Methohexital for procedural sedation of cardioversions in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Procedural sedation for electrical cardioversion is a common practice in the emergency department (ED). Ideal sedative properties for this procedure are a short half-life and minimal hemodynamic effects. There is limited literature examining methohexital for this use. OBJECTIVE: To compare the use of methohexital to propofol and etomidate for procedural sedation for electrical cardioversions in the ED. METHODS: This was a single-center, retrospective study of adult patients who underwent procedural sedation for electrical cardioversion in the ED between February 1, 2015 and July 31, 2020. Included patients received methohexital, propofol, or etomidate as an initial sedative agent in the ED. The primary outcome was time from initial dose of sedative to goal Aldrete score. The main secondary outcome was time from sedative agent to ED discharge. The safety outcome was the occurrence of a critical hemodynamic change requiring intervention. Outcomes were assessed using a single-factor ANOVA analysis. RESULTS: One-hundred and fifty cardioversion encounters were included with 50 encounters per cohort. The median (IQR) time (minutes) to goal Aldrete score was 10.5 (7-18.5) for methohexital, 12.0 (9-16.8) for propofol, and 11.0 (8-15) for etomidate (p = 0.863). Mean (SD) time (minutes) to discharge from the ED (n = 105) was 90.4 ± 40.4 for methohexital, 89.0 ± 57.4 for propofol, and 94.0 ± 42.5 for etomidate (p = 0.897). No difference was seen between the groups regarding hemodynamic changes requiring intervention. CONCLUSION: Methohexital was found to have a similar efficacy and safety profile when compared to propofol and etomidate when used as procedural sedation for cardioversions in the ED.

Sweet and Sour: Impact of Early Glycemic Control on Outcomes in Necrotizing Soft-Tissue Infections.

Background: Necrotizing soft-tissue infection (NSTI) is a devastating disease associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality. Hyperglycemia is associated with poor wound healing; however, there are no studies evaluating glycemic control outcomes in patients with NSTI. The objective of this study was to examine disease progression and death in patients with NSTI who achieved early glycemic control (EGC) compared with patients that did not. Methods: A retrospective chart review of patients with NSTI was conducted between November 2011 and August 2017. Early glycemic control was defined as a daily average blood glucose concentration ≤150 mg/dL for a minimum of two consecutive days from admission to hospital day three. The primary outcome of this study was a composite of ≤3 debridement procedures by hospital day 14 and survival to discharge. Secondary outcomes were the total number of debridement procedures, amputation, hospital length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit (ICU) LOS, number of hypoglycemic events throughout hospitalization, and discharge disposition. Results: One-hundred five patients were included in the analysis. There were 62% male patients, mean age of 55.3 years, mean weight of 106.9 kg, and 57.1% with diabetes mellitus (DM). The 54 (51.4%) patients with EGC were less likely to have DM (29.6% versus 86.3%; p < 0.001), had a lower median admission glucose concentration (120.5 [97-144] versus 198 [153-295.5] mg/dL; p < 0.001), and had lower median daily glucose values during the first 96 hours after admission (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the primary outcome (83.3%% versus 84.3%; p > 0.99) or incidence of hypoglycemia (14.8% versus 23.5%; p = 0.32). Patients with EGC were more likely to return home after discharge (44.4% versus 23.5%; p = 0.039). Conclusion: Overall, there was no difference in composite clinical outcomes between patients with EGC and those without, although more patients who achieved EGC were discharged home. Patients with DM were less likely to achieve EGC.

Hidden sources of grapefruit in beverages: potential interactions with immunosuppressant medications.

PURPOSE: The interaction between grapefruit-containing beverages and immunosuppressants is not well defined in the literature. This study was conducted to investigate possible sources of grapefruit juice or grapefruit extract in common US-manufactured beverages. The goal was to identify those products that might serve as hidden sources of dietary grapefruit intake, increasing a transplant patient's risk for drug interactions. METHODS: A careful review of the ingredients of the 3 largest US beverage manufacturer's product lines was conducted through manufacturer correspondence, product labeling examination, and online nutrition database research. Focus was placed on citrus-flavored soft drinks, teas, and juice products and their impact on a patient's immunosuppressant regimens. RESULTS: Twenty-three beverages were identified that contained grapefruit. Five did not contain the word "grapefruit" in the product name. In addition to the confirmed grapefruit-containing products, 17 products were identified as possibly containing grapefruit juice or grapefruit extract. CONCLUSION: A greater emphasis should be placed upon properly educating patients regarding hidden sources of grapefruit in popular US beverages and the potential for food-drug interactions.