Subcutaneous versus intravenous tramadol for extremity injury with moderate pain in the emergency department: a randomised controlled noninferiority trial.

BACKGROUND AND IMPORTANCE: Musculoskeletal trauma is a common presentation in the emergency department (ED). Tramadol as an analgesic has been recommended by pain management guidelines for musculoskeletal pain. Parenteral tramadol in the ED is commonly administered intravenously. Subcutaneously administered tramadol may have other advantages such as easier and faster preparation, avoids the need for intravenous (i.v.) access, and reduces the incidence of respiratory and gastrointestinal effects. However, studies comparing subcutaneous (s.c.) and i.v. tramadol for the management of acute moderate pain in patients with extremity injury are lacking. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of s.c. tramadol vs. i.v. tramadol in patients with moderate pain due to extremity injury in the ED. DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS: This non-inferiority randomized controlled trial included adult patients presented to an academic, tertiary hospital ED with moderate pain (pain score of 4-6 on the visual analog scale) due to extremity injury. Intervention patients stratified to pain score were randomized to receive 50 mg of i.v. or s.c. tramadol. OUTCOMES MEASURE AND ANALYSIS: Primary outcome measure was the difference in the pain score reduction at 30 min after tramadol administration between the two groups. The noninferiority null hypothesis was that the therapeutic difference in terms of pain score reduction of more than 0.8 exists between the two treatment groups at the endpoint. MAIN RESULTS: In total 232 patients were randomized to i.v. ( n = 115) or s.c. ( n = 117). Although 225 were analyzed in the per-protocol population (i.v. = 113; s.c. = 112). The baseline median pain score was 6 (IQR, 5-6). Median pain score reduction at 30 min after administration was 2 (IQR, 1-3) in the IV group vs. 2 (IQR, 1-2) in the s.c. group with a median difference of 0 (IQR, 0-0), which was below the prespecified noninferiority margin of 0.8. Adverse events in the i.v. group were higher compared to the s.c. group (33.6% vs. 8.9%, P ≤ 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The s.c. tramadol is noninferior to i.v. tramadol in the treatment of moderate pain from extremity injuries.

COVID-19 aerosol box as protection from droplet and aerosol contaminations in healthcare workers performing airway intubation: a randomised cross-over simulation study.

BACKGROUND: Concerns over high transmission risk of SARS-CoV-2 have led to innovation and usage of an aerosol box to protect healthcare workers during airway intubation in patients with COVID-19. Its efficacy as a barrier protection in addition to the use of a standard personal protective equipment (PPE) is not fully known. We performed a simulated study to investigate the relationship between aerosol box usage during intubation and contaminations on healthcare workers pre-doffing and post-doffing of PPE. METHODS: This was a randomised cross-over study conducted between 9 April to 5 May 2020 in the ED of University Malaya Medical Centre. Postgraduate Emergency Medicine trainees performed video laryngoscope-assisted intubation on an airway manikin with and without an aerosol box in a random order. Contamination was simulated by nebulised Glo Germ. Primary outcome was number of contaminated front and back body regions pre-doffing and post-doffing of PPE of the intubator and assistant. Secondary outcomes were intubation time, Cormack-Lehane score, number of intubation attempts and participants' feedback. RESULTS: Thirty-six trainees completed the study interventions. The number of contaminated front and back body regions pre-doffing of PPE was significantly higher without the aerosol box (all p values<0.001). However, there was no significant difference in the number of contaminations post-doffing of PPE between using and not using the aerosol box, with a median contamination of zero. Intubation time was longer with the aerosol box (42.5 s vs 35.5 s, p<0.001). Cormack-Lehane scores were similar with and without the aerosol box. First-pass intubation success rate was 94.4% and 100% with and without the aerosol box, respectively. More participants reported reduced mobility and visibility when intubating with the aerosol box. CONCLUSIONS: An aerosol box may significantly reduce exposure to contaminations but with increased intubation time and reduced operator's mobility and visibility. Furthermore, the difference in degree of contamination between using and not using an aerosol box could be offset by proper doffing of PPE.