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.

Clinical outcomes of linezolid vs vancomycin in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus ventilator-associated pneumonia: retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: Vancomycin has been the treatment standard for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections, but clinical efficacy is limited. We report outcomes of a cohort with MRSA ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) treated with vancomycin vs linezolid. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 113 participants with MRSA VAP confirmed by bronchoscopy who have been initiated on therapy with either vancomycin or linezolid within 24 hours after bronchoscopy and completed ≥7 days of therapy during their hospitalization from July 2003 to June 2007. The primary endpoints were hospital survival and clinical cure, defined as resolution of signs and symptoms of VAP or microbiological eradication after completion of therapy along with clinical pulmonary infection score (CPIS) ≤6 at day 7 of therapy. RESULTS: At hospital discharge, 23/27 (85.2%) of linezolid and 72/86 (83.7%) of vancomycin recipients had survived (P = .672). In comparison to linezolid recipients, the adjusted odds ratio (OR) for survival was 0.72 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.16-3.27) with vancomycin therapy. Clinical cure was achieved in 24/27 (88.9%) of linezolid and 63/86 (73.3%) of vancomycin recipients (P = .066). Compared to linezolid recipients, the adjusted OR for clinical cure was 0.24 (95% CI: 0.05-1.10) with vancomycin therapy. Survival and clinical cure did not differ significantly between vancomycin recipients with trough level ≥15 and <15 µg/mL, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggested no survival benefit but a trend toward higher cure rate with linezolid therapy. The optimal treatment of MRSA VAP requires further study through randomized, controlled trials.