Comparing Intubation Rates in Patients Receiving Parenteral Olanzapine With and Without a Parenteral Benzodiazepine in the Emergency Department.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: United States prescribing information recommends against coadministration of injectable olanzapine with injectable benzodiazepines due to a risk of cardiorespiratory depression, whereas European prescribing information recommends the 2 drugs not be administered within 60 minutes of each other. In contrast, a recently published American College of Emergency Physicians clinical policy recommends injectable olanzapine and benzodiazepines be coadministered for treating severe agitation. We sought to compare injectable olanzapine with and without injectable benzodiazepines for evidence of cardiorespiratory depression. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of patients in an urban emergency department from January 2017 through November 2019 who received parenteral olanzapine with or without parenteral benzodiazepines. We included patients receiving 2 total medication doses, either olanzapine+benzodiazepine or 2 doses of olanzapine, coadministered within 60 minutes. The primary outcome was tracheal intubation in the emergency department. Secondary outcomes included hypotension (systolic blood pressure less than 90 mmHg) and hypoxemia (SpO2 less than 90%). RESULTS: We identified 693 patients (median [alcohol]=210 mg/dL, median age=37 years [IQR 29 to 49]). In total, 549 received 2 doses of olanzapine, and 144 patients received olanzapine and a benzodiazepine. We found no difference in intubation rates between the olanzapine-only group (21/549, 3.8%) and the olanzapine+benzodiazepine group (5/144, 3.5%; difference=0.3%, 95% confidence interval -3.0% to 3.7%). Rates of hypoxemia (2% olanzapine-only and 3% olanzapine+benzodiazepine) and hypotension (9% both groups) also were not different between groups. CONCLUSION: We found no difference in cardiorespiratory depression between patients receiving only olanzapine versus olanzapine plus a benzodiazepine.

First attempt success with continued versus paused chest compressions during cardiac arrest in the emergency department.

AIM: Tracheal intubation is associated with interruption in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Current knowledge of tracheal intubation during active CPR focuses on the out-of-hospital environment. We aim to describe characteristics of tracheal intubation during active CPR in the emergency department (ED) and determine whether first attempt success was associated with CPR being continued vs paused. MEASUREMENTS: We reviewed overhead video from adult ED patients receiving chest compressions at the start of the orotracheal intubation attempt. We recorded procedural detail including method of CPR, whether CPR was continued vs paused, and first attempt intubation success (primary outcome). We performed logistic regression to determine whether continuing CPR was associated with first attempt success. RESULTS: We reviewed 169 instances of tracheal intubation, including 143 patients with continued CPR and 26 patients with paused CPR. Those with paused CPR were more likely to be receiving manual rather than mechanical chest compressions. Video laryngoscopy and bougie use were common. First attempt success was higher in the continued CPR group (87%, 95% CI 81% to 92%) than the interrupted CPR group (65%, 95% CI 44% to 83%, difference 22% [95% CI 3% to 41%]). The multivariable model demonstrated an adjusted odds ratio of 0.67 (95% CI 0.17 to 2.60) for first attempt intubation success when CPR was interrupted vs continued. CONCLUSIONS: It was common to continue CPR during tracheal intubation, with success comparable to that achieved in patients without cardiac arrest. It is reasonable to attempt tracheal intubation without interrupting CPR, pausing only if necessary.

Intramuscular Midazolam, Olanzapine, Ziprasidone, or Haloperidol for Treating Acute Agitation in the Emergency Department.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Agitation in the emergency department (ED) can pose a threat to patient and provider safety; therefore, treatment is indicated. The purpose of this study is to compare haloperidol, olanzapine, midazolam, and ziprasidone to treat agitation. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study of consecutive patients receiving intramuscular medication to treat agitation in the ED. Medications were administered according to an a priori protocol in which the initial medication given was predetermined in the following 3-week blocks: haloperidol 5 mg, ziprasidone 20 mg, olanzapine 10 mg, midazolam 5 mg, and haloperidol 10 mg. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients adequately sedated at 15 minutes, assessed with the Altered Mental Status Scale. RESULTS: Seven hundred thirty-seven patients were enrolled (median age 40 years; 72% men). At 15 minutes, midazolam resulted in a greater proportion of patients adequately sedated (Altered Mental Status Scale <1) compared with ziprasidone (difference 18%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 6% to 29%), haloperidol 5 mg (difference 30%; 95% CI 19% to 41%), haloperidol 10 mg (difference 28%; 95% CI 17% to 39%), and olanzapine (difference 9%; 95% CI -1% to 20%). Olanzapine resulted in a greater proportion of patients adequately sedated at 15 minutes compared with haloperidol 5 mg (difference 20%; 95% CI 10% to 31%), haloperidol 10 mg (difference 18%; 95% CI 7% to 29%), and ziprasidone (difference 8%; 95% CI -3% to 19%). Adverse events were uncommon: cardiac arrest (0), extrapyramidal adverse effects (2; 0.3%), hypotension (5; 0.5%), hypoxemia (10; 1%), and intubation (4; 0.5%), and occurred at similar rates in each group. CONCLUSION: Intramuscular midazolam achieved more effective sedation in agitated ED patients at 15 minutes than haloperidol, ziprasidone, and perhaps olanzapine. Olanzapine provided more effective sedation than haloperidol. No differences in adverse events were identified.