A comparison of the effect of patient-specific versus weight-based protocols to treat vaso-occlusive episodes in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Vaso-occlusive crises (VOCs) cause debilitating pain and are a common cause of emergency department (ED) visits, for people with sickle cell disease (SCD). Strategies for achieving optimal pain control vary widely despite evidence-based guidelines. We tested existing guidelines and hypothesized that a patient-specific pain protocol (PSP) written by their SCD provider may be more effective than weight-based (WB) dosing of parenteral opiate medication, in relieving pain. METHODS: This study was a prospective, randomized controlled trial comparing a PSP versus WB protocol for patients presenting with VOCs to six EDs. Patients were randomized to a PSP or WB protocol prior to an ED visit. The SCD provider wrote their protocol and placed it in the electronic health record for future ED visits with VOC exclusion criteria that included preexisting PSP excluding parenteral opioid analgesia or outpatient use of buprenorphine or methadone or highly suspected for COVID-19. Pain intensity scores, side effects, and safety were obtained every 30 min for up to 6 h post-ED bed placement. The primary outcome was change in pain intensity score from placement in an ED space to disposition or 6 h. RESULTS: A total of 328 subjects were randomized; 104 participants enrolled (ED visit, target n = 230) with complete data for 96 visits. The study was unable to reach the target sample size and stopped early due to the impact of COVID-19. We found no significant differences between groups in the primary outcome; patients randomized to a PSP had a shorter ED length of stay (p = 0.008), and the prevalence of side effects was low in both groups. Subjects in both groups experienced both a clinically meaningful and a statistically significant decrease in pain (27 mm on a 0- to 100-mm scale). CONCLUSIONS: We found a shorter ED length of stay for patients assigned to a PSP. Patients in both groups experienced good pain relief without significant side effects.

Evaluation of Intravenous Diphenhydramine Use in Patients with Sickle Cell Vaso-Occlusive Crisis.

Purpose: To compare the incidence of oversedation between oral and parenteral diphenhydramine therapy for treatment of opioid-induced pruritus in patients with sickle cell disease vaso-occlusive crisis (SCD VOC). Methods: This retrospective, single-center, cohort study included patients greater than or equal to 18 years old with sickle cell disease admitted for vaso-occlusive crisis who received either intravenous or oral diphenhydramine for opioid-induced pruritus. Patients were identified through ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes from June 1, 2016 through July 1, 2017. Rates of oversedation were compared between the 2 formulations. Secondary endpoints included length of stay, amount and duration of diphenhydramine, rate of acute chest and indication for IV therapy. Results: Fifty unique patients were included in the analysis representing 121 admissions. Seven patients received both formulations on separate admissions and were included in both groups. Twenty-nine percent of patients in the IV diphenhydramine group experienced oversedation (12/42) versus 13% in the oral diphenhydramine group (2/15, P = .312). The average number of admissions was significantly higher in the IV versus oral group (2.45 vs 1.20; P = .005) with average and median length of stay also significantly higher in the IV versus oral group (30.57, 16.0 vs 10.67, 10.0; P = .003). Conclusion: While there was no statistically significant difference in the rates of oversedation with use of IV versus oral diphenhydramine formulations, patients with SCD VOC who received IV diphenhydramine had more frequent admissions and a longer length of stay. Clinicians may consider oral diphenhydramine preferentially in appropriate patients over IV administration.

Intrapartum Management of Sickle Cell Anemia With Rare Antibody and Minimal Blood Availability.

Sickle cell disease (SCD) can pose serious maternal and fetal risk in pregnancy. Transfusion, both during and outside of pregnancy, can improve patient morbidity and mortality but carries risk of alloimmunization, complicating future management. This case describes a 29-year-old gravida 1, para 0 woman with sickle cell anemia and rare red blood cell alloantibody (anti-Rh46) who presented with severe vaso-occlusive crisis at 29 weeks with hemoglobin of 7.6 g/dL. Only one unit of compatible blood existed in the country. Planning for transfusion with least-incompatible blood was made. She ultimately underwent cesarean section at 31 weeks and 2 days for abnormal fetal testing. This case highlights that blood products should be utilized judiciously because their adverse effects, like alloimmunization, can increase patient morbidity and mortality.