Association of Ketamine Dosing with Intubation and Other Adverse Events in Patients with Behavioral Emergencies.

OBJECTIVE: Varying rates of complications have been reported for prehospital sedation with ketamine, and the relationship to dosing has not been studied on a large scale. We evaluated the association between prehospital ketamine dosing and rates of intubations and other adverse events in patients with behavioral emergencies. METHODS: Using the 2018/2019 ESO public-use research datasets, we included all non-traumatic, adult behavioral and drug-related EMS encounters with ketamine administration. Based on consensus guidelines, we stratified patients into "above" and "at/below" the maximum dosing for sedation (2 mg/kg IV/IO or 5 mg/kg IM) using the highest single dose of ketamine given. We created propensity scores for matched subjects using 1:1 propensity score matching. Using logistic regression, we compared rates of intubation and other airway interventions, antipsychotic coadministration, improvement reported by EMS, hypoxia, hypotension, and cardiac arrest between the two groups. RESULTS: We included 2383 patients: 478 in the above and 1905 in the at/below dose group. Above-dose ketamine was associated with a higher rate of intubation or supraglottic airway placement (6.4% v 3.3%, OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.00-3.90). Other airway interventions were similar (40.0% v 40.0%, OR 1, 95% CI 0.80-1.30). The above-dose group also showed a higher rate of improvement noted by EMS clinicians (92.5% v 88.7%, OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.01-2.40). The rates of antipsychotic coadministration, hypoxia, hypotension, and cardiac arrest were similar between the cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Patients given ketamine doses above consensus recommendations for sedation appeared more likely to receive prehospital intubation but not more likely to experience other adverse events.

Patient and Surrogate Postenrollment Perspectives on Research Using the Exception From Informed Consent: An Integrated Survey.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: It is important for researchers interested in trials using the exception from informed consent to understand the views and experiences of enrolled individuals. Previous studies have shown that patient and surrogate attitudes are generally positive. These studies were small and did not include pediatric patients, and interviews were often conducted long after trial enrollment. This study sought to explore attitudes toward exception from informed consent in a larger sample and more contemporaneous setting. METHODS: A 10-item paper-and-pencil survey was integrated into the Established Status Epilepticus Treatment Trial, a randomized trial of 3 treatments for benzodiazepine-refractory status epilepticus in pediatric and adult patients. Primary domains included attitudes toward trial enrollment, exception from informed consent, and community consultation. Simple descriptive statistics, χ2, and Fisher's exact tests were conducted. RESULTS: Of 317 patients and surrogates, 90% agreed with or were neutral about the statement "I am glad that I/my family member was included in the Established Status Epilepticus Treatment Trial research study," whereas 10% disagreed. Twenty-seven percent disagreed with enrollment in the study without prospective consent. Black participants were more likely than white, other race, and unknown-race participants to disagree with enrollment without prospective consent (36% versus 23%, 14%, and 14%, respectively). Participants indicated that patients (81%), their families (65%), and those at risk for seizures (51%) were most important to include in community consultation. CONCLUSION: This study aimed to explore attitudes toward exception from informed consent enrollment among participants at all sites in a large, multicenter exception from informed consent trial. General acceptance of trial enrollment was high; acceptance of exception from informed consent specifically was somewhat lower, especially among black participants. Our findings provide further support for targeted community consultation focusing on individuals with connections to the disease under study. Future research should focus on communication in the postenrollment period, especially with individuals who may have concerns about exception from informed consent.

Impact of individual clinical outcomes on trial participants' perspectives on enrollment in emergency research without consent.

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that patients are generally accepting of their enrollment in trials for emergency care conducted under exception from informed consent. It is unknown whether individuals with more severe initial injuries or worse clinical outcomes have different perspectives. Determining whether these differences exist may help to structure post-enrollment interactions. METHODS: Primary clinical data from the Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury trial were matched to interview data from the Patients' Experiences in Emergency Research-Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury study. Answers to three key questions from Patients' Experiences in Emergency Research-Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury study were analyzed in the context of enrolled patients' initial injury severity (initial Glasgow Coma Scale and Injury Severity Score) and principal clinical outcomes (Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale and Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale relative to initial injury severity). The three key questions from Patients' Experiences in Emergency Research-Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury study addressed participants' general attitude toward inclusion in the Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury trial (general trial inclusion), their specific attitude toward being included in Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury trial under the exception from informed consent (personal exception from informed consent enrollment), and their attitude toward the use of exception from informed consent in the Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury trial in general (general exception from informed consent enrollment). Qualitative analysis of interview transcripts was performed to provide contextualization and to determine the extent to which respondents framed their attitudes in terms of clinical experience. RESULTS: Clinical data from Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury trial were available for all 74 patients represented in the Patients' Experiences in Emergency Research-Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury study (including 46 patients for whom the surrogate was interviewed due to the patient's cognitive status or death). No significant difference was observed regarding acceptance of general trial inclusion or acceptance of general exception from informed consent enrollment between participants with favorable neurological outcomes and those with unfavorable outcomes relative to initial injury. Agreement with personal enrollment in Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury trial under exception from informed consent, however, was significantly higher among participants with favorable outcomes compared to those with unfavorable outcomes (89% vs 59%, p = 0.003). There was also a statistically significant relationship between more severe initial injury and increased acceptance of personal exception from informed consent enrollment ( p = 0.040) or general exception from informed consent use ( p = 0.034) in Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury trial. Many individuals referenced personal experience as a basis for their attitudes, but these references were not used to support negative views. CONCLUSION: Patients and surrogates of patients with unfavorable clinical outcomes were somewhat less accepting of their own inclusion in the Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury trial under exception from informed consent than were patients or surrogates of patients with favorable clinical outcomes. These findings suggest a need to identify optimal strategies for communicating with patients and their surrogates regarding exception from informed consent enrollment when clinical outcomes are poor.

Patients' perspectives of enrollment in research without consent: the patients' experiences in emergency research-progesterone for the treatment of traumatic brain injury study.

OBJECTIVE: Research in acute illness often requires an exception from informed consent. Few studies have assessed the views of patients enrolled in exception from informed consent trials. This study was designed to assess the views of patients and their surrogates of exception from informed consent enrollment within the context of a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of an investigational agent for traumatic brain injury. DESIGN: Interactive interview study. SETTING: Nested within the Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury trial, a Phase III randomized controlled trial in acute traumatic brain injury. SUBJECTS: Patients and surrogates (for patients incapable of being interviewed) enrolled in Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury under exception from informed consent at 12 sites. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Interviews focused on respondents' acceptance of exception from informed consent enrollment in Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury, use of placebo and randomization, understanding of major study elements, and views regarding regulatory protections. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed; textual data were analyzed thematically. Eighty-five individuals were interviewed. Eighty-four percent had positive attitudes toward Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury inclusion. Seventy-eight percent found their inclusion under exception from informed consent acceptable, and 72% found use of exception from informed consent in Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury acceptable in general. Only two respondents clearly disagreed with both personal and general exception from informed consent enrollment. The most common concerns (26%) related to absence of consent. Eighty percent and 92% were accepting of placebo use and randomization, respectively. Although there were few black respondents (n = 11), they were less accepting of personal exception from informed consent enrollment than white respondents (55% vs 83%; p = 0.0494). CONCLUSIONS: Acceptance of exception from informed consent in this placebo-controlled trial of an investigational agent was high and exceeded acceptance among community consultation participants. Exception from informed consent enrollment appears generally consistent with patients' preferences.

Zero on the NIHSS does not equal the absence of stroke.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) measures deficits caused by a stroke, but not all stroke signs are captured on the NIHSS. We determine the symptoms and stroke localization of patients with brain infarction and an NIHSS score of 0. METHODS: We studied all patients who presented with acute neurologic symptoms to our stroke center from 2004 to 2008 and had persistent symptoms at the evaluation in the emergency department, an NIHSS score of 0, and an infarct on diffusion-weighted imaging. We characterized the symptoms, signs, lesion location, demographics, and stroke causes. RESULTS: Twenty patients met inclusion criteria. Symptoms frequently experienced were headache, vertigo, and nausea. The posterior circulation was commonly infarcted in this group. Truncal ataxia was the most common neurologic sign. CONCLUSION: Ischemic stroke may cause symptoms that are associated with no deficits on the NIHSS score.

An example of medical device-based projection of clinical trial enrollment: Use of electrocardiographic data to identify candidates for a trial in acute coronary syndromes.

BACKGROUND: To identify potential participants for clinical trials, electronic health records (EHRs) are searched at potential sites. As an alternative, we investigated using medical devices used for real-time diagnostic decisions for trial enrollment. METHODS: To project cohorts for a trial in acute coronary syndromes (ACS), we used electrocardiograph-based algorithms that identify ACS or ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) that prompt clinicians to offer patients trial enrollment. We searched six hospitals' electrocardiograph systems for electrocardiograms (ECGs) meeting the planned trial's enrollment criterion: ECGs with STEMI or > 75% probability of ACS by the acute cardiac ischemia time-insensitive predictive instrument (ACI-TIPI). We revised the ACI-TIPI regression to require only data directly from the electrocardiograph, the e-ACI-TIPI using the same data used for the original ACI-TIPI (development set n = 3,453; test set n = 2,315). We also tested both on data from emergency department electrocardiographs from across the US (n = 8,556). We then used ACI-TIPI and e-ACI-TIPI to identify potential cohorts for the ACS trial and compared performance to cohorts from EHR data at the hospitals. RESULTS: Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve areas on the test set were excellent, 0.89 for ACI-TIPI and 0.84 for the e-ACI-TIPI, as was calibration. On the national electrocardiographic database, ROC areas were 0.78 and 0.69, respectively, and with very good calibration. When tested for detection of patients with > 75% ACS probability, both electrocardiograph-based methods identified eligible patients well, and better than did EHRs. CONCLUSION: Using data from medical devices such as electrocardiographs may provide accurate projections of available cohorts for clinical trials.

Emergency Department Triage of Traumatic Head Injury Using a Brain Electrical Activity Biomarker: A Multisite Prospective Observational Validation Trial.

OBJECTIVES: A brain electrical activity biomarker for identifying traumatic brain injury (TBI) in emergency department (ED) patients presenting with high Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) after sustaining a head injury has shown promise for objective, rapid triage. The main objective of this study was to prospectively evaluate the efficacy of an automated classification algorithm to determine the likelihood of being computed tomography (CT) positive, in high-functioning TBI patients in the acute state. METHODS: Adult patients admitted to the ED for evaluation within 72 hours of sustaining a closed head injury with GCS 12 to 15 were candidates for study. A total of 720 patients (18-85 years) meeting inclusion/exclusion criteria were enrolled in this observational, prospective validation trial, at 11 U.S. EDs. GCS was 15 in 97%, with the first and third quartiles being 15 (interquartile range = 0) in the study population at the time of the evaluation. Standard clinical evaluations were conducted and 5 to 10 minutes of electroencephalogram (EEG) was acquired from frontal and frontal-temporal scalp locations. Using an a priori derived EEG-based classification algorithm developed on an independent population and applied to this validation population prospectively, the likelihood of each subject being CT+ was determined, and performance metrics were computed relative to adjudicated CT findings. RESULTS: Sensitivity of the binary classifier (likely CT+ or CT-) was 92.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 87.8%-95.5%) for detection of any intracranial injury visible on CT (CT+), with specificity of 51.6% (95% CI = 48.1%-55.1%) and negative predictive value (NPV) of 96.0% (95% CI = 93.2%-97.9%). Using ternary classification (likely CT+, equivocal, likely CT-) demonstrated enhanced sensitivity to traumatic hematomas (≥1 mL of blood), 98.6% (95% CI = 92.6%-100.0%), and NPV of 98.2% (95% CI = 95.5%-99.5%). CONCLUSION: Using an EEG-based biomarker high accuracy of predicting the likelihood of being CT+ was obtained, with high NPV and sensitivity to any traumatic bleeding and to hematomas. Specificity was significantly higher than standard CT decision rules. The short time to acquire results and the ease of use in the ED environment suggests that EEG-based classifier algorithms have potential to impact triage and clinical management of head-injured patients.

Detection of Subtle Cognitive Changes after mTBI Using a Novel Tablet-Based Task.

This study examined the potential for novel tablet-based tasks, modeled after eye tracking techniques, to detect subtle sensorimotor and cognitive deficits after mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). Specifically, we examined whether performance on these tablet-based tasks (Pro-point and Anti-point) was able to correctly categorize concussed versus non-concussed participants, compared with performance on other standardized tests for concussion. Patients admitted to the emergency department with mTBI were tested on the Pro-point and Anti-point tasks, a current standard cognitive screening test (i.e., the Standard Assessment of Concussion [SAC]), and another eye movement-based tablet test, the King-Devick(®) (KD). Within hours after injury, mTBI patients showed significant slowing in response times, compared with both orthopedic and age-matched control groups, in the Pro-point task, demonstrating deficits in sensorimotor function. Mild TBI patients also showed significant slowing, compared with both control groups, on the Anti-point task, even when controlling for sensorimotor slowing, indicating deficits in cognitive function. Performance on the SAC test revealed similar deficits of cognitive function in the mTBI group, compared with the age-matched control group; however, the KD test showed no evidence of cognitive slowing in mTBI patients, compared with either control group. Further, measuring the sensitivity and specificity of these tasks to accurately predict mTBI with receiver operating characteristic analysis indicated that the Anti-point and Pro-point tasks reached excellent levels of accuracy and fared better than current standardized tools for assessment of concussion. Our findings suggest that these rapid tablet-based tasks are able to reliably detect and measure functional impairment in cognitive and sensorimotor control within hours after mTBI. These tasks may provide a more sensitive diagnostic measure for functional deficits that could prove key to earlier detection of concussion, evaluation of interventions, or even prediction of persistent symptoms.

Albumin Administration in Acute Ischemic Stroke: Safety Analysis of the ALIAS Part 2 Multicenter Trial.

BACKGROUND: Albumin treatment of ischemic stroke was associated with cardiopulmonary adverse events in previous studies and a low incidence of intracranial hemorrhage. We sought to describe the neurological and cardiopulmonary adverse events in the ALIAS Part 2 Multicenter Trial. METHODS: Ischemic stroke patients, aged 18-83 and a baseline NIHSS ≥ 6, were randomized to treatment with ALB or saline control within 5 hours of stroke onset. Neurological adverse events included symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, hemicraniectomy, neurological deterioration and neurological death. Cardiopulmonary adverse events included pulmonary edema/congestive heart failure, acute coronary syndromes, atrial fibrillation, pneumonia and pulmonary thromboembolism. RESULTS: Among 830 patients, neurological and cardiopulmonary adverse events were not differentially associated with poor outcome between ALB and saline control subjects. The rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage in the first 24h was low overall (2.9%, 24/830) but more common in the ALB treated subjects (RR = 2.4, CI95 1.01-5.8). The rate of pulmonary edema/CHF in the first 48h was 7.9% (59/830) and was more common among ALB treated subjects (RR = 10.7, CI95 4.3-26.6); this complication was expected and was satisfactorily managed with mandated diuretic administration and intravenous fluid guidelines. Troponin elevations in the first 48h were common, occurring without ECG change or cardiac symptoms in 52 subjects (12.5%). CONCLUSIONS: ALB therapy was associated with an increase in symptomatic ICH and pulmonary edema/congestive heart failure but this did not affect final outcomes. Troponin elevation occurs routinely in the first 48 hours after acute ischemic stroke. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClincalTrials.gov NCT00235495.