Use and efficacy of nebulized naloxone in patients with suspected opioid intoxication.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the use and efficacy of nebulized naloxone in patients with suspected opioid intoxication. METHODS: This was an observational study conducted at an inner city emergency department. Patients were eligible if they had self-reported or suspected opioid intoxication and a spontaneous respiratory rate ≥6 breaths/minute. Nebulized naloxone (2 mg in 3 mL normal saline) was administered through a standard face mask at the discretion of the treating physician. Structured data collection included demographics, vital signs pre and post naloxone administration and adverse events. The primary outcome was level of consciousness, which was recorded pre and 15 minutes postnaloxone administration using the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) and the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS). RESULTS: Of the 73 patients who presented with suspected opioid intoxication and were given naloxone over the study period, 26 were initially treated with nebulized naloxone. After nebulized naloxone administration, median GCS improved from 11 [interquartile range (IQR) 3.5] to 13 (IQR, 2.5), P = .001. Median RASS improved from -3.0 (IQR, -1.0) to -2.0 (IQR, -1.5), P < .0001. Need for supplemental oxygen decreased from 81% to 50%, P = .03. Vital signs did not differ pre/post therapy. There were few adverse effects from nebulized naloxone administration: 12% experienced moderate-severe agitation, 8% were diaphoretic and none vomited. Eleven required subsequent administrations of naloxone, nine of whom self-reported using either heroin, methadone or both. Of these, 5 underwent urine drug screening and all 5 tested positive for either opiates or methadone. CONCLUSIONS: Nebulized naloxone was well-tolerated and led to a reduction in the need for supplemental oxygen as well as improved median GCS and RASS scores in patients with suspected opioid intoxication.

Sex bias in cardiovascular testing: the contribution of patient preference.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Women with potential acute coronary syndromes are less likely to receive cardiac catheterization or revascularization than men. We hypothesize that this may be due to different diagnostic test preferences of female and male patients. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study at 4 emergency departments enrolling patients who presented with symptoms of potential acute coronary syndromes. After hearing the potential benefits and harms of each test, subjects completed a 21-item survey assessing their preference for noninvasive testing versus cardiac catheterization. Based on hypothetical test results, similar questions about medical versus interventional management were asked. Subjects were also queried about likelihood of following physician recommendation for each test or intervention. Actual 30-day testing and interventions were recorded. The main outcome was patient preference about each procedure and the likelihood of patient saying they would accept the physician recommendation. RESULTS: One thousand eighty patients enrolled; 652 (60%) were admitted to the hospital. With regard to diagnostic test preference, both women and men preferred stress test to catheterization (women 58% versus men 52%; difference 6% [95% confidence interval {CI} -0.06% to 12%]), and the proportion of women and men who would accept the physician recommendation for stress tests was similar (85% for both); however, the stated acceptance rate for cardiac catheterization was lower for women (65% versus 75%; difference -10% [95% CI -15% to -4%]). Women were 6% less likely (67% versus 73%; 95% CI for difference 12% to 0.5%) to accept percutaneous coronary intervention over medical therapy and 7% less likely (61% versus 68%; 95% CI for difference -13% to 1%) to desire coronary artery bypass grafting over medical therapy. The survey results are consistent with the patients' clinical course. During the initial hospitalization, women were less likely to receive diagnostic testing of any type (38% versus 45%; difference -7%; 95% CI for the difference -13% to -1.5%) and cardiac catheterization (10% versus 17%; difference -7% [95% CI -11% to -2%]). Revascularization was infrequent in both groups (4% versus 6%; difference -2% [95% CI -5% to 0.6%]). CONCLUSION: Although women and men had similar preferences about cardiac diagnostic tests and treatment options, women were less likely than men to say they would accept the physician recommendation for any intervention. Patient preference may partially explain the disparity in cardiovascular testing between women and men.

Patient perceptions of computed tomographic imaging and their understanding of radiation risk and exposure.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We describe patient perceptions of computed tomography (CT) and their understanding of radiation exposure and risk. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study of acute abdominal pain patients aged 18 years or older. Confidence in medical evaluations with increasing levels of laboratory testing and imaging was rated on a 100-point visual analog scale. Knowledge of radiation exposure was ascertained when participants compared the radiation dose of one abdomen-pelvis CT with 2-view chest radiography. To assess cancer risk knowledge, participants rated their agreement with these factual statements: "Approximately 2 to 3 abdominal CTs give the same radiation exposure as experienced by Hiroshima survivors" and "2 to 3 abdominal CTs over a person's lifetime can increase cancer risk." Previous CT was also assessed. RESULTS: There were 1,168 participants, 67% women and mean age 40.7 years (SD 15.9 years). Median confidence in a medical evaluation without ancillary testing was 20 (95% confidence interval [CI] 16 to 25) compared with 90 (95% CI 88 to 91) when laboratory testing and CT were included. More than 70% of participants underestimated the radiation dose of CT relative to chest radiography, and cancer risk comprehension was poor. Median agreement with the Hiroshima statement was 13 (95% CI 10 to 16) and 45 (95% CI 40 to 45) with the increased lifetime cancer risk statement. Seven hundred ninety-five patients reported receiving a previous CT. Of 365 patients who reported no previous CT, 142 (39%) had one documented in our electronic medical record. CONCLUSION: Patients are more confident when CT imaging is part of their medical evaluation but have a poor understanding of the concomitant radiation exposure and risk and underestimate their previous imaging experience.

Knowledge translation of the American College of Emergency Physicians clinical policy on hypertension.

OBJECTIVES: To determine if dissemination of the American College of Emergency Physicians clinical policy on hypertension to emergency physicians would lead to improvements in blood pressure reassessment and referral of emergency department (ED) patients with elevated blood pressure. METHODS: Two academic centers implemented a pre-post intervention design, with independent samples at pre and post phases. ED staff were blinded to the investigation. A total of 377 medical records were reviewed before policy dissemination and 402 were reviewed after policy dissemination. Medical records were eligible for review if the patient was at least 18 years of age, was not pregnant, was discharged from the ED, and had a triage systolic blood pressure > or = 140 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure > or = 90 mm Hg. Patient records with a chief complaint of chest pain, shortness of breath, or neurologic complaints were excluded. Demographics, blood pressures, and evidence of discharge referral were abstracted from the medical record. The policy was disseminated after the initial medical record review. Post-policy dissemination medical record review was conducted within two weeks. RESULTS: A total of 779 medical records were reviewed. The mean age of patients was 45 years, 55% were male, and 46% were white, 13% Hispanic, 35% African American, and 6% other. No differences in reassessment or referral rates were found between study phases. Blood pressure reassessments were low during both phases: 33% (pre) and 37% (post). Referral rates of patients with elevated blood pressure were very low: 13% (pre) and 7% (post). CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge of guidelines did not translate into changes in physician practice. Additional systems-based approaches are necessary to effectively translate guidelines into clinical practice.