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.

Opioid-induced Euphoria Among Emergency Department Patients With Acute Severe Pain: An Analysis of Data From a Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Parenteral opioids are commonly used to treat acute severe pain. We measured pleasurable sensations in patients administered intravenous analgesics to determine if these sensations were associated with receipt of an opioid, after controlling for relief of pain. Pleasurable sensations not accounted for by relief of pain were considered opioid-induced euphoria. METHODS: These data were from a randomized study of 1 mg of hydromorphone versus 120 mg of lidocaine for abdominal pain. To assess euphoria, participants were asked to provide a 0 to 10 response to each of these questions: 1) How good did the medication make you feel? 2) How high did the medication make you feel? and 3) How happy did the medication make you feel? Pain at baseline and 30 minutes was also measured on a 0 to 10 scale. To determine the relative importance of pain relief versus medication type, we built three linear regression models in which each euphoria question was the dependent variable and pain relief, medication type, and medication-induced side effects were the independent variables. RESULTS: Seventy-seven patients received lidocaine and 77 hydromorphone. Hydromorphone patients reported greater pain improvement than lidocaine patients (mean difference = 1.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.6 to 2.3) and higher scores on all three euphoria questions ("feeling good" difference = 1.9, 95% CI = 0.8 to 3.0; "feeling high" difference = 1.5, 95% CI = 0.4 to 2.7; "feeling happy" difference = 1.7, 95% CI = 0.6 to 2.8). In the regression models, hydromorphone administration (ß-coefficient = 0.16, p = 0.03) and pain relief (ß-coefficient = 0.45, p < 0.01) were both associated with "feeling good." "Feeling high" and "feeling happy" were associated with pain improvement (p < 0.01) but not with hydromorphone administration (p = 0.07 for "high" and p = 0.06 for "happy"). Medication-induced side effects were not associated with these measures of euphoria. CONCLUSION: Among emergency department patients with acute pain, hydromorphone-induced euphoria, though measurable, was generally less important for patients than relief of pain.

Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography Versus Stress Echocardiography in Acute Chest Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare early emergency department (ED) use of coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) and stress echocardiography (SE) head-to-head. BACKGROUND: Coronary CTA has been promoted as the early ED chest pain triage imaging method of choice, whereas SE is often overlooked in this setting and involves no ionizing radiation. METHODS: The authors randomized 400 consecutive low- to intermediate-risk ED acute chest pain patients without known coronary artery disease and a negative initial serum troponin level to immediate coronary CTA (n = 201) or SE (n = 199). The primary endpoint was hospitalization rate. Secondary endpoints were ED and hospital length of stay. Safety endpoints included cardiovascular events and radiation exposure. RESULTS: Mean patient age was 55 years, with 43% women and predominantly ethnic minorities (46% Hispanics, 32% African Americans). Thirty-nine coronary CTA patients (19%) and 22 SE patients (11%) were hospitalized at presentation (difference 8%; 95% confidence interval: 1% to 15%; p = 0.026). Median ED length of stay for discharged patients was 5.4 h (interquartile range [IQR]: 4.2 to 6.4 h) for coronary CTA and 4.7 h (IQR: 3.5 to 6.0 h) for SE (p < 0.001). Median hospital length of stay was 58 h (IQR: 50 to 102 h) for coronary CTA and 34 h (IQR: 31 to 54 h) for SE (p = 0.002). There were 11 and 7 major adverse cardiovascular events for coronary CTA and SE, respectively (p = 0.47), over a median 24 months of follow-up. Median/mean complete initial work-up radiation exposure was 6.5/7.7 mSv for coronary CTA and 0/0.96 mSv for SE (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The use of SE resulted in the hospitalization of a smaller proportion of patients with a shorter length of stay than coronary CTA and was safe. SE should be considered an appropriate option for ED chest pain triage (Stress Echocardiography and Heart Computed Tomography [CT] Scan in Emergency Department Patients With Chest Pain; NCT01384448).