Comparison of three prehospital cervical spine protocols for missed injuries.

INTRODUCTION: We wanted to compare 3 existing emergency medical services (EMS) immobilization protocols: the Prehospital Trauma Life Support (PHTLS, mechanism-based); the Domeier protocol (parallels the National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study [NEXUS] criteria); and the Hankins' criteria (immobilization for patients <12 or >65 years, those with altered consciousness, focal neurologic deficit, distracting injury, or midline or paraspinal tenderness).To determine the proportion of patients who would require cervical immobilization per protocol and the number of missed cervical spine injuries, had each protocol been followed with 100% compliance. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study of patients ≥18 years transported by EMS post-traumatic mechanism to an inner city emergency department. Demographic and clinical/historical data obtained by physicians were recorded prior to radiologic imaging. Medical record review ascertained cervical spine injuries. Both physicians and EMS were blinded to the objective of the study. RESULTS: Of 498 participants, 58% were male and mean age was 48 years. The following participants would have required cervical spine immobilization based on the respective protocol: PHTLS, 95.4% (95% CI: 93.1-96.9%); Domeier, 68.7% (95% CI: 64.5-72.6%); Hankins, 81.5% (95% CI: 77.9-84.7%). There were 18 cervical spine injuries: 12 vertebral fractures, 2 subluxations/dislocations and 4 spinal cord injuries. Compliance with each of the 3 protocols would have led to appropriate cervical spine immobilization of all injured patients. In practice, 2 injuries were missed when the PHTLS criteria were mis-applied. CONCLUSION: Although physician-determined presence of cervical spine immobilization criteria cannot be generalized to the findings obtained by EMS personnel, our findings suggest that the mechanism-based PHTLS criteria may result in unnecessary cervical spine immobilization without apparent benefit to injured patients. PHTLS criteria may also be more difficult to implement due to the subjective interpretation of the severity of the mechanism, leading to non-compliance and missed injury.

Dexmedetomidine infusion as adjunctive therapy to benzodiazepines for acute alcohol withdrawal.

OBJECTIVE: To report a case of alcohol withdrawal and delirium tremens successfully treated with adjunctive dexmedetomidine. CASE SUMMARY: A 30-year-old man with a history of alcohol abuse was admitted to the general medical unit because of altered mental status and agitation. He was initially treated for alcohol withdrawal with benzodiazepines; his condition then deteriorated and he was transferred to the intensive care unit. Because of the patient's poor response to benzodiazepines (oxazepam and lorazepam, with midazolam the last one used), intravenous dexmedetomidine was started at an initial dose of 0.2 microg/kg/h and titrated to 0.7 microg/kg/h to the patient's comfort. Midazolam was subsequently tapered to discontinuation due to excessive sedation. In the intensive care unit, the patient's symptoms remained controlled with use of dexmedetomidine alone. He remained in the intensive care unit for 40 hours; dexmedetomidine was then tapered to discontinuation and the patient was transferred back to the general medical unit on oral oxazepam and thiamine, which had been started in the emergency department. He was discharged after 5 days. DISCUSSION: A review of the PubMed database (1989-2007) failed to identify any other instances of dexmedetomidine having been used as the principal agent to treat alcohol withdrawal. The use of sedative to treat delirium tremens is well documented, with benzodiazepines being the agents of choice. The clinical utility of benzodiazepines is limited by their stimulation of the gamma-aminobutyric acid receptors, an effect not shared by dexmedetomidine, a central alpha(2)-receptor agonist that induces a state of cooperative sedation and does not suppress respiratory drive. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with delirium tremens, dexmedetomidine should be considered as an option for primary treatment. This case illustrates the need for further studies to investigate other potential uses for dexmedetomidine.