Use of clinical phenotypes to characterize emergency department patients administered intravenous opioids for acute pain.

OBJECTIVE: Individual experience with opioids is highly variable. Some patients with acute pain do not experience pain relief with opioids, and many report no euphoria or dysphoric reactions. In this study, we describe the clinical phenotypes of patients who receive intravenous opioids. METHODS: This was an emergency department-based study in which we enrolled patients who received an intravenous opioid. We collected 0 to 10 pain scores prior to opioid administration and 15 minutes after. We also used 0 to 10 instruments to determine how high and how much euphoria the patient felt after receipt of the opioid. Using a cutoff point of ≥50% improvement in pain and the median score on the high and euphoria scales, we assigned each participant to one of the following clinical phenotypes: pain relief with feeling high or euphoria, pain relief without feeling high or euphoria, inadequate relief with feeling high or euphoria, and inadequate relief without feeling high or euphoria. RESULTS: A total of 713 patients were enrolled, 409 (57%) of whom reported not feeling high, and 465 (65%) reported no feeling of euphoria. Median percent improvement in pain was 37.5% (interquartile range, 12.5%-60.0%). One hundred seventy-eight participants (25%) were classified as experiencing pain relief with euphoria or feeling high, 190 (27%) experienced inadequate relief with euphoria or feeling high, 101 (14%) experienced pain relief without euphoria or feeling high, and 244 (34%) reported inadequate relief without euphoria or feeling high. CONCLUSION: Among patients who receive intravenous opioids in the emergency department, the experiences of pain relief and euphoria are highly variable. For many, pain relief is independent of feeling high.

Long-term Safety of Directly Discharging Patients Home from the ICU Compared to Ward Transfer.

Purpose: To evaluate the long-term safety of directly discharging intensive care unit (ICU) survivors to their home. Methods: A retrospective observational cohort of 341 ICU survivors who were directly discharged home from the ICU ("direct discharge") or discharged home ≤72 hours after ICU transfer to the ward ("ward transfer") was conducted in Regina, Saskatchewan ICUs between September 1, 2016 and September 30, 2018. The primary outcome was 90-day hospital readmission. Secondary outcomes included 30-day, 90-day, and 365-day emergency department (ED) visits, 30-day and 365-day hospital readmissions, and 365-day mortality. All outcomes were evaluated by multivariable Cox regression after adjustment for demographic and clinical characteristics. Results: Of 341 survivors (25.5% of total ICU visits), 148 (43.4%) patients were direct discharges and 193 (56.6%) were ward transfers. The median age was 46 years (interquartile range, 34-62), 38.4% were female, and 61.8% resided in Regina. Compared to the ward transfer cohort, more patients in the direct discharge cohort had at least one 90-day hospital readmission (30.4% versus 17.1% of patients, adjusted hazard ratio 2.09, 95% confidence interval 1.28-3.40, P = .003), after adjustment. Additionally, there were more 90-day ED visits (P = .045), and 30-day (P = .049) and 365-day hospital readmissions (P = .03), after adjustment. Conclusions: In Saskatchewan, direct discharge compared to ward transfer was associated with an increase in 90-day hospital readmissions, and potentially other clinical outcomes. Further study is necessary.

A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study of Intranasal Fentanyl as an Analgesic Adjunct For Incision and Drainage of Abscess.

BACKGROUND: Incision and drainage (I&D) of abscesses is one of the most painful procedures performed in emergency departments (EDs). OBJECTIVE: We tested the following hypothesis: The addition of intranasal fentanyl to the standard practice of local infiltration with lidocaine would provide better pain control than lidocaine alone for adult ED patients undergoing I&D. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind study. Participants received 2 µg/kg of intranasal fentanyl or a comparable amount of intranasal water in addition to local lidocaine infiltration. The primary outcome, which we assessed immediately after the I&D was completed, was a summary 0-10 pain score for which we asked study subjects to provide a number depicting their entire experience with the procedure. RESULTS: During a 19-month enrollment period, we screened 176 patients for eligibility and enrolled 49; 25 received placebo and 24 received fentanyl. Baseline characteristics were comparable. Mean (standard deviation) summary pain scores were as follows: fentanyl 6.2 (3.3) and placebo 7.0 (3.2). The 95% confidence interval for a rounded between-group difference of 0.9 was -1.1 to 2.6. CONCLUSIONS: In this small study, the addition of intranasal fentanyl did not substantially impact the pain scores of ED patients undergoing I&D.

Oxycodone induced euphoria in ED patients with acute musculoskeletal pain. A secondary analysis of data from a randomized trial.

OBJECTIVES: Some opioid-naïve patients with acute musculoskeletal pain who are treated with opioids develop persistent opioid use. The impact of opioid-induced euphoria on this transition to persistent use has not been explored. We determined whether opioid-induced euphoria could be measured as a phenomenon distinct from relief of pain. METHODS: Patients with acute pain were randomized to receive oxycodone/acetaminophen (Oxy) or acetaminophen (APAP). We measured pain using a 0-10 verbal scale. To assess euphoria, participants provided a 0-10 response to each of these: 1) How good did the medication make you feel?; 2) How high did the medication make you feel?; 3) How blissful did the medication make you feel? We analyzed these data using successive multivariable linear regression models, in which each of these items was the dependent variable, and improvement in pain and medication were the independent variables, while controlling for age and sex. RESULTS: 75 were randomized to Oxy, 76 to APAP. Mean "how good" scores were 6.3 (SD 3.3) in the Oxy group and 4.8 (3.3) in the APAP group. Mean "how high" scores were 3.8 (3.7) in the Oxy group and 2.0 (3.0) in the APAP group. Mean "how blissful" scores were 4.9 (3.7) in the Oxy group and 3.1 (3.4) in the APAP group. After controlling for improvement in pain, age, and sex, the between-group difference in "how good" was 1.0 (95%CI: -0.1, 2.0), "how high" 1.5 (95% CI 0.4, 2.6), and "how blissful" 1.5 (95%CI: 0.4, 2.7). DISCUSSION: "How high" and "how blissful" but not "how good" were associated with opioid use after controlling for improvement in pain.