The Effects of Dexamethasone on the Time to Pain Resolution in Dental Periapical Abscess.

BACKGROUND: Dental infections are frequently encountered in the emergency department (ED), with periapical abscesses being among the most painful. Traditional pain management strategies include local anesthetic injections, oral analgesics, and intravenous opioids. OBJECTIVES: We sought to identify an alternative pain management strategy with early use of dexamethasone as adjunct to conventional therapies for inflammation and pain at the site of infection. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study comparing the analgesic effect of dexamethasone and placebo in ED patients with periapical abscess during a 2-year timeframe at two urban academic EDs. Adult patients presenting with physical examination findings consistent with a diagnosis of periapical abscess were randomized to receive oral dexamethasone or an identical placebo. Pain was assessed using the verbal numeric scale in person at discharge and via telephone at 12, 24, 48, and 72 h after discharge from the ED. RESULTS: Seventy-three patients were enrolled, with 37 receiving dexamethasone and 36 receiving placebo. Follow-up pain scores were obtained for 52 patients at 12, 24, 48, and 72 h. Ten patients from the dexamethasone group and 11 from placebo group were lost to follow-up. Patients who received dexamethasone reported a greater reduction in pain at 12 h compared with the placebo group (p = 0.029). Changes in pain scores from baseline and at 24, 48, and 72 h were not statistically significant. No adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Single-dose dexamethasone as adjunct to conventional medical management for pain caused by periapical abscess demonstrated a significant reduction in pain 12 h post treatment compared with placebo.

Blood glucose reduction in patients treated with insulin and dextrose for hyperkalaemia.

BACKGROUND: Dextrose is commonly administered with insulin during the management of hyperkalaemia to avoid hypoglycaemia. Previous research has evaluated the incidence of hypoglycaemia; however, none have reported the extent of blood glucose reduction after this regimen. The aim of this study was to better characterise the changes in blood glucose and to identify patients who may have an increased response to insulin. METHODS: This was a multicentre retrospective study evaluating adult patients who received a regimen of 10 units of intravenous regular insulin plus 25 g of intravenous dextrose to manage hyperkalaemia between January 2014 and September 2016. The primary outcome was to evaluate the extent of blood glucose reduction (milligram per decilitre) up to 6 hours following the above regimen. Secondary outcomes included incidence of hypoglycaemia (blood glucose <70 mg/dL) and severe hypoglycaemia (blood glucose <40 mg/dL), and predictors of the extent of blood glucose reduction. RESULTS: A total of 90 patients were included. The median blood glucose change over 6 hours was -24 mg/dL (IQR -53 to 6 mg/dL). Hypoglycaemia developed in 20 patients (22.2%, 95% CI 14.1% to 32.2%) and five patients (5.6%, 95% CI 1.8% to 12.5%) had severe hypoglycaemia. Patients who developed hypoglycaemia had a median baseline blood glucose of 110 mg/dL (IQR 80 to 127 mg/dL), which decreased to a median value of 52 mg/dL (IQR 40 to 60 mg/dL). Higher baseline blood glucose was significantly associated with greater blood glucose reduction (coefficient -0.36, 95% CI -0.55 to -0.18, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The extent of blood glucose reduction is variable and hypoglycaemia is common. The high incidence of hypoglycaemia highlights the importance of frequent blood glucose monitoring.

Comparison of lower-dose versus higher-dose intravenous naloxone on time to recurrence of opioid toxicity in the emergency department.

INTRODUCTION: The initial dose of naloxone administered to patients who present to the emergency department (ED) with opioid overdose is highly variable. The objective of this study was to determine if the initial dose of intravenous (IV) naloxone given to these patients was associated with the time to recurrence of opioid toxicity. METHODS: This was a multicenter retrospective cohort study, conducted at two academic EDs in the United States. Consecutive adults who had a positive response to naloxone for opioid overdose in the ED were included. Patients were categorized into two groups based on initial IV naloxone dose administered: 0.4 mg (lower-dose) or 1-2 mg (higher-dose). The main outcome measure was the time to recurrence of opioid toxicity requiring a second dose of naloxone. Secondary outcomes included the need for naloxone continuous infusion and adverse events. RESULTS: The study included 84 patients with 42 patients receiving lower-dose and 42 patients receiving higher-dose naloxone. Median time to re-dose of naloxone was similar between the lower-dose (72 [IQR 46-139] minutes) and higher-dose (70 [IQR 44-126] minutes) groups (p=.810). There were 12 patients (29%) in the lower-dose group and 17 patients (41%) in the higher-dose group who subsequently required continuous infusions (p=.359). The proportion of patients with adverse events was similar between lower-dose and higher-dose groups (31% versus 41%, p=.495). There was no difference in the incidence of specific withdrawal related adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: The initial dose of naloxone given to patients in the ED does not influence the time to recurrence of opioid toxicity.

Comparison of phenobarbital-adjunct versus benzodiazepine-only approach for alcohol withdrawal syndrome in the ED.

OBJECTIVES: To compare a phenobarbital-adjunct versus benzodiazepine-only approach for the management of alcohol withdrawal syndrome in the emergency department (ED) with regard to the need for intensive care unit (ICU) admission, severity of symptoms on ED discharge, and complications. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study conducted in two academic EDs in the United States. Adult patients seen in the ED with a diagnosis of alcohol withdrawal syndrome were included. Patients were categorized into two groups based on whether phenobarbital was administered in the ED: 1) phenobarbital group (with or without benzodiazepines) or 2) non-phenobarbital group. The primary outcome measure was the need for ICU admission. Secondary outcomes included Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment for Alcohol (CIWA-Ar) scores at ED discharge, and complications. Complications were a composite of death, need for intubation, hypotension or vasopressor use, seizures, and hospital acquired pneumonia. RESULTS: The study cohort included 209 patients (phenobarbital = 97, non-phenobarbital = 112). The mean (standard deviation) age was 49 (12) years and 85% (n = 178) were male. A similar proportion of patients in the phenobarbital (14%, n = 14) and non-phenobarbital (11%, n = 12) groups required ICU admission (p = 0.529). The median CIWA-Ar score on ED discharge was 7 (IQR 4-12) points in the phenobarbital group and 7 (IQR 4-14) points in the non-phenobarbital group (p = 0.752). The occurrence of complications was also similar in the phenobarbital (9%, n = 9) and non-phenobarbital groups (11%, n = 10). CONCLUSION: Adjunctive phenobarbital use in the ED for alcohol withdrawal syndrome did not result in decreased ICU admission, severity of symptoms, or complications.

Comparison of blood product use and costs with use of 3-factor versus 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate for off-label indications.

PURPOSE: Results of a comparison of blood product use and cost outcomes with use of 3-factor versus 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) for indications other than warfarin reversal are presented. METHODS: Consecutive patients who received 3-factor PPC (PCC3) or 4-factor PCC (PCC4) for non-warfarin-related indications at 2 U.S. hospitals during a 19-month period were identified. The primary outcome was in-hospital blood product use, with a focus on plasma use. Total hemostasis costs, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital lengths of stay, and other outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: Indications for PCC3 use (n = 118) or PCC4 use (n = 64) included intraoperative bleeding, nonintraoperative bleeding, coagulopathy of liver disease, and reversal of direct-acting oral anticoagulant effects. The proportion of patients who received plasma was 56.8% with PCC3 use versus 53.1% with PCC4 use (p = 0.643); the corresponding median volumes of plasma received were 638 mL (interquartile range [IQR], 550-1,355 mL) and 656 mL (IQR, 532-1,136 mL), respectively. The median total hemostasis costs were $5,559 (IQR, $3,922-$8,159) with PCC3 use and $7,771 (IQR, $6,366-$9,205) with PCC4 use (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: PCC3 use and PCC4 use were associated with similar blood product use, ICU length of stay, hospital length of stay, and in-hospital mortality when given for non-warfarin-related indications. However, relative to PCC3 use, PCC4 use was associated with an increase in costs that was primarily due to drug costs.

Comparison of drug administration logistics between prothrombin complex concentrates and plasma in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) is used as an alternative to fresh frozen plasma (FFP) for emergency bleeding. The primary objective of this study was to compare the time from order to start of administration between 3-factor PCC (PCC3), 4-factor (PCC4), and FFP in the emergency department (ED). The secondary objective was to evaluate the effect of an ED pharmacist on time to administration of PCCs. METHODS: This was a single center three-arm retrospective cohort study. Adult patients in the ED with bleeding were included. The primary outcome measure was the time from order to administration, which was compared between PCC3, PCC4, and FFP. The time from order to administration was also compared when the ED pharmacist was involved versus not involved in the care of patients receiving PCC. RESULTS: There were 90 patients included in the study cohort (30 in each group). The median age was 69years (IQR 57-82years), and 57% (n=52) were male. The median time from order to administration was 36min (IQR 20-58min) for PCC3, 34min (IQR 18-48min) for PCC4, and 92min (IQR 63-133) for FFP (PCC3 versus PCC4, p=0.429; PCC3 versus FFP, p<0.001; PCC4 versus FFP, p<0.001). The median time from order to administration was significantly decreased when the ED pharmacist was involved (24min [IQR 15-35min] versus 42min [IQR 32-59min], p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Time from order to administration is faster with PCC than FFP. ED pharmacist involvement decreases the time from order to administration of PCC.

Comparison of 3-Factor Versus 4-Factor Prothrombin Complex Concentrate With Regard to Warfarin Reversal, Blood Product Use, and Costs.

BACKGROUND: Prothrombin complex concentrates (PCCs) are drug products containing varying amounts of vitamin K-dependent coagulation factors II, VII, IX, and X. The evidence comparing 3-factor PCC (3-PCC) versus 4-factor PCC (4-PCC) for warfarin reversal is conflicting. It has been hypothesized that 3-PCC may be less effective than 4-PCC because of relatively lower factor VII content. STUDY QUESTION: The primary objective of this study was to compare international normalized ratio (INR) reversal between 3-PCC and 4-factor PCC (4-PCC) in warfarin-treated patients. The secondary objectives include comparing blood product use, total reversal costs, and cost-effectiveness between the groups. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study conducted in 2 affiliated, academic institutions in the United States. Consecutive adult patients who received 3-PCC or 4-PCC for warfarin reversal were included. MEASURES AND OUTCOMES: The primary outcome was adequate INR reversal defined as a final INR ≤1.5. Secondary outcomes were the utilization of plasma, red blood cells and platelets, reversal costs, and the cost-effectiveness ratio. RESULTS: There were 89 patients who were included in the overall cohort (3-PCC = 57, 4-PCC = 32). Adequate INR reversal occurred less commonly with 3-PCC (45.6%) compared with 4-PCC (87.5%) (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients who received plasma (32% vs. 28%, P = 0.813), red blood cells (37% vs. 47%, P = 0.377), or platelets (16% vs. 28%, P = 0.180) between the 3-PCC and 4-PCC groups, respectively. The median reversal cost of 3-PCC ($3663) was lower than 4-PCC ($5105) (P = 0.001). The cost-effective ratio favored 4-PCC ($5105/87.5% = $5834) compared with 3-PCC ($3663/45.6% = $8033). CONCLUSIONS: Four-PCC was more effective than 3-PCC with regard to INR reversal in patients taking warfarin, but blood product use was similar. Although 4-PCC is associated with increased reversal costs, it may be cost-effective in terms of INR reversal.

Analgosedative interventions after rapid sequence intubation with rocuronium in the emergency department.

OBJECTIVES: The use of etomidate and rocuronium for rapid sequence intubation (RSI) results in a duration of paralysis that exceeds the duration of sedation. The primary objective of this study was to compare the number of analgosedative (AGS) interventions early versus late post-RSI, with this drug combination. The secondary objective was to descriptively assess time to first AGS intervention. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study conducted in an academic ED in the United States between January 2015 and June 2016. The study was conducted after a pharmacy-led education program. Consecutive adult patients who received the combination of etomidate and rocuronium for RSI were included. The primary outcome measure was the number of AGS interventions post-RSI. An AGS intervention was defined as initiation of an opioid or sedative, or a dose increase of an infusion rate. Interventions were categorized as early (0-30min post-RSI) or late (60-90min post-RSI). RESULTS: The sample (n=108) had a mean age of 58±19years, and the majority was male (n=62, 57%). The mean rocuronium dose was 1.1±0.3mg/kg. There was a median of 2 interventions (IQR 1-3) that occurred early versus 0 interventions (IQR 0 to 1) that occurred late post-RSI (p<0.001). The median time to first AGS intervention was 7min (IQR 3 to 13min). CONCLUSIONS: When rocuronium was used for RSI in the ED there was no delay in provision of post-intubation sedation or analgesia, after a pharmacy-led educational program.

Use of Prophylactic Ondansetron with Intravenous Opioids in Emergency Department Patients: A Prospective Observational Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: The current literature suggests that the prophylactic use of antiemetics is ineffective at preventing nausea or vomiting caused by opioids in the emergency department (ED). While there is no data evaluating ondansetron's efficacy for preventing opioid-induced nausea and vomiting, this practice remains common despite a lack of supporting evidence. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to identify if prophylactic ondansetron administered with intravenous (IV) opioids prevents opioid-induced nausea or vomiting. METHODS: This prospective observational study was conducted in the ED at two academic medical institutions. Patients were eligible for enrollment if they were prescribed an IV opioid with or without IV ondansetron and absence of baseline nausea. Patients' level of nausea was evaluated at baseline, 5 min, and 30 min after an IV opioid was administered and then observed for 2 hours. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-three patients were enrolled, with 90% of patients presenting with a chief complaint of pain. Sixty-four (48.1%) patients received an IV opioid alone and 69 (51.9%) patients received both IV ondansetron and an IV opioid. Twenty-three (17.3%) patients developed nausea caused by opioid administration. One (0.75%) patient had an emetic event and 3 (2.3%) patients required rescue antiemetics during their observation period. Rate of nausea was similar between treatment groups 5 min after the opioid was administered (p = 0.153). There was no statistical difference in emesis, rescue medication requirements, or nausea severity between treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Our trial found that ondansetron did not appear to be effective at preventing opioid-induced nausea or vomiting. These findings and previous literature suggest prophylactic ondansetron should not be given to ED patients who are receiving IV opioids.