month outcomes among LBP patients who present to an ED. METHODS: This was a planned analysis of data from two randomized comparative effectiveness studies of patients with acute, nontraumatic, nonradicular LBP. Patients were enrolled during an ED visit, contacted by telephone 1 week after the ED visit, and then followed up by telephone 3 months later. The coprimary 3-month outcomes were LBP-related functional impairment and persistent moderate or severe LBP. Two of the three hypothesized predictor variables were assessed during the index visit: 1) the STarT Back Screening Tool score, a nine-item, multidimensional tool validated and widely used in the outpatient setting, and 2) the patient's own anticipated duration of LBP. The third hypothesized predictor was presence of pain assessed by phone 1 week after the ED visit. We then determined whether these three predictor variables were independently associated with poor outcomes at 3 months, after controlling for medication received, age, and sex. RESULTS: A total of 354 patients were enrolled. Of these, 309 (87%) provided 3-month impairment data and 311 (88%) provided 3-month pain data. At 3 months, 122 of 309 (39%) patients reported functional impairment and 51 of 311(16%) patients reported moderate or severe LBP. Among the three hypothesized predictor variables, 58 of 352 (16%) patients with available data reported a moderate or high STarT Back Screening Tool score, 35 of 321 (11%) patients with available data reported anticipated duration of LBP > 1 week, and 235 of 346 (68%) patients reported pain at 1-week telephone follow-up. After age, sex, and medication received were controlled for in a multivariable logistic regression model, only pain at 1 week was independently associated with 3-month impairment (odds ratio [OR] = 2.42, 95% CI = 1.39-4.22) and 3-month moderate or severe pain (OR = 3.83, 95% CI = 1.53-9.58). CONCLUSIONS: More than one-third of patients reported functional impairment 3 months after an ED visit for acute, nontraumatic, nonradicular LBP. Moderate or severe LBP was less common, reported in about half as many patients (16%). Of the three hypothesized predictor variables, only persistent pain at 1 week was independently associated with poor outcomes at 3 months. Despite its important role in the outpatient setting, the STarT Back Tool was not associated with poor outcomes in this ED cohort.

Use of the low-frequency/high-frequency ratio of heart rate variability to predict short-term deterioration in emergency department patients with sepsis.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the ability of the low-frequency/high-frequency (LF/HF) ratio of heart rate variability (HRV) analysis to identify patients with sepsis at risk of early deterioration. METHODS: This is a prospective observational cohort study of patients with sepsis presenting to the Montefiore Medical Center ED from December 2014 through September 2015. On presentation, a single ECG Holter recording was obtained and analysed to obtain the LF/HF ratio of HRV. Initial Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores were computed. Patients were followed for 72 hours to identify those with early deterioration. RESULTS: 466 patients presenting to the ED with sepsis were analysed. Thirty-two (7%) reached at least one endpoint within 72 hours. An LF/HF ratio <1 had a sensitivity and specificity of 34% (95% CI (19% to 53%)) and 82% (95% CI (78% to 85%)), respectively, with positive and negative likelihood ratios of 1.9 (95% CI (1.1 to 3.2)) and 0.8 (95% CI (0.6 to 1.0)). An initial SOFA score ≥3 had a sensitivity and specificity of 38% (95% CI (22% to 56%)) and 92% (95% CI (89% to 95%)), with positive and negative likelihood ratios of 4.9 (95% CI (2.8 to 8.6)) and 0.7 (95% CI (0.5 to 0.9)). The composite measure of HRV+SOFA had improved sensitivity (56%, 95% CI (38% to 73%)) but at the expense of specificity (77%, 95% CI (72% to 80%)), with positive and negative likelihood ratios of 2.4 (95% CI (1.7 to 3.4)) and 0.6 (95% CI (0.4 to 0.9)). Receiver operating characteristic analysis did not identify a superior alternate threshold for the LF/HF ratio. Kaplan-Meier survival functions differed significantly (p=0.02) between low (<1) and high (≥1) LF/HF groups. CONCLUSIONS: While we found a statistically significant relationship between HRV, SOFA and HRV+SOFA, and early deterioration, none reliably functioned as a clinical predictive tool. More complex multivariable models will likely be required to construct models with clinical utility.

Effect of a Single Dose of Oral Opioid and Nonopioid Analgesics on Acute Extremity Pain in the Emergency Department: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The choice of analgesic to treat acute pain in the emergency department (ED) lacks a clear evidence base. The combination of ibuprofen and acetaminophen (paracetamol) may represent a viable nonopioid alternative. Objectives: To compare the efficacy of 4 oral analgesics. Design, Settings, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial conducted at 2 urban EDs in the Bronx, New York, that included 416 patients aged 21 to 64 years with moderate to severe acute extremity pain enrolled from July 2015 to August 2016. Interventions: Participants (104 per each combination analgesic group) received 400 mg of ibuprofen and 1000 mg of acetaminophen; 5 mg of oxycodone and 325 mg of acetaminophen; 5 mg of hydrocodone and 300 mg of acetaminophen; or 30 mg of codeine and 300 mg of acetaminophen. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the between-group difference in decline in pain 2 hours after ingestion. Pain intensity was assessed using an 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS), in which 0 indicates no pain and 10 indicates the worst possible pain. The predefined minimum clinically important difference was 1.3 on the NRS. Analysis of variance was used to test the overall between-group difference at P = .05 and 99.2% CIs adjusted for multiple pairwise comparisons. Results: Of 416 patients randomized, 411 were analyzed (mean [SD] age, 37 [12] years; 199 [48%] women; 247 [60%] Latino). The baseline mean NRS pain score was 8.7 (SD, 1.3). At 2 hours, the mean NRS pain score decreased by 4.3 (95% CI, 3.6 to 4.9) in the ibuprofen and acetaminophen group; by 4.4 (95% CI, 3.7 to 5.0) in the oxycodone and acetaminophen group; by 3.5 (95% CI, 2.9 to 4.2) in the hydrocodone and acetaminophen group; and by 3.9 (95% CI, 3.2 to 4.5) in the codeine and acetaminophen group (P = .053). The largest difference in decline in the NRS pain score from baseline to 2 hours was between the oxycodone and acetaminophen group and the hydrocodone and acetaminophen group (0.9; 99.2% CI, -0.1 to 1.8), which was less than the minimum clinically important difference in NRS pain score of 1.3. Adverse events were not assessed. Conclusions and Relevance: For patients presenting to the ED with acute extremity pain, there were no statistically significant or clinically important differences in pain reduction at 2 hours among single-dose treatment with ibuprofen and acetaminophen or with 3 different opioid and acetaminophen combination analgesics. Further research to assess adverse events and other dosing may be warranted. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02455518.

Randomized study of IV prochlorperazine plus diphenhydramine vs IV hydromorphone for migraine.

OBJECTIVE: To determine outcomes among patients with migraine in the emergency department (ED) who receive IV hydromorphone vs IV prochlorperazine + diphenhydramine. METHODS: This study was conducted in 2 EDs in New York City. Patients who met international criteria for migraine were eligible for participation if they had not used an opioid within the previous month. Clinicians, participants, investigators, and research personnel were blinded to treatment. Patients were randomized in blocks of 4. Participants received hydromorphone 1 mg or prochlorperazine 10 mg + diphenhydramine 25 mg. Diphenhydramine was administered to prevent akathisia, a common side effect of IV prochlorperazine. The primary outcome was sustained headache relief, defined as achieving a headache level of mild or none within 2 hours of medication administration and maintaining that level for 48 hours without the requirement of rescue medication. A planned interim analysis was conducted once 48-hour data were available for 120 patients. RESULTS: The trial was halted by the data monitoring committee after 127 patients had been enrolled. The primary outcome was achieved in the prochlorperazine arm by 37 of 62 (60%) participants and in the hydromorphone arm by 20 of 64 (31%) participants (difference 28%, 95% confidence interval 12-45, number needed to treat 4, 95% confidence interval 2-9). CONCLUSIONS: IV hydromorphone is substantially less effective than IV prochlorperazine for the treatment of acute migraine in the ED and should not be used as first-line therapy. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02389829. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class I evidence that for patients in the ED with migraine, IV prochlorperazine + diphenhydramine is superior to IV hydromorphone.

Comparative Effectiveness of Patient-Controlled Analgesia for Treating Acute Pain in the Emergency Department.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We assess the effectiveness of patient-controlled analgesia in the emergency department (ED). We hypothesized that decline in pain intensity from 30 to 120 minutes after initial intravenous opioid administration is greater in patients receiving morphine by patient-controlled analgesia compared with usual care and would differ by a clinically significant amount. METHOD: This was a pragmatic randomized controlled trial of patient-controlled analgesia and usual care (opioid and dose at physician's discretion) in 4 EDs. Entry criteria included age 18 to 65 years and acute pain requiring intravenous opioids. The primary outcome was decline in numeric rating scale pain score 30 to 120 minutes postbaseline. Secondary outcomes included satisfaction, time to analgesia, adverse events, and patient-controlled analgesia pump-related problems. We used a mixed-effects linear model to compare rate of decline in pain (slope) between groups. A clinically significant difference between groups was defined as a difference in slopes equivalent to 1.3 numeric rating scale units. RESULTS: Six hundred thirty-six patients were enrolled. The rate of decline in pain from 30 to 120 minutes was greater for patients receiving patient-controlled analgesia than usual care (difference=1.0 numeric rating scale unit; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.6 to 1.5; P<.001) but did not reach the threshold for clinical significance. More patients receiving patient-controlled analgesia were satisfied with pain management (difference=9.3%; 95% CI 3.3% to 15.1%). Median time to initial analgesia was 15 minutes longer for patient-controlled analgesia than usual care (95% CI 11.4 to 18.6 minutes). There were 7 adverse events in the patient-controlled analgesia group and 1 in the usual care group (difference=2.0%; 95% CI 0.04% to 3.9%), and 11 pump-programming errors. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study do not favor patient-controlled analgesia over usual ED care for acute pain management.