Arterial to end-tidal carbon dioxide gap and its characterization in mechanically ventilated adults in the emergency department.

PURPOSE: To evaluate early measurement of the arterial to end-tidal carbon dioxide (PaCO2-PetCO2) gap, a surrogate for physiologic dead space, and its association with clinical outcomes in intubated adults in the emergency department (ED). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Observational cohort study of invasively mechanically ventilated adults in an academic medical center (years 2009 to 2016). The association of the PaCO2-PetCO2 gap was evaluated with respect to clinical outcomes; the primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: 519 patients were included. 325 (63%) patients had an elevated (>5 mmHg) PaCO2-PetCO2. Patients with an elevated PaCO2-PetCO2 were significantly older, had higher APACHE II scores, more frequently had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), had lower arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen (P:F) ratios, and were more likely to be intubated for exacerbation of COPD or sepsis. There was no difference in mortality for patients with an elevated PaCO2-PetCO2 (25% vs 26%) in unadjusted analysis (p = 0.829) or adjusted analysis (aOR = 0.81 [95% CI: 0.53-1.26]), as compared to a non-elevated PaCO2-PetCO2. CONCLUSIONS: An elevated PaCO2-PetCO2 gap is common in the post-intubation period in the ED, but not significantly associated with clinical outcomes.

Awareness With Paralysis Among Critically Ill Emergency Department Patients: A Prospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: In mechanically ventilated patients, awareness with paralysis (AWP) can have devastating consequences, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and thoughts of suicide. Single-center data from the emergency department (ED) demonstrate an event rate for AWP factors higher than that reported from the operating room. However, there remains a lack of data on AWP among critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients. The objective was to assess the proportion of ED patients experiencing AWP and investigate modifiable variables associated with its occurrence. DESIGN: An a priori planned secondary analysis of a multicenter, prospective, before-and-after clinical trial. SETTING: The ED of three academic medical centers. PATIENTS: Mechanically ventilated adult patients that received neuromuscular blockers. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: All data related to sedation and analgesia were collected. AWP was the primary outcome, assessed with the modified Brice questionnaire, and was independently adjudicated by three expert reviewers. Perceived threat, in the causal pathway for PTSD, was the secondary outcome. A total of 388 patients were studied. The proportion of patients experiencing AWP was 3.4% ( n = 13), the majority of whom received rocuronium ( n = 12/13; 92.3%). Among patients who received rocuronium, 5.5% ( n = 12/230) experienced AWP, compared with 0.6% ( n = 1/158) among patients who did not receive rocuronium in the ED (odds ratio, 8.64; 95% CI, 1.11-67.15). Patients experiencing AWP had a higher mean ( sd ) threat perception scale score, compared with patients without AWP (15.6 [5.8] vs 7.7 [6.0]; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: AWP was present in a concerning proportion of mechanically ventilated ED patients, was associated with rocuronium exposure in the ED, and led to increased levels of perceived threat, placing patients at greater risk for PTSD. Studies that aim to further quantify AWP in this vulnerable population and eliminate its occurrence are urgently needed.

The Feasibility of Implementing Targeted SEDation in Mechanically Ventilated Emergency Department Patients: The ED-SED Pilot Trial.

OBJECTIVES: Deep sedation in the emergency department (ED) is common, increases deep sedation in the ICU, and is negatively associated with outcome. Limiting ED deep sedation may, therefore, be a high-yield intervention to improve outcome. However, the feasibility of conducting an adequately powered ED-based clinical sedation trial is unknown. Our objectives were to assess trial feasibility in terms of: 1) recruitment, 2) protocol implementation and practice change, and 3) safety. Patient-centered clinical outcomes were assessed to better plan for a future large-scale clinical trial. DESIGN: Pragmatic, multicenter ( n = 3), prospective before-after pilot and feasibility trial. SETTING: The ED and ICUs at three medical centers. PATIENTS: Consecutive, adult mechanically ventilation ED patients. INTERVENTIONS: An educational initiative aimed at reliable ED sedation depth documentation and reducing the proportion of deeply sedated patients (primary outcome). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Sedation-related data in the ED and the first 48 ICU hours were recorded. Deep sedation was defined as a Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale of -3 to -5 or a Sedation-Agitation Scale of 1-3. One thousand three hundred fifty-six patients were screened; 415 comprised the final population. Lighter ED sedation was achieved in the intervention group, and the proportion of deeply sedated patients was reduced from 60.2% to 38.8% ( p < 0.01). There were no concerning trends in adverse events (i.e., inadvertent extubation, device removal, and awareness with paralysis). Mortality was 10.0% in the intervention group and 20.4% in the preintervention group ( p < 0.01). Compared with preintervention, the intervention group experienced more ventilator-free days [22.0 (9.0) vs 19.9 (10.6)] and ICU-free days [20.8 (8.7) vs 18.1 (10.4)], p < 0.05 for both. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot trial confirmed the feasibility of targeting the ED in order to improve sedation practices and reduce deep sedation. These findings justify an appropriately powered clinical trial regarding ED-based sedation to improve clinical outcomes.

The ED-AWARENESS Study: A Prospective, Observational Cohort Study of Awareness With Paralysis in Mechanically Ventilated Patients Admitted From the Emergency Department.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Awareness with paralysis is a devastating complication for patients receiving mechanical ventilation and risks long-term psychological morbidity. Data from the emergency department (ED) demonstrate a high rate of longer-acting neuromuscular blocking agent use, delayed analgosedation, and a lack of sedation depth monitoring. These practices are discordant with recommendations for preventing awareness with paralysis. Despite this, awareness with paralysis has not been rigorously studied in the ED population. Our objective is to assess the prevalence of awareness with paralysis in ED patients receiving mechanical ventilation. METHODS: This was a single-center, prospective, observational cohort study on 383 mechanically ventilated ED patients. After extubation, we assessed patients for awareness with paralysis by using the modified Brice questionnaire. Three expert reviewers independently adjudicated awareness with paralysis. We report the prevalence of awareness with paralysis (primary outcome); the secondary outcome was perceived threat, a mediator for development of posttraumatic stress disorder. RESULTS: The prevalence of awareness with paralysis was 2.6% (10/383). Exposure to rocuronium at any point in the ED was significantly different between patients who experienced awareness with paralysis (70%) versus the rest of the cohort (31.4%) (unadjusted odds ratio 5.1; 95% confidence interval 1.30 to 20.1). Patients experiencing awareness with paralysis had higher mean values on the threat perception scale, denoting a higher degree of perceived threat, compared with patients who did not experience awareness with paralysis (13.4 [SD 7.7] versus 8.5 [SD 6.2]; mean difference 4.9; 95% confidence interval 0.94 to 8.8). CONCLUSION: Awareness with paralysis occurs in a significant minority of ED patients who receive mechanical ventilation. Potential associations of awareness with paralysis with ED care and increased perceived threat warrant further evaluation.

Boarding of Critically Ill Patients in the Emergency Department.

OBJECTIVES: Emergency department boarding is the practice of caring for admitted patients in the emergency department after hospital admission, and boarding has been a growing problem in the United States. Boarding of the critically ill has achieved specific attention because of its association with poor clinical outcomes. Accordingly, the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the American College of Emergency Physicians convened a Task Force to understand the implications of emergency department boarding of the critically ill. The objective of this article is to review the U.S. literature on (1) the frequency of emergency department boarding among the critically ill, (2) the outcomes associated with critical care patient boarding, and (3) local strategies developed to mitigate the impact of emergency department critical care boarding on patient outcomes. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: Review article. DATA EXTRACTION AND DATA SYNTHESIS: Emergency department-based boarding of the critically ill patient is common, but no nationally representative frequency estimates has been reported. Boarding literature is limited by variation in the definitions used for boarding and variation in the facilities studied (boarding ranges from 2% to 88% of ICU admissions). Prolonged boarding in the emergency department has been associated with longer duration of mechanical ventilation, longer ICU and hospital length of stay, and higher mortality. Health systems have developed multiple mitigation strategies to address emergency department boarding of critically ill patients, including emergency department-based interventions, hospital-based interventions, and emergency department-based resuscitation care units. CONCLUSIONS: Emergency department boarding of critically ill patients was common and was associated with worse clinical outcomes. Health systems have generated a number of strategies to mitigate these effects. A definition for emergency department boarding is proposed. Future work should establish formal criteria for analysis and benchmarking of emergency department-based boarding overall, with subsequent efforts focused on developing and reporting innovative strategies that improve clinical outcomes of critically ill patients boarded in the emergency department.

Emergency Medicine/Critical Care Medicine (EM/CCM) Trainees' Performance on Standardized Critical Care Medicine Examinations: A Ten-Year Review.

BACKGROUND: Emergency Medicine/Critical Care Medicine (EM/CCM) trainees may obtain board certification through Internal Medicine (American Board of Internal Medicine [ABIM]), Surgery (American Board of Surgery [ABS]), and Anesthesiology (American Board of Anesthesiology [ABA]). However, EM/CCM trainees experience challenges, including: 1) additional training requirements and 2) an unwillingness to accept EM graduates by many programs. OBJECTIVES: We sought to: 1) compare EM/CCM knowledge acquisition to medicine (Internal Medicine [IM]/CCM), surgery (surgical critical care [SCC]), and anesthesiology (anesthesiology critical care medicine [ACCM]) Fellows at the local and national level using the Multidisciplinary Critical Care Knowledge Assessment Program (MCCKAP) in-service examination as an objective measure; and 2) compare American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) pass rates for EM/CCM. METHODS: Single-center retrospective analysis comparing scores obtained by EM/CCM on the MCCKAP examination with SCC and ACCM over a 10-year period. Scores are presented as means with standard deviations. We performed similar analysis on ABMS examination pass rates. RESULTS: There were 117 MCCKAP scores (37 EM/CCM; 80 SCC and ACCM) evaluated. EM/CCM mean score 562.4 (SD 67.4); SCC and ACCM mean score 505.3, (SD 87.5) at the institutional level (p < 0.001). Similarly, EM/CCM scored higher than the national mean (562.4, SD 67.4 vs. 500 SD 100, p < 0.001). Nationally, ABIM-CCM board certification rate was 91.2% for 137 EM/CCM, compared with 93.2% for IM/CCM (p = 0.22); 28 EM/CCM have obtained ABA-CCM board certification with rates similar to ACCM (90.4 vs. 89.3%; p = 0.85). CONCLUSIONS: EM/CCM Fellows demonstrate successful knowledge acquisition both locally and at a national level. EM/CCM achieve ABMS pass rates similar to other CCM trainees. The current arbitrary additional training requirements placed on EM/CCM should be removed.

A Case for Change in Adult Critical Care Training for Physicians in the United States: A White Paper Developed by the Critical Care as a Specialty Task Force of the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

OBJECTIVES: In the United States, physician training in Critical Care Medicine has developed as a subspecialty of different primary boards, despite significant commonality in knowledge and skills. The Society of Critical Care Medicine appointed a multidisciplinary Task Force to examine alternative approaches for future training. DESIGN: The Task Force reviewed the literature and conducted informal discussions with key stakeholders. Specific topics reviewed included the history of critical care training, commonalities among subspecialties, developments since a similar review in 2004, international experience, quality patient care, and financial and workforce issues. MAIN RESULTS: The Task Force believes that options for future training include establishment of a 1) primary specialty of critical care; 2) unified fellowship and certification process; or 3) unified certification process with separate fellowship programs within the current specialties versus 4) maintaining multiple specialty-based fellowship programs and certification processes. CONCLUSIONS: 1) Changing the current Critical Care Medicine training paradigms may benefit trainees and patient care. 2) Multiple pathways into critical care training for all interested trainees are desirable for meeting future intensivist workforce demands. 3) The current subspecialties within separate boards are not "distinct and well-defined field[s] of medical practice" per the American Board of Medical Specialties. Recommendations for first steps are as follows: 1) as the society representing multidisciplinary critical care, the Society of Critical Care Medicine has an opportunity to organize a meeting of all stakeholders to discuss the issues regarding Critical Care Medicine training and consider cooperative approaches for the future. 2) A common Critical Care Medicine examination, possibly with a small percentage of base-specialty-specific questions, should be considered. 3) Institutions with multiple Critical Care Medicine fellowship programs should consider developing joint, multidisciplinary training curricula. 4) The boards that offer Critical Care Medicine examinations, along with national critical care societies, should consider ways to shorten training time.

Emergency department hyperoxia is associated with increased mortality in mechanically ventilated patients: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Providing supplemental oxygen is fundamental in the management of mechanically ventilated patients. Increasing amounts of data show worse clinical outcomes associated with hyperoxia. However, these previous data in the critically ill have not focused on outcomes associated with brief hyperoxia exposure immediately after endotracheal intubation. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to evaluate the impact of isolated early hyperoxia exposure in the emergency department (ED) on clinical outcomes among mechanically ventilated patients with subsequent normoxia in the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: This was an observational cohort study conducted in the ED and ICUs of an academic center in the USA. Mechanically ventilated normoxic (partial pressure of arterial oxygen (PaO2) 60-120 mm Hg) ICU patients with mechanical ventilation initiated in the ED were studied. The cohort was categorized into three oxygen exposure groups based on PaO2 values obtained after ED intubation: hypoxia, normoxia, and hyperoxia (defined as PaO2 < 60 mmHg, PaO2 60-120 mm Hg, and PaO2 > 120 mm Hg, respectively, based on previous literature). RESULTS: A total of 688 patients were included. ED normoxia occurred in 350 (50.9%) patients, and 300 (43.6%) had exposure to ED hyperoxia. The ED hyperoxia group had a median (IQR) ED PaO2 of 189 mm Hg (146-249), compared to an ED PaO2 of 88 mm Hg (76-101) in the normoxia group, P < 0.001. Patients with ED hyperoxia had greater hospital mortality (29.7%), when compared to those with normoxia (19.4%) and hypoxia (13.2%). After multivariable logistic regression analysis, ED hyperoxia was an independent predictor of hospital mortality (adjusted OR 1.95 (1.34-2.85)). CONCLUSIONS: ED exposure to hyperoxia is common and associated with increased mortality in mechanically ventilated patients achieving normoxia after admission. This suggests that hyperoxia in the immediate post-intubation period could be particularly injurious, and targeting normoxia from initiation of mechanical ventilation may improve outcome.

A Quasi-Experimental, Before-After Trial Examining the Impact of an Emergency Department Mechanical Ventilator Protocol on Clinical Outcomes and Lung-Protective Ventilation in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of an emergency department mechanical ventilation protocol on clinical outcomes and adherence to lung-protective ventilation in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. DESIGN: Quasi-experimental, before-after trial. SETTING: Emergency department and ICUs of an academic center. PATIENTS: Mechanically ventilated emergency department patients experiencing acute respiratory distress syndrome while in the emergency department or after admission to the ICU. INTERVENTIONS: An emergency department ventilator protocol which targeted variables in need of quality improvement, as identified by prior work: 1) lung-protective tidal volume, 2) appropriate setting of positive end-expiratory pressure, 3) oxygen weaning, and 4) head-of-bed elevation. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 229 patients (186 preintervention group, 43 intervention group) were studied. In the emergency department, the intervention was associated with significant changes (p < 0.01 for all) in tidal volume, positive end-expiratory pressure, respiratory rate, oxygen administration, and head-of-bed elevation. There was a reduction in emergency department tidal volume from 8.1 mL/kg predicted body weight (7.0-9.1) to 6.4 mL/kg predicted body weight (6.1-6.7) and an increase in lung-protective ventilation from 11.1% to 61.5%, p value of less than 0.01. The intervention was associated with a reduction in mortality from 54.8% to 39.5% (odds ratio, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.17-0.83; p = 0.02) and a 3.9 day increase in ventilator-free days, p value equals to 0.01. CONCLUSIONS: This before-after study of mechanically ventilated patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome demonstrates that implementing a mechanical ventilator protocol in the emergency department is feasible and associated with improved clinical outcomes.

Lung-Protective Ventilation Initiated in the Emergency Department (LOV-ED): A Quasi-Experimental, Before-After Trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the efficacy of an emergency department (ED)-based lung-protective mechanical ventilation protocol for the prevention of pulmonary complications. METHODS: This was a quasi-experimental, before-after study that consisted of a preintervention period, a run-in period of approximately 6 months, and a prospective intervention period. The intervention was a multifaceted ED-based mechanical ventilator protocol targeting lung-protective tidal volume, appropriate setting of positive end-expiratory pressure, rapid oxygen weaning, and head-of-bed elevation. A propensity score-matched analysis was used to evaluate the primary outcome, which was the composite incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome and ventilator-associated conditions. RESULTS: A total of 1,192 patients in the preintervention group and 513 patients in the intervention group were included. Lung-protective ventilation increased by 48.4% in the intervention group. In the propensity score-matched analysis (n=490 in each group), the primary outcome occurred in 71 patients (14.5%) in the preintervention group compared with 36 patients (7.4%) in the intervention group (adjusted odds ratio 0.47; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.31 to 0.71). There was an increase in ventilator-free days (mean difference 3.7; 95% CI 2.3 to 5.1), ICU-free days (mean difference 2.4; 95% CI 1.0 to 3.7), and hospital-free days (mean difference 2.4; 95% CI 1.2 to 3.6) associated with the intervention. The mortality rate was 34.1% in the preintervention group and 19.6% in the intervention group (adjusted odds ratio 0.47; 95% CI 0.35 to 0.63). CONCLUSION: Implementing a mechanical ventilator protocol in the ED is feasible and is associated with significant improvements in the delivery of safe mechanical ventilation and clinical outcome.

Improving Caregivers' Perceptions Regarding Patient Goals of Care/End-of-Life Issues for the Multidisciplinary Critical Care Team.

OBJECTIVE: With population aging and growth, use of critical care medicine at the end of life continues to rise, while many critical care providers are not adequately trained regarding goals of care/end-of-life (GOC/EOL) issues. A multidisciplinary intensive care unit (ICU) team intervention regarding GOC/EOL communication will enhance the clinical abilities of all critical care providers when discussing GOC/EOL issues and increase ICU staff comfort level while improving transitions for patients to a comfort care approach. DESIGN: This study was a preintervention/postintervention survey evaluation. SETTING: This study was conducted at an academic tertiary surgical burn trauma ICU. POPULATION: The intervention was provided to nursing, ancillary staff, house staff, and attending physicians. INTERVENTION: An initial survey was circulated among the critical care staff for baseline expectations, satisfaction, and understanding of GOC/EOL care. A robust intervention was begun including the creation of a multidisciplinary GOC/EOL team, communication tools for providers, patient-family pamphlets, standardized EOL order sets, and formalized didactic sessions. Subsequently, the same survey was circulated and compared to baseline data. MEASUREMENTS: Preintervention/postintervention survey data were reviewed and statistically analyzed. MAIN RESULTS: Our survey response rate for preintervention/postintervention was 50.4% and 36.1%, respectively. The intervention generated heightened interest in improving family communication and provided focal direction to foster this growth. Based on the serial surveys regarding our intervention, statistically significant staff improvements were seen in "work stress" (P = .04), "EOL information" (P = .006), and "space allotment" (P = .001). Improved congruence of families and health care providers regarding decision over intensity of care was also noted. CONCLUSION: We created a novel unit-based multidisciplinary program for improved EOL/GOC approaches in the critical care setting. A similarly formatted program could be adapted by other ICUs. Benefits of such a program include improving caregivers' perceptions regarding EOL/GOC issues and fostering critical care team growth.

A Novel ICU Hand-Over Tool: The Glass Door of the Patient Room.

BACKGROUND: Poor communication among health-care providers is cited as the most common cause of sentinel events involving patients. Patient care in the critical care setting is incredibly complex. A consistent care plan is necessary between day/night shift teams and among bedside intensive care unit (ICU) nurses, consultants, and physicians. Our goal was to create a novel, easily accessible communication device to improve ICU patient care. METHODS: This communication improvement project was done at an academic tertiary surgical/trauma/mixed 36-bed ICU with an average of 214 admissions per month. We created a glass door template embossed on the glass that included 3 columns for daily goals to be written: "day team," "night team," and "surgery/consultant team." Assigned areas for tracking "lines," "antibiotics," "ventilator weaning," and "Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) screening" were included. These doors are filled out/updated throughout the day by all of the ICU providers. All services can review current plans/active issues while evaluating the patient at the bedside. Patient-identifying data are not included. We retrospectively reviewed all ICU safety reported events over a 4-year period (2 years prior/2 years after glass door implementation) for specific handover communication-related errors and compared the 2 cohorts. RESULTS: Information on the glass doors is entered daily on rounds by all services. Prior to implementation, 7.96% of reported errors were related to patient handover communication errors. The post glass-door era had 4.26% of reported errors related to patient handover communication errors with a relative risk reduction of 46.5%. Due to its usefulness, this method of communication was quickly adopted by the other critical care services (cardiothoracic, medical, neurology/neurosurgery, cardiology) at our institution and is now used for over 150 ICU beds. CONCLUSIONS: Our glass door patient handover tool is an easily adaptable intervention that has improved communication leading to an overall decrease in the number of handover communication errors.

Operation CoVER Saint Louis (COVID-19 Vaccine in the Emergency Room): Impact of a Vaccination Program in the Emergency Department.

Introduction: Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) inequitably impacted minority populations and regions with limited access to healthcare resources. The Barnes-Jewish Emergency Department in St. Louis, MO, serves such a population. The COVID-19 vaccine is an available defense to help achieve community immunity. The emergency department (ED) is a potential societal resource to provide access to a vaccination intervention. Our objective in this study was to describe and evaluate a novel ED COVID-19 vaccine program, including its impact on the local surrounding underserved community. Methods: This was a retrospective, post-protocol implementation review of an ED COVID-19 vaccination program. Over the initial six-month period, we compiled data on all vaccinated patients out of the ED to evaluate demographic data and the impact on underserved regional areas. Results: We report a successful ED-based COVID-19 vaccine program (with over 1,000 vaccines administered). This program helped raise regional and state vaccination rates. Over 50% of the population that received the COVID-19 vaccine from the ED were from defined socially vulnerable patient populations. No adverse effects were documented. Conclusion: Operation CoVER (COVID-19 Vaccine in the Emergency Room) Saint Louis was able to successfully vaccinate a socially vulnerable patient population. This free, COVID-19 ED-based vaccine program with dedicated pharmacy support, was novel in emergency medicine practice. Similar ED-based vaccine programs could help with future vaccine distribution.

The Use of Dexmedetomidine in the Emergency Department: A Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: Management of sedation, analgesia, and anxiolysis are cornerstone therapies in the emergency department (ED). Dexmedetomidine (DEX), a central alpha-2 agonist, is increasingly being used, and intensive care unit (ICU) data demonstrate improved outcomes in patients with respiratory failure. However, there is a lack of ED-based data. We therefore sought to: 1) characterize ED DEX use; 2) describe the incidence of adverse events; and 3) explore factors associated with adverse events among patients receiving DEX in the ED. METHODS: This was a single-center, retrospective, cohort study of consecutive ED patients administered DEX (January 1, 2017-July 1, 2019) at an academic, tertiary care ED with an annual census of ~90,000 patient visits. All included patients (n= 103) were analyzed for characterization of DEX use in the ED. The primary outcome was a composite of adverse events, bradycardia and hypotension. Secondary clinical outcomes included ventilator-, ICU-, and hospital-free days, and hospital mortality. To examine for variables associated with adverse events, we used a multivariable logistic regression model. RESULTS: We report on 103 patients. Dexmedetomidine was most commonly given for acute respiratory failure, including sedation for mechanical ventilation (28.9%) and facilitation of non-invasive ventilation (17.4%). Fifty-four (52.4%) patients experienced the composite adverse event, with hypotension occurring in 41 patients (39.8%) and bradycardia occurring in 18 patients (17.5%). Dexmedetomidine was stopped secondary to an adverse event in eight patients (7.8%). Duration of DEX use in the ED was associated with an increase adverse event risk (adjusted odds ratio, 1.004; 95% confidence interval, 1.001, 1.008). CONCLUSION: Dexmedetomidine is most commonly administered in the ED for patients with acute respiratory failure. Adverse events are relatively common, yet DEX is discontinued comparatively infrequently due to adverse events. Our results suggest that DEX could be a viable option for analgesia, anxiolysis, and sedation in ED patients.