Dextrose 50% versus Dextrose 10% or Dextrose Titration for the Treatment of Out-of-Hospital Hypoglycemia: A Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION: Paramedics commonly administer intravenous (IV) dextrose to severely hypoglycemic patients. Typically, the treatment provided is a 25g ampule of 50% dextrose (D50). This dose of D50 is meant to ensure a return to consciousness. However, this dose may cause harm and lead to difficulties regulating blood glucose levels (BGLs) post-treatment. It is hypothesized that a lower concentration, such as 10% dextrose (D10), may improve symptoms while minimizing harm. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central were systematically searched on September 15, 2020. The PRISMA guidelines were followed. GRADE and risk of bias were applied to determine the certainty of the evidence. Primary literature investigating the use of IV dextrose in hypoglycemic diabetic patients presenting to paramedics or the emergency department was included. Outcomes of interest included safety, efficacy (symptom resolution), and BGL. RESULTS: Of 680 abstracts screened, 51 full-text articles were reviewed, with eleven studies included. Data from three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and eight observational studies were analyzed. A single RCT comparing D10 to D50 was identified. The primary significant finding of the study was an increased post-treatment glycemic profile by 3.2mmol/L in the D50 group; no other outcomes had significant differences between groups. When comparing pooled data from all the included studies, there was greater symptom resolution in the D10 group (95.9%) compared to the D50 group (88.8%). However, the mean time to resolution was approximately four minutes longer in the D10 group (4.1 minutes [D50] versus 8.0 minutes [D10]). There was a greater need for subsequent doses with the use of D10 (19.5%) compared to D50 (8.1%). The post-treatment glycemic profile was lower in the D10 group at 6.2mmol/L versus 8.5mmol/L in the D50 group. Both treatments had nearly complete resolution of hypoglycemia: 98.7% (D50) and 99.2% (D10). No adverse events were observed in the D10 group (0/1057) compared to 13/310 adverse events in the D50 group. CONCLUSION: Studies show D10 may be as effective as D50 at resolving symptoms and correcting hypoglycemia. Although the desired effect can take several minutes longer, there appear to be fewer adverse events. The post-D10-treatment BGL may result in fewer untoward hyperglycemic episodes.

State of the Evidence for Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Care: The Evolution and Current Methodology of the Prehospital Evidence-Based Practice (PEP) Program.

Background: Emergency medical services (EMS) leaders and clinicians need to incorporate evidence into safe and effective clinical practice. Access to high-quality evidence, and the time to synthesize it, can be barriers to evidence-based practice. The Prehospital Evidence-Based Practice (PEP) program is an online, freely accessible, repository of critically appraised evidence specific to EMS. This paper describes the evolution and current methodology of the PEP program. Methods|design: The purpose of PEP is to identify, catalog and critically appraise relevant studies. Following regular systematic searches, two trained appraisers critically appraise included studies and assign a score on three-point level of evidence (LOE) and direction of evidence (DOE) scales. Each clinical intervention is plotted on a 3 × 3 (LOE × DOE) evidence matrix, which provides a summary recommendation. Discussion: The PEP program is a unique knowledge translation tool, specific to EMS. End-users can easily identify which clinical interventions are, or are not, supported by evidence.

Frailty in Older Adults Using Pre-hospital Care and the Emergency Department: A Narrative Review.

BACKGROUND: Older adults use more health-care services per capita than younger age groups and the older adult population varies greatly in its needs. Evidence suggests that there is a critical distinction between relative frailty and fitness in older adults. Here, we review how frailty is described in the pre-hospital literature and in the broader emergency medicine literature. METHODS: PubMed was used as the primary database, but was augmented by searches of CINAHL and EMBASE. Articles were included if they focused on patients 60 years and older and implemented a definition of frailty or risk screening tool in the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) or Emergency Department setting. RESULTS: IN THE BROAD CLINICAL LITERATURE, THREE TYPES OF MEASURES CAN BE IDENTIFIED: frailty index measures, frailty scales, and a phenotypic definition. Each offers advantages and disadvantages for the EMS stakeholder. We identified no EMS literature on frailty conceptualization or management, although some risk measures from emergency medicine use terms that overlap with the frailty literature. CONCLUSIONS: There is a paucity of research on frailty in the Emergency Medical Services literature. No research was identified that specifically addressed frailty conceptualization or management in EMS patients. There is a compelling need for further research in this area.