Implementation and analysis of a multifaceted intervention for alcohol use disorder from a single academic urban emergency department.

BACKGROUND: From 2006 to 2014, alcohol-related visits to the emergency department (ED) increased by 76% in the United States, highlighting the need for improved ED-driven interventions addressing alcohol use disorder (AUD). Naltrexone is an FDA-approved medication for AUD shown to decrease craving and self-administration of alcohol. While oral naltrexone and extended-release naltrexone have been long utilized in primary care and inpatient hospital settings, the use of naltrexone in the ED is limited. METHODS: This study implemented and analyzed a multifaceted intervention regarding ED naltrexone prescribing at a large safety net, academic, urban hospital. A baseline assessment of preintervention conditions and perspectives on naltrexone prescribing was conducted through a chart review and standardized interviews with ED providers, respectively. The interview results guided design of interventions that addressed identified barriers. These included provider education, prescribing aids, and zero-cost naltrexone tablets supplied by the ED pharmacy to patients upon discharge. RESULTS: Between September 1, 2019, and August 31, 2020, of 753 unique patients who had a primary diagnosis or chief complaint containing the word "alcohol," only five (0.66%) were prescribed naltrexone. ED providers identified lack of training regarding naltrexone, lack of a prescribing protocol, and limited patient and provider education materials as barriers to prescribing naltrexone. Following the intervention, among 278 eligible patients, 11 oral naltrexone prescriptions were written (3.96%) between April 13, 2021, and August 1, 2021. This represents a sixfold increase over the preintervention period. CONCLUSIONS: An intervention to increase ED oral naltrexone prescriptions for AUD was successfully implemented, addressing lack of provider education, lack of prescribing resources, and patient barriers to accessing prescribed medications. Longer-term follow-up is needed to assess the efficacy and sustainability of these interventions. Nevertheless, ED clinicians are well positioned to initiate naltrexone prescriptions for patients presenting with AUD.

Pathophysiology and treatment of adults with arrhythmias in the emergency department, part 2: Ventricular and bradyarrhythmias.

PURPOSE: This is the second article in a 2-part series reviewing the pathophysiology and treatment considerations for arrhythmias. Part 1 of the series discussed aspects related to treating atrial arrhythmias. Here in part 2, the pathophysiology of ventricular arrhythmias and bradyarrhythmias and current evidence on treatment approaches are reviewed. SUMMARY: Ventricular arrhythmias can arise suddenly and are a common cause of sudden cardiac death. Several antiarrhythmics may be effective in management of ventricular arrhythmias, but there is robust evidence to support the use of only a few of these agents, and such evidence was largely derived from trials involving patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Bradyarrhythmias range from asymptomatic mild prolongation of nodal conduction to severe conduction delays and impending cardiac arrest. Vasopressors, chronotropes, and pacing strategies require careful attention and titration to minimize adverse effects and patient harm. CONCLUSION: Ventricular arrhythmias and bradyarrhythmias can be consequential and require acute intervention. As experts in pharmacotherapy, acute care pharmacists can participate in providing high-level intervention by aiding in diagnostic workup and medication selection.

Pathophysiology and treatment of adults with arrhythmias in the emergency department, part 1: Atrial arrhythmias.

PURPOSE: This article, the first in a 2-part review, aims to reinforce current literature on the pathophysiology of cardiac arrhythmias and various evidence-based treatment approaches and clinical considerations in the acute care setting. Part 1 of this series focuses on atrial arrhythmias. SUMMARY: Arrhythmias are prevalent throughout the world and a common presenting condition in the emergency department (ED) setting. Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia worldwide and expected to increase in prevalence. Treatment approaches have evolved over time with advances in catheter-directed ablation. Based on historic trials, heart rate control has been the long-standing accepted outpatient treatment modality for AF, but the use of antiarrhythmics is often still indicated for AF in the acute setting, and ED pharmacists should be prepared and poised to help in AF management. Other atrial arrhythmias include atrial flutter (AFL), atrioventricular nodal reentry tachycardia (AVNRT), and atrioventricular reentrant tachycardia (AVRT), which warrant distinction due to their unique pathophysiology and because each requires a different approach to utilization of antiarrhythmics. Atrial arrhythmias are typically associated with greater hemodynamic stability than ventricular arrhythmias but still require nuanced management according to patient subset and risk factors. Since antiarrhythmics can also be proarrhythmic, they may destabilize the patient due to adverse effects, many of which are the focus of black-box label warnings that can be overreaching and limit treatment options. Electrical cardioversion for atrial arrhythmias is generally successful and, depending on the setting and/or hemodynamics, often indicated. CONCLUSION: Atrial arrhythmias arise from a variety of mechanisms, and appropriate treatment depends on various factors. A firm understanding of physiological and pharmacological concepts serves as a foundation for exploring evidence supporting agents, indications, and adverse effects in order to provide appropriate care for patients.

Phenobarbital and/or benzodiazepines for recurrent alcohol withdrawal: A self-controlled, retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: While there is ample data supporting the use of barbiturates and benzodiazepines (BZDs) for the treatment of alcohol withdrawal, there is a paucity of information on treating recurrent withdrawal among high healthcare utilizing patients. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of phenobarbital (PB), with or without adjuvant BZDs, for treatment of acute alcohol withdrawal in the emergency department (ED) in patients with high rates of recurrent withdrawal. METHODS: This non-matched, self-controlled, retrospective cohort study evaluated patients seen in the ED of an urban trauma center and safety-net teaching hospital between July 1st, 2018, and July 31st, 2019. Patients treated for alcohol withdrawal were included if they had at least one visit where they received intravenous PB with or without BZDs, then during a separate encounter received BZD only. Each encounter was then assigned to a treatment group based on administration of PB only, BZD only, or the combination of PB and BZD. The primary outcomes were admission to hospital or discharge and return to the ED for any reason within 48 h of disposition. RESULTS: A total of 137 unique patients were included, with 642 encounters composed of 245 PB only, 293 BZD only, and 104 combination visitations. No significant difference was found between the PB, BZD, or combination treatment groups for rates of admission (36.7%, 38.9%, and 46.1% respectively) or for return within 48 h (17.1%, 15.0%, and 13.5%). There was a significantly longer ED length of stay for the combination group (8.6 h) compared to either the PB or BZD only groups (6.4 and 7.0 h, respectively, p < 0.05) but not between the monotherapy groups. There were significantly higher rates of ICU admission and hypotension when PB and BZDs were used together (8.6% and 15.4%) versus either agent alone (PB 2.9% and 5.7%, BZD 3.8% and 4.5%, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Among patients with multiple visits presenting with alcohol withdrawal, treatment with PB, BZDs, or both did not result in significantly different rates of admission or readmission within 48 h. Receiving a combination of PB and BZDs was associated with significantly longer ED length of stay, more ICU care, and increased incidence of hypotension as compared to either PB or a BZD alone.

Lacosamide induced Brugada I morphology in the setting of septicemia: A case report.

INTRODUCTION: Brugada syndrome may be unmasked by non-antiarrhythmic pharmaceuticals or drugs. Lacosamide is an antiepileptic agent with a novel mechanism of sodium channel inhibition and has the potential to cause cardiac sodium channel blockade. PATIENT CONCERNS: In this report, we describe the case of patient with a history of a seizure disorder who presented with Brugada I electrocardiogram morphology in the setting of septicemia. DIAGNOSIS: Brugada I electrocardiogram morphology was unmasked by lacosamide antiepileptic monotherapy. INTERVENTIONS: Lacosamide therapy was discontinued. OUTCOMES: Normalization of the electrocardiogram and resolution of Brugada morphology occurred on hospital day 1. CONCLUSION: Caution should be exercised in the use of lacosamide in those at risk for conduction delay, or in combination therapy with medications that impair renal clearance, metabolism of lacosamide, or that display inherent sodium channel blocking properties.

Efficacy of topical capsaicin for the treatment of cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Cannabis Hyperemesis Syndrome (CHS) is a clinical disorder characterized by abdominal pain and intractable vomiting among patients with chronic marijuana use. We sought to assess the efficacy of capsaicin to determine whether it could reduce ED length of stay in patients with CHS. METHODS: his retrospective observational study was conducted among patients with CHS. Patients were classified based on whether they received capsaicin, which was pseudorandomized and dependent on the pharmacist available. Outcomes included time to discharge, number of medications given, bounceback rate, and admission rate. Statistical analyses included t-tests, survival analyses, and cox regressions. RESULTS: 55 patients (35 capsaicin, 20 no capsaicin) met inclusion criteria. There was no difference in time to discharge between the experimental and control groups (4.46 h vs 3.52 h, p = 0.10), rounds of medications given (2.60 vs 3.54, p = 0.09), bounceback rate within 24 h (0.11 vs 0.10, p = 0.43), or admission rate to the hospital (0.19 vs 0.05, p = 0.07). A survival analysis and cox regression showed no difference in time to discharge. A subgroup analysis between patients who received capsaicin within their first two rounds of treatment had statistically significantly shorter length of stays than patients who received capsaicin afterwards, (4.83 h vs 7.09 h, p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Topical capsaicin was not associated with shorter length of stays than no capsaicin. When given earlier during an ED visit, it is associated with a shorter length of stay than when given later.

Buprenorphine for Opioid Use Disorder in the Emergency Department: A Retrospective Chart Review.

INTRODUCTION: Emergency care providers routinely treat patients with acute presentations and sequelae of opioid use disorder. An emergency physician and pharmacist implemented a protocol using buprenorphine for the treatment of patients with opioid withdrawal at an academic, Level I trauma center. We describe our experience regarding buprenorphine implementation in the emergency department (ED), characteristics of patients who received buprenorphine, and rates of outpatient follow-up. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of all patients in the ED for whom buprenorphine was administered to treat opioid withdrawal during an 18-month period from January 30, 2017-July 31, 2018. Data extraction of a priori-defined variables was recorded. We used descriptive statistics to characterize the cohort of patients. RESULTS: A total of 77 patients were included for analysis. Thirty-three patients (43%) who received buprenorphine did not present with the chief complaint of opioid withdrawal. Most patients (74%) who received buprenorphine last used heroin, and presented in moderate opioid withdrawal. One case of precipitated withdrawal occurred after buprenorphine administration. Twenty-three (30%) patients received outpatient follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: This study underscores the safety of ED-initiated buprenorphine and that buprenorphine administration in the ED is feasible and effective.