Risk of peri-intubation adverse events during emergency department intubation of overdose patients: a national emergency airway registry (near) analysis.

BACKGROUND: More than 20,000 emergency department (ED) patients undergo intubation for overdose each year. While the characteristics of patients intubated for overdose and poisoning are well described, little is known about the intubation outcomes of overdose patients in the ED. OBJECTIVES: We quantify the frequency of peri-intubation adverse events for patients intubated in the ED for overdose, and determine whether first attempt success without adverse events differs between patients intubated for overdose and patients intubated for other reasons. METHODS: We analyzed data from the National Emergency Airway Registry (NEAR), a prospective multicenter registry of ED intubations collected from an international network of 22 academic and community hospitals. We included patients 14 years and older whose first attempt was oral intubation, with data entered into NEAR between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2018. The primary outcome was successful intubation on the first attempt. We used multivariable logistic regression to determine whether indication was independently associated with successful intubation on the first attempt after adjusting for age, gender, obesity, initial impression of difficult airway, presence of difficult airway characteristics, and use of video laryngoscopy. Secondary outcomes included successful intubation on the first attempt without adverse events, the occurrence of rescue surgical airways, and the occurrence of adverse events. Adverse events included hypoxemia, hypotension, peri-intubation cardiac arrest, bradycardia, mechanical injury to oral or airway structures, vomiting, tachydysrhythmia, esophageal intubation, laryngospasm, and pneumothorax. RESULTS: We analyzed 17,984 patients, including 1,983 (11%) intubated for overdose, and 16,001 (89%) intubated for other indications. Patients intubated for overdose were younger (median age 38 vs 55 years), were less frequently obese (26% vs 34%), and fewer had difficult airway characteristics (38% vs 53%). Overdose patients were more likely to have preoxygenation performed (45% vs 35%), more likely to have apenic oxygenation (39% vs 31%), and more likely to have bougie used (33% vs 17%). First attempt success was 90.5% in patients intubated for overdose and 87.5% in patients intubated for other reasons (absolute difference 3.0%; 95% CI: -1.3 to 7.3). First attempt success without adverse events was higher in overdose patients (85.0%) compared to other patients (78.7%) (absolute difference, 6.3%; 95% CI 1.0 to 11.7%). Overdose patients experienced significantly less hypotension (1.5% vs 4.1%), and tended to have fewer adverse events overall. Multivariable model results were consistent with the unadjusted results including no difference in first pass success (adjusted odd ratio 1.02 [95% CI 0.86-1.23]). There was a higher first pass success without complication in patients intubated for overdose (adjusted odds ratio 1.23; 95% CI 1.07 to1.43). CONCLUSION: For patients in whom the primary indication for intubation is overdose there is an increased chance of first attempt success without adverse event.

Vasodilation in patients with calcium channel blocker poisoning treated with high-dose insulin: a comparison of amlodipine versus non-dihydropyridines.

Background: High dose insulin (HDI), an inotrope and vasodilator, is a standard therapy for calcium channel blocker (CCB) poisoning. HDI causes vasodilation by stimulating endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS). Most literature supporting HDI for CCB poisoning involves verapamil toxicity; however, amlodipine now causes more CCB poisonings. Unlike other CCBs, amlodipine stimulates eNOS and may cause synergistic vasodilation with HDI. The purpose of this study was to determine if amlodipine-poisoned patients treated with HDI had more evidence of vasodilation than similarly treated patients with non-dihydropyridine (non-DHP) poisoning.Methods: This was a retrospective study from a single poison center. Cases were identified via the generic code "Calcium Antagonists" in which the therapy "High Dose Insulin/Glucose" was "performed, whether or not recommended" from 2019-2021. Evidence of vasodilation was assessed via maximum number of vasopressor infusions per case, vasopressor doses, and use of rescue methylene blue to treat refractory vasoplegia.Results: Thirty-three patients were enrolled: 18 poisoned with amlodipine, 15 with non-DHPs (verapamil n = 10, diltiazem n = 5). The median number of maximum concomitant vasopressors in the amlodipine group was 3 (IQR: 2-5; range 0-6) and 2 in the non-DHP group (IQR: 1-3; range 0-5; p = 0.04); median difference in maximum concomitant vasopressors between groups was 1 (95% confidence interval: 0-2). Median maximum epinephrine dosing was higher in the amlodipine group (0.31 mcg/kg/min) compared to non-DHPs (0.09 mcg/kg/min; p = 0.03). Use of rescue methylene blue was more common in the amlodipine group (7/18 [39%]) than in the non-DHP group (0; p = 0.009).Conclusions: Amlodipine poisoned patients treated with HDI required more vasopressors, higher doses of epinephrine, and more often received rescue methylene blue than similarly treated patients with verapamil or diltiazem poisoning. These differences suggest amlodipine-poisoned patients had more evidence of vasodilation. Further study is warranted to determine if synergistic vasodilation occurs when HDI is used to treat amlodipine poisoning.

Pesticide Exposure and Heat Exhaustion in a Migrant Agricultural Worker: A Case of Labor Trafficking.

To our knowledge, there are no published reports of heat exhaustion and pesticide exposure in a labor trafficked patient in the literature. Here we represent the case of J.C.J.L., who was labor trafficked. He presented to a local emergency department with heat exhaustion and pesticide exposure related to working conditions in a Mississippi corn field. Unfortunately, while he received medical treatment, his labor trafficking condition was missed. Emergency departments should be equipped to assess for human trafficking and connect trafficked persons with the resources they need. Emergency physicians should maintain a high index of suspicion for human trafficking among migrant workers presenting with occupation-related complaints.

Emergency Department Clinicians' Attitudes Toward Opioid Use Disorder and Emergency Department-initiated Buprenorphine Treatment: A Mixed-Methods Study.

INTRODUCTION: Emergency department (ED) visits related to opioid use disorder (OUD) have increased nearly twofold over the last decade. Treatment with buprenorphine has been demonstrated to decrease opioid-related overdose deaths. In this study, we aimed to better understand ED clinicians' attitudes toward the initiation of buprenorphine treatment in the ED. METHODS: We performed a mixed-methods study consisting of a survey of 174 ED clinicians (attending physicians, residents, and physician assistants) and semi-structured interviews with 17 attending emergency physicians at a tertiary-care academic hospital. RESULTS: A total of 93 ED clinicians (53% of those contacted) completed the survey. While 80% of respondents agreed that buprenorphine should be administered in the ED for patients requesting treatment, only 44% felt that they were prepared to discuss medication for addiction treatment. Compared to clinicians with fewer than five years of practice, those with greater experience were less likely to approve of ED-initiated buprenorphine. In our qualitative analysis, physicians had differing perspectives on the role that the ED should play in treating OUD. Most physicians felt that a buprenorphine-based intervention in the ED would be feasible with institutional support, including training opportunities, protocol support within the electronic health record, counseling and support staff, and a robust referral system for outpatient follow-up. CONCLUSION: ED clinicians' perception of buprenorphine varied by years of practice and training level. Most ED clinicians did not feel prepared to initiate buprenorphine in the ED. Qualitative interviews identified several addressable barriers to ED-initiated buprenorphine.

Opioid Withdrawal Precipitated by Long-Acting Antagonists.

BACKGROUND: Precipitated opioid withdrawal (POW) after opioid antagonist administration can be challenging to manage in the emergency department (ED), particularly if caused by a long-acting opioid antagonist such as naltrexone. There are no evidence-based guidelines to assist in safely and efficiently managing patients with this syndrome. OBJECTIVE OF REVIEW: To review current practice on the treatment of long-acting antagonist POW and make recommendations on the treatment of this complex disease process. METHODS: A literature search of opioid withdrawal cases precipitated by naltrexone was done using PubMed. One of the authors screened all the results of this search by title and abstract, leading to a final count of 27 articles that were reviewed in full by all authors. English language cases that involved precipitated opioid withdrawal from a long-acting opioid antagonist were included. Data were extracted, including the precipitant involved and dose, severity of opioid withdrawal, treatments rendered, and response to treatment. In all cases where symptoms and signs were described, a Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale score was calculated based on the information available. RESULTS: Twenty-seven papers were included. Naltrexone alone was the primary antagonist reported in 19 of the papers, extended-release naltrexone in two, naltrexone-morphine combination in two, and nalmefene in four. Treatment most commonly included fluid replacement, benzodiazepines, antiemetics, and clonidine. Full opioid agonist treatment, although often suggested, was poorly described. Buprenorphine successfully reduced the severity and duration of withdrawal in several cases. No standardized response scale was used, and response to treatment ranged from 3 to 48 h prior to resolution of clinical effects. CONCLUSIONS: Management of POW from long-acting antagonists is a complex problem with little formal evaluation of treatment options. There is not currently a sufficiently robust body of literature to support an evidence-based guideline. However, use of intravenous fluids, antiemetics, and benzodiazepines is commonly reported as successful and seems to be a reasonable approach until this process is better studied. A treatment strategy using partial agonists such as buprenorphine is emerging and may represent a safe and effective treatment pathway for these patients.

Material Needs of Emergency Department Patients: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Interest in social determinants of health (SDOH) has expanded in recent years, driven by a recognition that such factors may influence health outcomes, services use, and health care costs. One subset of SDOH is material needs such as housing and food. We conducted a systematic review of the literature on material needs among emergency department (ED) patients in the United States. METHODS: We followed PRISMA guidelines for systematic review methodology. With the assistance of a research librarian, four databases were searched for studies examining material needs among ED patients. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full text to identify eligible articles. Information was abstracted systematically from eligible articles. RESULTS: Forty-three articles were eligible for inclusion. There was heterogeneity in study methods; single-center, cross-sectional studies were most common. Specific material needs examined included homelessness, poverty, housing insecurity, housing quality, food insecurity, unemployment, difficulty paying for health care, and difficulty affording basic expenses. Studies overwhelmingly supported the notion that ED patients have a high prevalence of a number of material needs. CONCLUSIONS: Despite some limitations in the individual studies examined in this review, the plurality of prior research confirms that the ED serves a vulnerable population with high rates of material needs. Future research is needed to better understand the role these needs play for ED patients and how to best address them.

Direct Interactive Public Education by Breast Radiologists About Screening Mammography: Impact on Anxiety and Empowerment.

PURPOSE: Anxiety has been called a "harm" of screening mammography. The authors provided direct, interactive education to lay audiences and measured these sessions' impact on anxiety and any increased understanding of breast cancer screening. METHODS: Academic breast radiologist provided seven 1-hour sessions of structured lectures and question-and-answer periods. Lay language and radiologic images were used to discuss disease background, screening guidelines, and areas of debate. One hundred seventeen participants (mean age, 45 ± 15 years) completed voluntary, anonymous, institutional review board-approved pre and postsession questionnaires relaying their attitudes regarding screening and the impact of the sessions. Results are summarized descriptively. RESULTS: Mean reported anxiety regarding screening (on a scale ranging from 1-5; 1 = no anxiety) was 2.5 ± 1.3. Anxiety was attributed to unknown results (56.4%), anticipation of pain (21.8%), known risk factors (14.5%), general uncertainty (12.7%), waiting for results (9.1%), possibility of more procedures (3.6%), and personal breast cancer history (3.6%). Ninety-seven percent reported that immediate results would lower anxiety (78% of those women indicated a 75%-100% decrease in anxiety); 93% reported that radiologist consultation with images would lower anxiety (75.6% indicated a 75%-100% decrease in anxiety). After the lecture, women reported (on a scale ranging from 1-5) increased understanding of the topic (4.7 ± 0.6), encouragement to screen (4.6 ± 0.7), and reduced anxiety (4.0 ± 1.1). Ninety-seven percent to 100% provided correct responses to these questions: rationale for screening in the absence of family history, recall does not equate to cancer diagnosis, benefit of prior films, and continued importance of physical examination. CONCLUSION: Attendees of radiologist-provided direct public lectures reported decreased anxiety and improved knowledge regarding screening mammography. The resultant reduced anxiety ("harm") and educational empowerment help enable informed decision making and may promote screening attendance.

The Radiologist as Direct Public Educator: Impact of Sessions Demystifying Select Cancer Screening Imaging Examinations.

PURPOSE: The aim of this report is to describe our early experience with radiologist-led direct public education about imaging-based cancer screening examinations, with a focus on the level of satisfaction and the educational impact reported by session participants. METHODS: Subspecialty radiologists provided 1-hour educational sessions to small lay public audiences covering breast, prostate, and lung cancer screening, focusing on key radiologic screening tests. Subsequently, session participants completed a survey pertaining to their levels of satisfaction and the perceived impact of the sessions on knowledge of the diseases and relevant screening tests; results from all topic sessions were pooled for analysis. RESULTS: One hundred nineteen participants attended a total of 144 sessions. The large majority of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the sessions increased their understanding (95.4%), they gained information not obtained from clinic visit (88.1%), seeing radiology images helped their understanding (92.6%), they felt more involved in their own care (85.8%), they felt more prepared to undergo screening tests (87.4%), they were satisfied with the sessions' format (93.3%) and content (96.2%), their main questions were answered (88.3%), they would be interested in similar future radiologist-led sessions (88.5%), and they would recommend the sessions to friends (93.9%). The provided information (43.1%) and images (34.7%) were identified as the most helpful aspects of the sessions. CONCLUSION: Radiologist-led direct public education sessions about imaging-based cancer screening examinations yield high levels of audience satisfaction and add value to the public's understanding of the role of radiology and radiologists. Our experience may provide an encouraging model for other radiology practices in pursuing similar endeavors.

Direct Interactive Public Education by Breast Radiologists About Screening Mammography: Impact on Anxiety and Empowerment.

PURPOSE: Anxiety has been called a "harm" of screening mammography. The authors provided direct, interactive education to lay audiences and measured these sessions' impact on anxiety and any increased understanding of breast cancer screening. METHODS: Academic breast radiologist provided seven 1-hour sessions of structured lectures and question-and-answer periods. Lay language and radiologic images were used to discuss disease background, screening guidelines, and areas of debate. One hundred seventeen participants (mean age, 45 ± 15 years) completed voluntary, anonymous, institutional review board-approved pre and postsession questionnaires relaying their attitudes regarding screening and the impact of the sessions. Results are summarized descriptively. RESULTS: Mean reported anxiety regarding screening (on a scale ranging from 1-5; 1 = no anxiety) was 2.5 ± 1.3. Anxiety was attributed to unknown results (56.4%), anticipation of pain (21.8%), known risk factors (14.5%), general uncertainty (12.7%), waiting for results (9.1%), possibility of more procedures (3.6%), and personal breast cancer history (3.6%). Ninety-seven percent reported that immediate results would lower anxiety (78% of those women indicated a 75%-100% decrease in anxiety); 93% reported that radiologist consultation with images would lower anxiety (75.6% indicated a 75%-100% decrease in anxiety). After the lecture, women reported (on a scale ranging from 1-5) increased understanding of the topic (4.7 ± 0.6), encouragement to screen (4.6 ± 0.7), and reduced anxiety (4.0 ± 1.1). Ninety-seven percent to 100% provided correct responses to these questions: rationale for screening in the absence of family history, recall does not equate to cancer diagnosis, benefit of prior films, and continued importance of physical examination. CONCLUSION: Attendees of radiologist-provided direct public lectures reported decreased anxiety and improved knowledge regarding screening mammography. The resultant reduced anxiety ("harm") and educational empowerment help enable informed decision making and may promote screening attendance.

The radiologist as direct public educator: impact of sessions demystifying select cancer screening imaging examinations.

PURPOSE: The aim of this report is to describe our early experience with radiologist-led direct public education about imaging-based cancer screening examinations, with a focus on the level of satisfaction and the educational impact reported by session participants. METHODS: Subspecialty radiologists provided 1-hour educational sessions to small lay public audiences covering breast, prostate, and lung cancer screening, focusing on key radiologic screening tests. Subsequently, session participants completed a survey pertaining to their levels of satisfaction and the perceived impact of the sessions on knowledge of the diseases and relevant screening tests; results from all topic sessions were pooled for analysis. RESULTS: One hundred nineteen participants attended a total of 144 sessions. The large majority of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the sessions increased their understanding (95.4%), they gained information not obtained from clinic visit (88.1%), seeing radiology images helped their understanding (92.6%), they felt more involved in their own care (85.8%), they felt more prepared to undergo screening tests (87.4%), they were satisfied with the sessions' format (93.3%) and content (96.2%), their main questions were answered (88.3%), they would be interested in similar future radiologist-led sessions (88.5%), and they would recommend the sessions to friends (93.9%). The provided information (43.1%) and images (34.7%) were identified as the most helpful aspects of the sessions. CONCLUSION: Radiologist-led direct public education sessions about imaging-based cancer screening examinations yield high levels of audience satisfaction and add value to the public's understanding of the role of radiology and radiologists. Our experience may provide an encouraging model for other radiology practices in pursuing similar endeavors.