Out-of-hospital emergency medicine in pediatric patients: prevalence and management of pain.

INTRODUCTION: Much less is known about pain prevalence in pediatric patients in an out-of-hospital than emergency department setting. The purpose of this study was to determine pain prevalence in children in a prehospital emergency setting and to identify the factors associated with pain relief. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective cohort study in consecutive patients 15 years or younger was conducted by 5 mobile intensive care units working 24/7 (January-December 2005). The presence of pain, its intensity, and alleviation by the administration of analgesics were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 258 of 433 pediatric patients were included, of whom 96 were suffering from acute pain (37%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 31-43) that was intense to severe in 67% of cases. Trauma was the only factor significantly associated with acute pain (odds ratio, 818; 95% CI, 153-4376). Overall, 92% of the children in pain received at least one analgesic drug; 41% received a combination of drugs. Opioid administration was significantly associated with intense to severe pain (odds ratio, 7; 95% CI, 2-25). On arrival at hospital, 67% of the children were still in pain; but 84% had experienced some pain relief regardless of their sex, age, or disorder. CONCLUSION: In a prehospital emergency setting, more than a third of children experience acute pain with a high prevalence of intense to severe pain. Scoring pain in children, and especially in the newborn, is beleaguered by a lack of suitable scales. Despite this, it was possible to treat 90% of children in pain and provide relief in 80% of cases.

Vasopressin and epinephrine vs. epinephrine alone in cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

BACKGROUND: During the administration of advanced cardiac life support for resuscitation from cardiac arrest, a combination of vasopressin and epinephrine may be more effective than epinephrine or vasopressin alone, but evidence is insufficient to make clinical recommendations. METHODS: In a multicenter study, we randomly assigned adults with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest to receive successive injections of either 1 mg of epinephrine and 40 IU of vasopressin or 1 mg of epinephrine and saline placebo, followed by administration of the same combination of study drugs if spontaneous circulation was not restored and subsequently by additional epinephrine if needed. The primary end point was survival to hospital admission; the secondary end points were return of spontaneous circulation, survival to hospital discharge, good neurologic recovery, and 1-year survival. RESULTS: A total of 1442 patients were assigned to receive a combination of epinephrine and vasopressin, and 1452 to receive epinephrine alone. The treatment groups had similar baseline characteristics except that there were more men in the group receiving combination therapy than in the group receiving epinephrine alone (P=0.03). There were no significant differences between the combination-therapy and the epinephrine-only groups in survival to hospital admission (20.7% vs. 21.3%; relative risk of death, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97 to 1.05), return of spontaneous circulation (28.6% vs. 29.5%; relative risk, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.06), survival to hospital discharge (1.7% vs. 2.3%; relative risk, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.02), 1-year survival (1.3% vs. 2.1%; relative risk, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.02), or good neurologic recovery at hospital discharge (37.5% vs. 51.5%; relative risk, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.81 to 2.06). CONCLUSIONS: As compared with epinephrine alone, the combination of vasopressin and epinephrine during advanced cardiac life support for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest does not improve outcome. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00127907.)

Prognostic factors in victims of falls from height.

OBJECTIVE: Falls from height cause significant mortality in the urban environment, but reliable prognostic factors have not been identified. Even the intuitive relation between the distance fallen and mortality rate has been questioned. Our objective was to determine factors predictive of increased mortality rate in victims of falls from height. DESIGN: Clinical observational study, retrospective for January 1998 to May 1999 and prospective from June 1999 to September 2000. SETTING: The study population was drawn from Seine-Saint-Denis, an urban region near Paris with 1.3 million inhabitants treated by a French out-of-hospital medical emergencies unit. PATIENTS: Patients were victims of falls from height >3 m, age >12 yrs. Study entry was performed on the scene by an emergency physician from the medical emergencies unit. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Studied data included age, gender, circumstances of fall, height of fall, nature of the impact surface (soft or hard), transient impact preceding final impact, and part of the body touching the ground first. The primary end point was mortality. The study included 287 patients, 116 (40%) during the retrospective phase and 171 (60%) during the prospective phase. Ninety-seven patients (34%) ultimately died. In multivariate analysis, age (mean, 41.6 +/- 16.6 yrs in patients who died vs. 34.9 +/- 14.9 in survivors; odds ratio, 1.05; p < .0005); height of fall (median, 5.0; 3.8-8.0 vs. 2.0; 1.2-3.0 floors; odds ratio, 1.24; p < .0001); nature of the impact surface (hard in 39% vs. soft in 22%; odds ratio, 2.7; p < .05); and head, anterior, and lateral body surfaces touching the ground first (with respectively mortality rates of 44%, odds ratio, 16.7, p = .0001; 57%, odds ratio, 10.6, p < 0.005; 32%, odds ratio, 11.1, p < .001) were independently correlated with the final mortality rate. CONCLUSIONS: Patient age, height of fall, impact surface nature, and body part first touching the ground are independent prognostic factors in victims of falls from height.