Nebulized medications in the emergency department: A narrative review of nontraditional agents.

PURPOSE: This article summarizes emerging nontraditional therapies administered via the nebulization route for use in the emergency department (ED). SUMMARY: Although traditional routes of medication administration (eg, intravenous) have been the mainstay of administration modalities for decades, these routes may not be appropriate for all patients. Nowhere is this more readily apparent than in the ED setting, where patients with a variety of presentations receive care. One unique route for medication administration that has increasingly gained popularity in the ED is that of aerosolized drug delivery. This route holds promise as direct delivery of medications to the site of action could yield a more rapid and effective therapeutic response while also minimizing systemic adverse effects by utilizing a fraction of the systemic dose. Medication administration via nebulization also provides an alternative that is conducive to rapid, less invasive access, which is advantageous in the emergent setting of the ED. This review is intended to analyze the existing literature regarding this route of administration, including the nuances that can impact drug efficacy, as well as the available literature regarding novel, noncommercial nebulized medication therapy given in the ED. CONCLUSION: Multiple medications have been investigated for administration via this route, and when implementing any of these therapies several practical considerations must be taken into account, from medication preparation to administration, to ensure optimal efficacy while minimizing adverse effects. The pharmacist is an essential bedside team member in these scenarios to assist with navigating unique and complex nuances of this therapy as they develop.

Rocuronium Reversal in the Emergency Department: Retrospective Evaluation of Hemodynamic Instability Following Administration of Sugammadex Versus Neostigmine With Glycopyrrolate.

Background: Rocuronium is an intermediate-acting non-depolarizing neuromuscular blocking agent frequently used in the emergency department for rapid sequence intubation. The prolonged effects of rocuronium may prevent the ability to conduct a meaningful neurological examination, thereby delaying appropriate diagnosis and treatment. Sugammadex and neostigmine are pharmacologic agents commonly used to reverse rocuronium. The safety of sugammadex versus neostigmine with glycopyrrolate for the reversal of rocuronium in the emergency department has not been well described. Objective: Evaluate the occurrence of hemodynamic instability post-administration of sugammadex versus neostigmine with glycopyrrolate in the emergency department for the reversal of rocuronium. Methods: A retrospective cohort study conducted among adult patients that received sugammadex or neostigmine with glycopyrrolate in the emergency department for the reversal of rocuronium. The primary outcome was occurrence of hemodynamic instability that required escalation of treatment. Secondary outcomes included occurrence of hypotensive, bradycardic, or cardiac arrest events. Results: A total of 37 patients met inclusion criteria (n = 10, sugammadex; n = 27, neostigmine). There was no difference between the two groups in regard to hemodynamic instability that required escalation of treatment within 30 minutes after receiving either sugammadex or neostigmine with glycopyrrolate (P = .557). Conclusion: There was no difference between the two groups in regard to occurrence of hemodynamic instability that required escalation of treatment. Given the small sample size, future studies are warranted to further delineate the safety of sugammadex and neostigmine with glycopyrrolate for the reversal of rocuronium in the emergency department.

Evaluation of Sugammadex Dosing for Neurological Examination in the Emergency Department.

BACKGROUND: Prolong effects of non-depolarizing neuromuscular blocking agents after rapid sequence intubation may prevent meaningful neurological examination, delaying appropriate diagnosis and neurosurgical intervention. Sugammadex is indicated for the reversal of neuromuscular blockade induced by rocuronium. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate low- (2 mg/kg) vs standard-dose (4 mg/kg) sugammadex for rocuronium-induced deep neuromuscular blockade reversal in the emergency department (ED) by achieving a post-treatment train-of-four (TOF) of 4 to facilitate neurological examination. METHODS: This was a single-center, retrospective, cohort study evaluating low-vs standard-dose sugammadex for neuromuscular blockade reversal in the ED. RESULTS: 34 patients were identified within the designated time period, 24 of which were included in the final analysis ([n = 9 low-dose], [n = 15 standard-dose]). Median sugammadex doses were 2.3 mg/kg and 4.1 mg/kg for low- and standard-dose, respectively. The majority of patients presented for intraparenchymal hemorrhage (54.2%). No significant difference in success rate of NMBA reversal was found between low- and standard-dose sugammadex ([100.0% vs 93.3%], P = 1.000). A total of 9 patients had a neurosurgical procedure performed after sugammadex administration. Low-dose sugammadex was associated with significantly less acquisition cost compared to the standard dose (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Low- (2 mg/kg) and standard-dose (4 mg/kg) sugammadex successfully reversed rocuronium-induced deep neuromuscular blockade in the ED by achieving a post-treatment TOF of 4 to facilitate neurologic examination. Low-dose sugammadex may be a viable option for deep NMBA reversal in the ED and is associated with decreased institutional cost.

Occurrence of Hyperbilirubinemia in Neonates Given a Short-term Course of Ceftriaxone versus Cefotaxime for Sepsis.

OBJECTIVE: Ceftriaxone and cefotaxime are appealing options for the treatment of neonatal infections. Guidelines recommend cefotaxime as the cephalosporin of choice in neonates because of ceftriaxone's potential to cause hyperbilirubinemia. Unfortunately, due to cefotaxime discontinuation, providers must choose between alternative antibiotics. Clinicians at our institution adopted a protocol allowing for the utilization of cefepime and ceftriaxone for the management of neonatal sepsis. The objective of this study was to compare the incidence of hyperbilirubinemia between ceftriaxone and cefotaxime in the treatment of neonatal infections beyond the first 14 days of life. METHODS: This was a retrospective chart review of patients receiving ceftriaxone or cefotaxime for the treatment of neonatal infections. Patients were 15 to 30 days old at the time of antimicrobial administration and received at least 1 dose of ceftriaxone or cefotaxime during hospital admission. Patient characteristics and bilirubin levels were compared between ceftriaxone and cefotaxime. RESULTS: The analysis included 88 patients. There was no statistically significant difference between groups in age, gestational age, weight, and baseline total calcium and bilirubin levels. Normal baseline bilirubin levels increased to an abnormal level after antibiotic administration in 2 patients in the cefotaxime group and 1 patient in the ceftriaxone group. The median number of doses of cefotaxime and ceftriaxone were 3 and 2, respectively. CONCLUSION: Patients who received a short-term course of ceftriaxone did not have a higher likelihood of developing hyperbilirubinemia compared with those who received a short-term course of cefotaxime during their hospital stay.