Intranasal fentanyl spray versus intravenous opioids for the treatment of severe pain in patients with cancer in the emergency department setting: A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Intranasal fentanyl (INF) quickly and noninvasively relieves severe pain, whereas intravenous hydromorphone (IVH) reliably treats severe cancer pain but requires vascular access. The trial evaluated the efficacy of INF relative to IVH for treating cancer patients with severe pain in an emergency department (ED) setting. METHODS: We randomized 82 patients from a comprehensive cancer center ED to receive INF (n = 42) or IVH (n = 40). Eligible patients reported severe pain at randomization (≥7, scale: 0 "none" to 10 "worst pain"). We conducted non-inferiority comparisons (non-inferiority margin = 0.9) of pain change from treatment initiation (T0) to one hour later (T60). T0 pain ratings were unavailable; therefore, we estimated T0 pain by comparing 1) T60 ratings, assuming similar group T0 ratings; 2) pain change, estimating T0 pain = randomization ratings, and 3) pain change, with T0 pain = 10 (IVH group) or T0 pain = randomization rating (INF group). RESULTS: At T60, the upper 90% confidence limit (CL) of the mean log-transformed pain ratings for the INF group exceeded the mean IVH group rating by 0.16 points (>pain). Substituting randomization ratings for T0 pain, the lower 90% CL of mean pain change in the INF group extended 0.32 points below (

Depression and survival outcomes after emergency department cancer pain visits.

OBJECTIVES: Pain and depression frequently co-occur in patients with cancer. Although pain is a common reason for emergency department (ED) presentation by these patients, depression frequently goes unrecognised during an ED visit. In this study, we assessed the risk for depression in patients with cancer presenting to the ED for uncontrolled pain and assessed the extent to which the risk for depression was associated with survival in this population. METHODS: Participants were consecutive patients with cancer taking Schedule II opioids (n=209) who presented to the ED of a tertiary cancer centre for uncontrolled pain. Risk for depression was assessed using the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D), excluding the somatic symptoms. Survival was calculated from date of ED visit to date of death/last follow-up. RESULTS: The CES-D was completed by 197 of 209 participants (94.3%); of these, 81 of 197 (41.1%) had high risk for depression (CES-D ≥10). The mean survival time for the entire sample was 318 days (SD=33), with 84 deaths. Cox proportional hazards regression modeling showed that risk for depression and disease stage (CES-D ≥10: HR=1.75, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.78, p=0.016; disease stage: HR=2.52, 95% CI 1.20 to 5.30, p<0.001) were significant factors for survival. CONCLUSIONS: Risk for depression was prevalent and associated with survival outcomes in patients with cancer presenting to the ED with uncontrolled pain. Screening for risk for depression in the ED may identify patients who need referral for clinical assessment of depression. Diagnosis and adequate treatment could improve health outcomes and survival rates for these patients.

Expert Consensus Guidelines for Stocking of Antidotes in Hospitals That Provide Emergency Care.

We provide recommendations for stocking of antidotes used in emergency departments (EDs). An expert panel representing diverse perspectives (clinical pharmacology, medical toxicology, critical care medicine, hematology/oncology, hospital pharmacy, emergency medicine, emergency medical services, pediatric emergency medicine, pediatric critical care medicine, poison centers, hospital administration, and public health) was formed to create recommendations for antidote stocking. Using a standardized summary of the medical literature, the primary reviewer for each antidote proposed guidelines for antidote stocking to the full panel. The panel used a formal iterative process to reach their recommendation for both the quantity of antidote that should be stocked and the acceptable timeframe for its delivery. The panel recommended consideration of 45 antidotes; 44 were recommended for stocking, of which 23 should be immediately available. In most hospitals, this timeframe requires that the antidote be stocked in a location that allows immediate availability. Another 14 antidotes were recommended for availability within 1 hour of the decision to administer, allowing the antidote to be stocked in the hospital pharmacy if the hospital has a mechanism for prompt delivery of antidotes. The panel recommended that each hospital perform a formal antidote hazard vulnerability assessment to determine its specific need for antidote stocking. Antidote administration is an important part of emergency care. These expert recommendations provide a tool for hospitals that offer emergency care to provide appropriate care of poisoned patients.

Advance Directives, Hospitalization, and Survival Among Advanced Cancer Patients with Delirium Presenting to the Emergency Department: A Prospective Study.

BACKGROUND: To improve the management of advanced cancer patients with delirium in an emergency department (ED) setting, we compared outcomes between patients with delirium positively diagnosed by both the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) and Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS), or group A (n = 22); by the MDAS only, or group B (n = 22); and by neither CAM nor MDAS, or group C (n = 199). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In an oncologic ED, we assessed 243 randomly selected advanced cancer patients for delirium using the CAM and the MDAS and for presence of advance directives. Outcomes extracted from patients' medical records included hospital and intensive care unit admission rate and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Hospitalization rates were 82%, 77%, and 49% for groups A, B, and C, respectively (p = .0013). Intensive care unit rates were 18%, 14%, and 2% for groups A, B, and C, respectively (p = .0004). Percentages with advance directives were 52%, 27%, and 43% for groups A, B, and C, respectively (p = .2247). Median OS was 1.23 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.46-3.55) for group A, 4.70 months (95% CI 0.89-7.85) for group B, and 10.45 months (95% CI 7.46-14.82) for group C. Overall survival did not differ significantly between groups A and B (p = .6392), but OS in group C exceeded those of the other groups (p < .0001 each). CONCLUSION: Delirium assessed by either CAM or MDAS was associated with worse survival and more hospitalization in patients with advanced cancer in an oncologic ED. Many advanced cancer patients with delirium in ED lack advance directives. Delirium should be assessed regularly and should trigger discussion of goals of care and advance directives. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Delirium is a devastating condition among advanced cancer patients. Early diagnosis in the emergency department (ED) should improve management of this life-threatening condition. However, delirium is frequently missed by ED clinicians, and the outcome of patients with delirium is unknown. This study finds that delirium assessed by the Confusion Assessment Method or the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale is associated with poor survival and more hospitalization among advanced cancer patients visiting the ED of a major cancer center, many of whom lack advance directives. Therefore, delirium in ED patients with cancer should trigger discussion about advance directives.

Discharge or admit? Emergency department management of incidental pulmonary embolism in patients with cancer: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalization and early anticoagulation therapy remain standard care for patients who present to the emergency department (ED) with pulmonary embolism (PE). For PEs discovered incidentally, however, optimal therapeutic strategies are less clear-and all the more so when the patient has cancer, which is associated with a hypercoagulable state that exacerbates the threat of PE. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of a historical cohort of patients with cancer and incidental PE who were referred for assessment to the ED in an institution whose standard of care is outpatient treatment of selected patients and use of low-molecular-weight heparin for anticoagulation. Eligible patients had received a diagnosis of incidental PE upon routine contrast enhanced chest CT for cancer staging. Survival data was collected at 30 days and 90 days from the date of ED presentation and at the end of the study. RESULTS: We identified 193 patients, 135 (70%) of whom were discharged and 58 (30%) of whom were admitted to the hospital. The 30-day survival rate was 92% overall, 99% for the discharged patients and 76% for admitted patients. Almost all (189 patients, 98%) commenced anticoagulation therapy in the ED; 170 (90%) of these received low-molecular-weight heparin. Patients with saddle pulmonary artery incidental PEs were more likely to die within 30 days (43%) than were those with main or lobar (11%), segmental (6%), or subsegmental (5%) incidental PEs. In multivariate analysis, Charlson comorbidity index (age unadjusted), hypoxemia, and incidental PE location (P = 0.004, relative risk 33.5 (95% CI 3.1-357.4, comparing saddle versus subsegmental PE) were significantly associated with 30-day survival. Age, comorbidity, race, cancer stage, tachycardia, hypoxemia, and incidental PE location were significantly associated with hospital admission. CONCLUSIONS: Selected cancer patients presenting to the ED with incidental PE can be treated with low-molecular-weight heparin anticoagulation and safely discharged. Avoidance of unnecessary hospitalization may decrease in-hospital infections and death, reduce healthcare costs, and improve patient quality of life. Because the natural history and optimal management of this condition is not well described, information supporting the creation of straightforward evidence-based practice guidelines for ED teams treating this specialized patient population is needed.

Frequency of unsafe storage, use, and disposal practices of opioids among cancer patients presenting to the emergency department.

OBJECTIVE: Approximately 75% of prescription opioid abusers obtain the drug from an acquaintance, which may be a consequence of improper opioid storage, use, disposal, and lack of patient education. We aimed to determine the opioid storage, use, and disposal patterns in patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) of a comprehensive cancer center. METHOD: We surveyed 113 patients receiving opioids for at least 2 months upon presenting to the ED and collected information regarding opioid use, storage, and disposal. Unsafe storage was defined as storing opioids in plain sight, and unsafe use was defined as sharing or losing opioids. RESULTS: The median age was 53 years, 55% were female, 64% were white, and 86% had advanced cancer. Of those surveyed, 36% stored opioids in plain sight, 53% kept them hidden but unlocked, and only 15% locked their opioids. However, 73% agreed that they would use a lockbox if given one. Patients who reported that others had asked them for their pain medications (p = 0.004) and those who would use a lockbox if given one (p = 0.019) were more likely to keep them locked. Some 13 patients (12%) used opioids unsafely by either sharing (5%) or losing (8%) them. Patients who reported being prescribed more pain pills than required (p = 0.032) were more likely to practice unsafe use. Most (78%) were unaware of proper opioid disposal methods, 6% believed they were prescribed more medication than required, and 67% had unused opioids at home. Only 13% previously received education about safe disposal of opioids. Overall, 77% (87) of patients reported unsafe storage, unsafe use, or possessed unused opioids at home. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Many cancer patients presenting to the ED improperly and unsafely store, use, or dispose of opioids, thus highlighting a need to investigate the impact of patient education on such practices.

Delirium frequency among advanced cancer patients presenting to an emergency department: A prospective, randomized, observational study.

BACKGROUND: The frequency of delirium among patients with cancer presenting to the emergency department (ED) is unknown. The purpose of this study was to determine delirium frequency and recognition by ED physicians among patients with advanced cancer presenting to the ED of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. METHODS: The study population was a random sample of English-speaking patients with advanced cancer who presented to the ED and met the study criteria. All patients were assessed with the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) to screen for delirium and with the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS) to measure delirium severity (mild, ≤15; moderate, 16-22; and severe, ≥23). ED physicians were also asked whether their patients were delirious. RESULTS: Twenty-two of the 243 enrolled patients (9%) had CAM-positive delirium, and their median MDAS score was 14 (range, 9-21 [30-point scale]). The median age of the enrolled patients was 62 years (range, 19-89 years). Patients with delirium had a poorer performance status than patients without delirium (P < .001); however, the 2 groups did not differ in other characteristics. Ten of the 99 patients who were 65 years old or older (10%) had CAM-positive delirium, whereas 12 of the 144 patients younger than 65 years (8%) did (P = .6). According to the MDAS scores, delirium was mild in 18 patients (82%) and moderate in 4 patients (18%). Physicians correctly identified delirium in 13 of the CAM-positive delirious patients (59%). CONCLUSIONS: Delirium is relatively frequent and is underdiagnosed by physicians in patients with advanced cancer who are visiting the ED. Further research is needed to identify the optimal screening tool for delirium in ED. Cancer 2016. © 2016 American Cancer Society. Cancer 2016;122:2918-2924. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Presenting Symptoms in the Emergency Department as Predictors of Intensive Care Unit Admissions and Hospital Mortality in a Comprehensive Cancer Center.

PURPOSE: The identification of patients at high risk for poor outcomes may allow for earlier palliative care and prevent futile interventions. We examined the association of presenting symptoms on risk of intensive care unit (ICU) admission and hospital death among patients with cancer admitted through an emergency department (ED). METHODS: We queried MD Anderson Cancer Center databases for all patients who visited the ED in 2010. Presenting symptoms, ICU admissions, and hospital deaths were reviewed; patient data analyzed; and risk factors for ICU admission and hospital mortality identified. RESULTS: The main presenting symptoms were pain, fever, and respiratory distress. Of the patients with cancer who visited the ED, 5,362 (58%) were admitted to the hospital at least once (range, 1 to 13 admissions), 697 (13%) were admitted to the ICU at least once, and 587 (11%) died during hospitalization (31% of 233 patients with hematologic malignancies and 27% of 354 patients with solid tumors died in the ICU; P < .001). In multivariable logistic regression, presenting symptoms of respiratory distress or altered mental status; lung cancer, leukemia, or lymphoma; and nonwhite race were independent predictors of hospital death. Patients who died had a longer median length of hospital stay than patients discharged alive (14 v 6 days for hematologic malignancies and 7 v 5 days for solid tumors; P < .001). CONCLUSION: Patients with cancer admitted through an ED experience high ICU admission and hospital mortality rates. Patients with advanced cancer and respiratory distress or altered mental status may benefit from palliative care that avoids unnecessary interventions.

Integrating palliative care in oncologic emergency departments: Challenges and opportunities.

Although visiting the emergency departments (EDs) is considered poor quality of cancer care, there are indications these visits are increasing. Similarly, there is growing interest in providing palliative care (PC) to cancer patients in EDs. However, this integration is not without major challenges. In this article, we review the literature on why cancer patients visit EDs, the rates of hospitalization and mortality for these patients, and the models for integrating PC in EDs. We discuss opportunities such integration will bring to the quality of cancer care, and resource utilization of resources. We also discuss barriers faced by this integration. We found that the most common reasons for ED visits by cancer patients are pain, fever, shortness of breath, and gastrointestinal symptoms. The majority of the patients are admitted to hospitals, about 13% of the admitted patients die during hospitalization, and some patients die in ED. Patients who receive PC at an ED have shorter hospitalization and lower resource utilization. Models based solely on increasing PC provision in EDs by PC specialists have had modest success, while very limited ED-based PC provision has had slightly higher impact. However, details of these programs are lacking, and coordination between ED based PC and hospital-wide PC is not clear. In some studies, the objectives were to improve care in the communities and reduce ED visits and hospitalizations. We conclude that as more patients receive cancer therapy late in their disease trajectory, more cancer patients will visit EDs. Integration of PC with emergency medicine will require active participation of ED physicians in providing PC to cancer patients. PC specialist should play an active role in educating ED physicians about PC, and provide timely consultations. The impact of integrating PC in EDs on quality and cost of cancer care should be studied.

Risk for Opioid Misuse Among Emergency Department Cancer Patients.

OBJECTIVES: One of the most challenging areas of emergency medicine practice is the management and treatment of severe and persistent pain, including cancer-related pain. Emergency departments (EDs) in the United States frequently provide care for patients with cancer and an increasing concern is the potential for opioid misuse in this patient group. The authors determined the risk for opioid misuse among ED cancer patients with pain and assessed demographic and clinical factors associated with increased misuse risk. The Texas state prescription monitoring program was also queried for evidence of multiple opioid prescriptions for comparing low- and high-risk groups. METHODS: The Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients with Pain-Revised (SOAPP-R) was administered to assess risk for opioid misuse among cancer patients presenting to the ED of a comprehensive cancer center in the United States. Eligibility criteria included: 1) presentation for treatment of chronic cancer-related pain while taking a prescribed schedule II opioid for analgesia, 2) age of 18 years or older, 3) ability to speak English, and 4) ability to understand the study and give written informed consent. RESULTS: Of 934 ED patients screened for the study, 290 were eligible and 209 participated (72% response rate). On the basis of the recommended SOAPP-R cutoff score of 18, a total of 71 of the 209 patients (34%) were categorized as having a high risk of misuse. Of note, 15% and 4% of all patients reported past or current use of illicit substances, respectively. The total number of annual opioid prescriptions (17.8 vs. 12.6; p = 0.023) differed between the high- versus low-risk groups. Multivariable analyses showed that depression (odds ratio [OR] = 3.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.45 to 6.48; p = 0.003), poor coping (OR = 1.08, 95% CI = 1.03 to 1.13; p = 0.001), and illicit substance use (OR = 28.30, 95% CI = 2.97 to 269.24; p = 0.029) were significantly associated with high risk of opioid misuse. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of opioid misuse among cancer patients is substantial. Screening for opioid misuse in the ED is feasible.

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation outcomes in a cancer center emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) after cardiac arrest is utilized indiscriminately among unselected populations. Cancer patients have particularly low rates of return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and survival to hospital discharge after CPR. Our study determines rates of ROSC and survival to hospital discharge among cancer patients undergoing CPR in our cancer center. We examined whether these rates have changed over the past decade. METHODS: This IRB-approved retrospective observational study was conducted in our cancer center. The ED and cancer center provide medical care for ≥ 115,000 patients annually. Cases of CPR presenting to the cancer center for years 2003-2012 were identified using Institutional CPR and Administrative Data for Resuscitation and Billing databases. Age, gender, ethnicity, ROSC and Discharge Alive using a modified Utsein template was used to compare proportions achieving ROSC and survival to hospital discharge for two time periods: 2003-2007 (Group 1) and 2008-2012 (Group 2), using traditional Pearson chi-square statistics. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-six cancer center patients received CPR from 2003-2012. Group 1 (N = 64) and Group 2 (N = 62) were similar; age (60 vs. 60 years), gender (63% vs. 58% male), and race/ethnicity (67% vs. 56% White). Proportions achieving ROSC were similar in the two time periods (36% Group 1 vs. 45% Group 2, OR = 1.47, 95% CI 0.72 - 3.00) as was survival to hospital discharge (11% Group 1 vs. 10% Group 2, OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.28 - 2.76). CONCLUSIONS: ROSC after CPR in cancer patients and survival to hospital discharge did not change over time.

Survival patterns in squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: pain as an independent prognostic factor for survival.

UNLABELLED: Survival outcomes in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (HNSCC) vary by extent of disease, behavioral factors, and socioeconomic factors. We assessed the extent to which pretreatment pain influences survival in 2,340 newly diagnosed patients with HNSCC, adjusting for disease stage, symptoms, pain medications, comorbidities, smoking, alcohol consumption, age, sex, and race/ethnicity. Patients rated their pain at presentation to the cancer center (0 = "no pain" and 10 = "pain as bad as you can imagine"). Survival time was calculated from the date of diagnosis to the date of death of any cause or last follow-up. Five-year overall survival was calculated for all the variables assessed in the study. Severe pain (≥7) was most prevalent among those with oral cancer (20.4%; pharynx = 18.8%; larynx = 16.1%) and significantly varied by tumor stage, fatigue severity, smoking status, comorbid lung disease, and race (all P < .05) across cancer diagnoses. Overall 5-year survival varied by pain for oral (severe pain = 31% vs nonsevere pain = 52%; P < .001) and pharyngeal cancer (severe pain = 33% vs nonsevere pain = 53%; P < .001). Multivariable analyses showed that pain persisted as an independent prognostic factor for survival. Pain reported prior to treatment should be considered in understanding survival outcomes in HNSCC patients. PERSPECTIVE: Pretreatment pain was an independent predictor of survival in a large sample of HNSCC patients even after accounting for tumor node metastasis stage, fatigue, age, race/ethnicity, smoking, and alcohol intake. Therefore, symptoms at presentation and before cancer treatment are important factors to be considered in understanding survival outcomes in HNSCC patients.

Integration of palliative care into emergency medicine: the Improving Palliative Care in Emergency Medicine (IPAL-EM) collaboration.

BACKGROUND: Emergency department (ED) providers commonly care for seriously ill patients who suffer from advanced, chronic, life-limiting illnesses in addition to those that are acutely ill or injured. Both the chronically ill and those who present in extremis may benefit from application of palliative care principles. CASE REPORT: We present a case highlighting the opportunities and need for better integration of emergency medicine and palliative care. DISCUSSION: We offer practical guidelines to the ED faculty/administrators who seek to enhance the quality of patient care in their own unique ED setting by starting an initiative that better integrates palliative principles into daily practice. Specifically, we outline four things to do to jumpstart this collaborative effort. CONCLUSION: The Improving Palliative Care in Emergency Medicine project sponsored by the Center to Advance Palliative Care is a resource that assists ED health care providers with the process and structure needed to integrate palliative care into the ED setting.

Integrating palliative care in the out-of-hospital setting: four things to jump-start an EMS-palliative care initiative.

Emergency medical service (EMS) is frequently called to care for a seriously ill patient with a life-threatening or life-limiting illness. The seriously ill include both the acutely injured patients (for example in mass casualty events) and those who suffer from advanced stages of a chronic disease (for example severe malignant pain). EMS therefore plays an important role in delivering realistic, appropriate, and timely care that is consistent with the patient's wishes and in treating distressing symptoms in those who are seriously ill. The purpose of this article is to; 1) review four case scenarios that relate to palliative care and may be commonly encountered in the out-of-hospital setting and 2) provide a road map by suggesting four things to do to start an EMS-palliative care initiative in order to optimize out-of-hospital care of the seriously ill and increase preparedness of EMS providers in these difficult situations.

Ketamine for palliative sedation in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Palliative sedation to treat severely distressing symptoms in those with a poor prognosis is well-accepted. OBJECTIVE: We discuss palliative sedation in the Emergency Department and the use of ketamine. CASE REPORT: We present the case of a patient with angioedema of the tongue and severe respiratory distress. The patient's nursing home was unable to control her symptoms and she was transferred to the Emergency Department. The patient received fentanyl 50 µg i.v. and ketamine 50 mg i.v. every 5 min until adequate palliative sedation was achieved. CONCLUSION: Ketamine can be considered for Emergency Department palliative sedation in selected patients. Identifying and caring for unmet palliative care needs is an important skill for Emergency Medicine.

A rapid two-stage screening protocol for palliative care in the emergency department: a quality improvement initiative.

BACKGROUND: A rapid two-stage screening protocol was developed to improve referral for palliative care needs among frail elderly in the emergency department (ED). MEASURES: A new triage tool was administered, with assessment tools for activities of daily living, performance, functional staging, symptom burden, and caregiver distress. INTERVENTION: Stage One identified elderly patients meeting criteria for life-limiting conditions. Stage Two referred patients with crescendo losses in activities of daily living, high symptom burden, and caregiver distress to palliative care or hospice. OUTCOMES: Over eight months, 1587 patients were screened, representing 22% of ED visits made by patients older than 65 years during this time period. Of these, 140 met functional decline criteria, and 51 of these needed palliative care consultation. Five patients were referred to hospice, 20 received palliative care, and 26 received no further service. CONCLUSIONS/LESSONS LEARNED: The project shows unmet needs among elderly ED patients, and the feasibility of rapid screening and referral using a quality improvement approach. At its peak, the project accounted for half the referrals to the palliative care consultation service.