Spectrum and frequency of critical procedures performed at a Level I adult and pediatric trauma center.

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this study was to provide physician-level data about the frequency of critical procedures at a combined adult and pediatric Level I trauma center, high-acuity, high-volume academic ED. The inspiration for this study question came from a previous study by Mittiga et al. (2013) describing pediatric critical procedure data at a similar high-acuity, high-volume, pediatric-only academic ED. Our secondary objective is to compare our pediatric level procedural spectrum and frequency with those published by Mittiga et al. (2013). METHODS: This prospective observational study occurred over eleven consecutive months at an urban, Level I combined adult/pediatric trauma center with 96,000 annual visits (8500 pediatric). We recorded only procedures performed in the resuscitation bays. All data analysis is descriptive. RESULTS: Over eleven months, data on 3891 resuscitations were collected (3686 adults and 205 children); 38 faculty physicians supervised 1838 total critical procedures, 64 on children. The mean number of critical procedures per physician per month was 4.42 (0.15 on children). Additionally, ultrasound for intravenous access, extended focused assessment with sonography for trauma (e-FAST), or cardiac ultrasound were performed in 3862 resuscitations (178 pediatric). CONCLUSIONS: Emergency medicine faculty physicians at a combined Level I adult and pediatric trauma center performed and/or supervised 4.4 total (0.15 pediatric) critical procedures per month per faculty which is nearly 6 times more critical procedures monthly than faculty at a similar volume pediatric-only trauma center. However, fewer critical procedures were performed on children at the combined facility.

An open-label randomized trial of intramuscular olanzapine versus oral clonidine for symptomatic treatment of opioid withdrawal in the emergency department.

Background: Patients with opioid withdrawal often present to the Emergency Department (ED), but many EDs do not have the infrastructure in place to initiate treatment with opioid agonists (methadone or buprenorphine). Therefore, ED management often entails symptomatic control. The purpose of this study was to compare olanzapine to clonidine for the treatment of opioid withdrawal symptoms. Methods: This was a prospective, randomized clinical trial comparing 10 mg of IM olanzapine to 0.3 mg of oral clonidine for symptoms of opioid withdrawal. Adult (18 years and older) ED patients reporting a history of opioid use and symptoms consistent with withdrawal were eligible. Patients were excluded if they had already received treatment during the ED encounter, were pregnant, incarcerated, or unable to provide consent. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive olanzapine or clonidine for their initial treatment. A baseline Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale (COWS) score was calculated. After 30 min, the patient could receive any additional treatment at the ED physician's discretion. The primary outcome was need for additional medication (rescue) within 1 h of study medication administration. Secondary outcomes included change in COWS score and adverse reactions. Results: We enrolled 63 patients (33 olanzapine, 30 clonidine). Demographic characteristics were similar for both groups (median age 45, range 21-67, 54% male) as well as baseline COWS score (median score 11). The median time since last opiate use was 48 h for both groups (range 4-116). Rescue was given within 1 h for olanzapine for 9 (27%) patients and for clonidine in 19 (63%) patients (difference 36%, 95% CI 13-59%). Decrease in COWS score at 1 h was 8.3 for olanzapine and 5.1 for clonidine (difference 3.2, 95% CI 0.3-6). Adverse events were uncommon: akathisia (1, olanzapine), hypotension (2, clonidine), respiratory depression (0). Conclusions: Treatment of opioid withdrawal symptoms with 10 mg of IM olanzapine results in a lower incidence of rescue medication administration and improved symptoms (COWS score) compared to 0.3 mg of oral clonidine.

Comparison of two glycemic discharge goals in ED patients with hyperglycemia, a randomized trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Hyperglycemia is commonly encountered in the ED; the importance of glucose reduction in patients well enough to be discharged is unknown. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, randomized trial of ED patients with hyperglycemia with a glucose value 400-600 mg/dL who were discharged from the ED, excluding those with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Patients were randomly assigned to a discharge glucose goal, <350 mg/dL (moderate control) or < 600 mg/dL (loose control). The primary outcome was ED length of stay. RESULTS: Among 110 enrolled patients, 57 were assigned to moderate and 53 to loose glycemic control. Median (IQR) length of stay was 211 min (177-288 min) for the moderate group and 216 min (151-269 min) for the loose group (difference, 17 min [95% CI -15 to 49 min]). ED length of stay for those with an actual discharge glucose <350 mg/dL was 29 min longer (95% CI -1 to 59 min). Repeat ED visits for hyperglycemia (7% vs 6%), hospitalization for hyperglycemia (0% vs 2%), and hospitalization for any reason (4% vs 8%) did not differ significantly between groups. CONCLUSION: In the intention-to-treat analysis, ED length of stay and 7-day outcomes were not significantly different whether moderate or loose glycemic control was pursued. However, the length of stay for those with discharge glucose <350 mg/dL was approximately 29 min longer. ED glycemic control did not appear to be associated negative short-term outcomes. Glucose reduction in well-appearing ED patients may consume time and resources without conferring short- or long-term benefits. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.govNCT02478190.

Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Procedural Amnesia and Respiratory Depression Between Moderate and Deep Sedation With Propofol in the Emergency Department.

OBJECTIVES: The objective was to determine if there is a difference in procedural amnesia and adverse respiratory events (AREs) between the target sedation levels of moderate (MS) and deep (DS) procedural sedation. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized clinical trial of consenting adult patients planning to undergo DS with propofol between March 5, 2015, and May 24, 2017. Patients were randomized to a target sedation level of MS or DS using the American Society of Anesthesiologist's definitions. Drug doses, vital signs, observer's assessment of alertness/sedation (OAAS) score, end-tidal CO2 (ETCO2 ), and the need for supportive airway maneuvers (SAMs; bag-valve mask use, repositioning, and stimulation to induce respirations) were monitored continuously. A standardized image was shown every 30 seconds starting 3 minutes before the procedure continuing until the patient had returned to baseline after the procedure. Recall and recognition of images were assessed 10 minutes after the sedation. Subclinical respiratory depression (RD) was defined as SaO2 ≤ 91%, change in ETCO2 ≥ 10 mm Hg, or absent ETCO2 at any time. The occurrence of RD with a SAM was defined as an ARE. Patient satisfaction, pain, and perceived recollection and physician assessment of procedure difficulty were collected using visual analog scales (VASs). Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Wilcoxon rank-sum test. RESULTS: A total of 107 patients were enrolled: 54 randomized to target MS and 53 to DS. Of the patients randomized to target MS, 50% achieved MS and 50% achieved DS. In the target DS group, 77% achieved DS and 23% achieved MS. The median total propofol dose (mg/kg) was lower in the MS group: MS 1.4 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.3-1.6, IQR = 1) versus DS 1.8 (95% CI = 1.6-2.0, IQR = 0.9). There were no differences in median OAAS during the procedure (MS 2.4 and DS 2.8), lowest OAAS (MS 2 and DS 2), percentage of images recalled (MS 4.7% vs. DS 3.8%, p = 0.73), or percentage of images recognized (MS 61.1% vs. DS 55%, p = 0.52). In the MS group, 41% patients had any AREs compared to 42% in the DS group (p = 0.77, 95% CI difference = -0.12 to 0.24). The total number of AREs was 23% lower in the MS group (p = 0.01, 95% CI = -0.41 to -0.04). There was no difference in patient-reported pain, satisfaction, or recollection VAS scores. Provider's rating of procedural difficulty and procedural success were similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Targeting MS or DS did not reliably result in the intended sedation level. Targeting MS, however, resulted in a lower rate of total AREs and fewer patients had multiple AREs with no difference in procedural recall. As seen in previous reports, patients who achieved MS had less AREs than those who achieved DS. Our study suggests that a target of MS provides adequate amnesia with less need for supportive airway interventions than a target level of DS, despite the fact that it often does not result in intended sedation level.

The Effect of a Clinical Decision Support for Pending Laboratory Results at Emergency Department Discharge.

BACKGROUND: Health care systems often implement changes within the electronic health record (EHR) to improve patient safety and reduce medical errors. OBJECTIVE: To compare the proportion of emergency department (ED) encounters with laboratory tests resulting subsequent to patient discharge before and after a clinical decision support was implemented. METHODS: In 2015, our institution added an EHR dialogue when placing ED discharge orders, requiring providers to declare whether all laboratory results had been reviewed. To determine the effectiveness of this initiative, we searched the EHR to identify the proportion of ED encounters with laboratory tests resulting after discharge in pre- (January to June 2015) and post-intervention (January to June 2016) periods. RESULTS: There were 67,287 discharged patients during the study periods. In the pre- and post-intervention periods, respectively, 6.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.7-7.2%) and 7.9% (95% CI 7.6-8.2%) of encounters had laboratory tests resulting after discharge, with an absolute difference of 0.9% (95% CI 0.5-1.3%). Of these patients with laboratory tests resulting after ED discharge, in 92% the provider inaccurately marked "yes" or "not applicable" to the EHR dialogue prompt. CONCLUSIONS: This workflow intervention was associated with an increase in the proportion of laboratory tests resulting after ED discharge; inaccurate answers to the EHR dialogue were pervasive. EHR workflow interventions do not always accomplish their intended goals, and their implementation should be considered thoughtfully.

Intramuscular Midazolam, Olanzapine, Ziprasidone, or Haloperidol for Treating Acute Agitation in the Emergency Department.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Agitation in the emergency department (ED) can pose a threat to patient and provider safety; therefore, treatment is indicated. The purpose of this study is to compare haloperidol, olanzapine, midazolam, and ziprasidone to treat agitation. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study of consecutive patients receiving intramuscular medication to treat agitation in the ED. Medications were administered according to an a priori protocol in which the initial medication given was predetermined in the following 3-week blocks: haloperidol 5 mg, ziprasidone 20 mg, olanzapine 10 mg, midazolam 5 mg, and haloperidol 10 mg. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients adequately sedated at 15 minutes, assessed with the Altered Mental Status Scale. RESULTS: Seven hundred thirty-seven patients were enrolled (median age 40 years; 72% men). At 15 minutes, midazolam resulted in a greater proportion of patients adequately sedated (Altered Mental Status Scale <1) compared with ziprasidone (difference 18%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 6% to 29%), haloperidol 5 mg (difference 30%; 95% CI 19% to 41%), haloperidol 10 mg (difference 28%; 95% CI 17% to 39%), and olanzapine (difference 9%; 95% CI -1% to 20%). Olanzapine resulted in a greater proportion of patients adequately sedated at 15 minutes compared with haloperidol 5 mg (difference 20%; 95% CI 10% to 31%), haloperidol 10 mg (difference 18%; 95% CI 7% to 29%), and ziprasidone (difference 8%; 95% CI -3% to 19%). Adverse events were uncommon: cardiac arrest (0), extrapyramidal adverse effects (2; 0.3%), hypotension (5; 0.5%), hypoxemia (10; 1%), and intubation (4; 0.5%), and occurred at similar rates in each group. CONCLUSION: Intramuscular midazolam achieved more effective sedation in agitated ED patients at 15 minutes than haloperidol, ziprasidone, and perhaps olanzapine. Olanzapine provided more effective sedation than haloperidol. No differences in adverse events were identified.

Effect of Use of a Bougie vs Endotracheal Tube and Stylet on First-Attempt Intubation Success Among Patients With Difficult Airways Undergoing Emergency Intubation: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The tracheal tube introducer, known as the bougie, is typically used to aid tracheal intubation in poor laryngoscopic views or after intubation attempts fail. The effect of routine bougie use on first-attempt intubation success is unclear. Objective: To compare first attempt intubation success facilitated by the bougie vs the endotracheal tube + stylet. Design, Setting, and Patients: The Bougie Use in Emergency Airway Management (BEAM) trial was a randomized clinical trial conducted from September 2016 through August 2017 in the emergency department at Hennepin County Medical Center, an urban, academic department in Minneapolis, Minnesota, where emergency physicians perform all endotracheal intubations. Included patients were 18 years and older who were consecutively admitted to the emergency department and underwent emergency orotracheal intubation with a Macintosh laryngoscope blade for respiratory arrest, difficulty breathing, or airway protection. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to undergo the initial intubation attempt facilitated by bougie (n = 381) or endotracheal tube + stylet (n = 376). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was first-attempt intubation success in patients with at least 1 difficult airway characteristic (body fluids obscuring the laryngeal view, airway obstruction or edema, obesity, short neck, small mandible, large tongue, facial trauma, or the need for cervical spine immobilization). Secondary outcomes were first-attempt success in all patients, first-attempt intubation success without hypoxemia, first-attempt duration, esophageal intubation, and hypoxemia. Results: Among 757 patients who were randomized (mean age, 46 years; women, 230 [30%]), 757 patients (100%) completed the trial. Among the 380 patients with at least 1 difficult airway characteristic, first-attempt intubation success was higher in the bougie group (96%) than in the endotracheal tube + stylet group (82%) (absolute between-group difference, 14% [95% CI, 8% to 20%]). Among all patients, first-attempt intubation success in the bougie group (98%) was higher than the endotracheal tube + stylet group (87%) (absolute difference, 11% [95% CI, 7% to 14%]). The median duration of the first intubation attempt (38 seconds vs 36 seconds) and the incidence of hypoxemia (13% vs 14%) did not differ significantly between the bougie and endotracheal tube + stylet groups. Conclusions and Relevance: In this emergency department, use of a bougie compared with an endotracheal tube + stylet resulted in significantly higher first-attempt intubation success among patients undergoing emergency endotracheal intubation. However, these findings should be considered provisional until the generalizability is assessed in other institutions and settings. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02902146.