Loperamide-Induced Torsades de Pointes: A Case Series.

BACKGROUND: Loperamide is an over-the-counter, inexpensive, antidiarrheal opioid that can produce life-threatening toxicity at high concentrations. CASE REPORT 1: A 28-year-old man with a history of depression and substance abuse disorder (SUD) presented to the emergency department (ED) with shortness of breath and lightheadedness. He ingested large amounts of loperamide daily. The patient's initial electrocardiogram (ECG) demonstrated sinus rhythm, right axis deviation, undetectable PR interval, QRS 168 ms, and QTc 693 ms. He was administered intravenous sodium bicarbonate and magnesium sulfate and admitted to the intensive care unit, eventually developing Torsades de Pointes (TdP). He was given lidocaine and isoproterenol infusions, and an external pacemaker was placed. He was discharged in stable condition on hospital day (HD) 16. CASE REPORT 2: A 39-year-old woman with a history of hepatitis C, depression, and SUD was transported to the ED after reported seizure-like activity. The patient experienced TdP in the ED and admitted to ingesting large amount of loperamide daily. An ECG demonstrated sinus rhythm, right axis deviation, PR interval 208 ms, QRS interval 142 ms, and QTc 687 ms. She was administered intravenous magnesium, sodium bicarbonate, and isoproterenol. After intensive care unit admission, the patient experienced no further TdP and was discharged on HD 6. WHY SHOULD AN EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN BE AWARE OF THIS?: Emergency physicians should proceed with caution when treating patients with loperamide toxicity. Even in asymptomatic patients and drug discontinuance, obtain consultation with a medical toxicologist, promptly treat ECG abnormalities aggressively, and admit all patients for further monitoring.

An unusual case of bilateral anterior shoulder dislocations.

A 23-year-old man was transported to a trauma center after injuring himself while snowboarding. He presented with bilateral shoulder pain and associated deformity to both shoulders. His exam was otherwise unremarkable, and his x-rays confirmed bilateral shoulder dislocations. Cunningham and external rotation without sedation and analgesia techniques were unsuccessful even with local anesthesia to the joint. Subsequent bilateral reduction was successful with moderate sedation using the Milch technique. Simultaneous anterior bilateral shoulder dislocations are rare and providers may need to adjust their techniques to accommodate this unusual presentation.

Prevalence of Homelessness by Gender in an Emergency Department Population in Pennsylvania.

CONTEXT: According to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, nearly 1.5 million people spend at least 1 night in an emergency shelter or transitional housing each year, and more than 500,000 people are homeless on a given night in the United States. To our knowledge, limited data exist regarding the prevalence of homelessness in ED patients by gender (male, female, and transgender). OBJECTIVE: To assess the prevalence of homelessness by gender in 3 EDs in Pennsylvania. METHODS: From May 2015 through February 2016, patients in 3 EDs were approached to take a 5-question homelessness screening survey. To participate, patients had to be aged at least 18 years, speak English, have capacity to complete the survey, be willing to participate, and not be critically ill. Frequency comparisons were made using χ2 analysis. Statistical significance was defined as P≤.05. RESULTS: A total of 4395 patients were included in the analysis. The mean (SD) age of the participants was 50.8 (20.5) years; 2557 (58.2%) were women and 3 (0.07%) were transgender. No difference in the rate of homelessness was observed between men and women, with 135 of 1835 men (7.4%) and 173 of 2557 women (6.8%) screening positive for homelessness (P=.472). Forty of 2557 women (1.6%) and 41 of 1835 men (2.2%) admitted they had slept outside or in an abandoned building, their car, an emergency shelter, or a hotel due to financial hardship in the past 60 days (P=.26). One transgender patient screened positive for homelessness. The mean age of participants who screened positive for homelessness was 40.9 (15.9) years. CONCLUSION: No significant difference was observed in the rate of homelessness between men and women in this ED population, which defies the perception that this issue primarily affects men. Public health interventions aimed at homeless populations should consider that both men and women may be equally affected by homelessness.

Prevalence of Homelessness in the Emergency Department Setting.

INTRODUCTION: According to the National Alliance to End Homelessness, the national rate of homelessness has been cited as 17.7 homeless people/10,000 people in the general population, and 24.8 homeless veterans/10,000 veterans in the general population. However, it is unknown what the prevalence of homelessness is in the emergency department (ED) setting. We set out to determine the prevalence of homelessness or at risk for homelessness in the ED setting. METHODS: Using a five-question screening tool derived from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services and the Veterans Administration definition for homelessness, we surveyed all patients meeting inclusion/exclusion criteria on scheduled shifts in one of three EDs in Northeastern Pennsylvania. To participate, subjects had to be a registered patient in the ED, be 18 years or older, speak English, have the capacity to answer survey questions, not be critically ill, be willing to participate, and not have taken the survey before. We selected two survey periods to represent seasonal variations. RESULTS: We included 4,395 subjects in the analysis. The mean age of those who screened positive for homelessness or at risk for homelessness was 43.1 (SD 16.6). Overall, 136 (3.1%) participants screened positive for at risk for homelessness and 309 (7.0%) screened positive for homelessness. A total of 103 subjects (9.8%) screened positive for homelessness or at risk for homelessness on weekends and 312 (10.3%) on weekdays (p=0.64). The proportion of those screening positive for homelessness or at risk for homelessness varied by site: 145 (7.5%) at the trauma center, 151(9.1%) at the suburban site, and 149 (18.7%) at the center city site, p<0.001.There was no statistical significance to the difference between the trauma center and the suburban site (p=.088), but there was statistical significance between both the suburban and the trauma center when compared to the center city site (both p<0.0001). The proportion of those screening positive for homelessness in the summer months (156, 7.5%) was similar to those in the winter months (153, 6.6%), p=0.23. CONCLUSION: In our study, the overall prevalence of homelessness or at risk for homelessness was 10.1 percent. This prevalence did not seem to vary between weekdays and weekends. Additionally, summer months had a prevalence that was as concerning as winter months. The prevalence does, however, seem to vary by institutional characteristics even in the same geographic region. Understanding the patterns of prevalence of homelessness is a step toward considering possible interventions to assist this vulnerable population.