Comparison of Droperidol and Midazolam Versus Haloperidol and Lorazepam for Acute Agitation Management in the Emergency Department.

BACKGROUND: Acute agitation accounts for up to 2.6% of visits to the emergency department (ED). To date, a standard of care for the management of acute agitation has not been established. Few studies have evaluated antipsychotic and benzodiazepine combinations. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate effectiveness and safety of combination therapy for acute agitation with intramuscular (IM) droperidol and midazolam (D+M) compared with IM haloperidol and lorazepam (H+L) in patients in the ED. METHODS: This was a single-center, retrospective medical record review of patients presenting to a large, academic ED with acute agitation from July 2020 through October 2021. The primary outcome was percentage of patients requiring additional agitation medication within 60 minutes of combination administration. Secondary outcomes included average time to repeat dose administration and average number of repeat doses required before ED discharge. RESULTS: A total of 306 patients were included for analysis: 102 in the D+M group and 204 in the H+L group. Repeat dose within 60 minutes occurred in 7 (6.9%) and 28 (13.8%) patients in the D+M and H+L groups, respectively (P = 0.065). A total of 28.4% of D+M patients and 30.9% of H+L patients required any repeat dose during their ED visit. Time to repeat dose was 12 and 24 minutes in the D+M and H+L, respectively (P = 0.22). The adverse event rate was 2.9% in each group. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: IM D+M resulted in a lower rate of repeat doses of acute agitation medication compared with IM H+L, though this was not statistically significant. Both therapies were safe, and the adverse event rate was low.

Comparison of sustained rate control in atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular rate: Metoprolol vs. Diltiazem.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare sustained rate control with intravenous (IV) diltiazem vs. IV metoprolol in acute treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) with rapid ventricular rate (RVR) in the emergency department (ED). METHODS: This retrospective chart review at a large, academic medical center identified patients with AF with RVR diagnosis who received IV diltiazem or IV metoprolol in the ED. The primary outcome was sustained rate control defined as heart rate (HR) < 100 beats per minute without need for rescue IV medication for 3 h following initial rate control attainment. Secondary outcomes included time to initial rate control, HR at initial control and 3 h, time to oral dose, admission rates, and safety outcomes. RESULTS: Between January 1, 2016 and November 1, 2018, 51 patients met inclusion criteria (diltiazem n = 32, metoprolol n = 19). No difference in sustained rate control was found (diltiazem 87.5% vs. metoprolol 78.9%, p = 0.45). Time to rate control was significantly shorter with diltiazem compared to metoprolol (15 min vs. 30 min, respectively, p = 0.04). Neither hypotension nor bradycardia were significantly different between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Choice of rate control agent for acute management of AF with RVR did not significantly influence sustained rate control success. Safety outcomes did not differ between treatment groups.

Safety and Effectiveness of Sedation With Adjunctive Ketamine Versus Nonketamine Sedation in the Medical Intensive Care Unit.

BACKGROUND: Ketamine, an N-methyl-d-aspartate receptor antagonist with sedative and analgesic properties, is becoming more popular as an adjunctive sedative in the critically ill patients. METHODS: We conducted a single center, retrospective cohort study of patients admitted to the medical intensive care unit (MICU) between 2013 and 2018. Patients who received continuous infusion ketamine or nonketamine sedatives (NKS) including dexmedetomidine, fentanyl, midazolam, or propofol were identified. The primary outcome was percentage of Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) scores at goal in patients receiving ketamine as adjunct to NKS compared to those on NKS alone. RESULTS: A total of 172 patients were included (n = 86 ketamine, n = 86 NKS). Baseline characteristics were similar with the exception of antipsychotic use, which was higher in the ketamine group (P = .008). Percentage of RASS scores at goal was not different between groups (78.7% vs 81.4%, P = .29). Fewer patients in the ketamine group received continuous infusion fentanyl (76.7% vs 94.2%, P = .002). Patients on adjunctive ketamine required fewer days of intermittent benzodiazepines (0 [0-1] vs 1 [1-2], P < .0001). Patients receiving ketamine required less norepinephrine, receiving a median of 6.32 mg (2.4-20) versus 11.7 mg (5.2-45.2; P = .03). There was no difference in receipt of new antipsychotics or occurrence of arrhythmias. CONCLUSION: Addition of ketamine did not increase the percentage of RASS scores at goal versus NKS but was well tolerated. Ketamine was associated with reductions in norepinephrine requirements, days of intermittent benzodiazepine administration, and number of patients receiving continuous infusion fentanyl. Continuous infusion ketamine appears safe and effective for sedation in the MICU.