Patient-controlled analgesia morphine for the management of acute pain in the emergency department: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The ideal pain control approach is typically viewed as titration of analgesia for pain reduction and periodic pain evaluation. However, this method takes time and is not always possible in the crowded Emergency Department. Therefore, an alternative way to improve pain care in the Emergency Department is needed to avoid this unpleasant sensation in the patients. The best solution to tackle this situation is using Patient Controlled Analgesia (PCA), in the form of a PCA pump. STUDY OBJECTIVES: This systematic review and meta-analysis was designated to evaluate the efficacy of PCA morphine in treating acute pain at Emergency Department. METHODS: We searched databases Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, and Google Scholar up to February 2022 and identified randomized controlled trials with English language only that compare PCA morphine to IV morphine in treating patients presenting with acute pain at Emergency Department. RESULTS: Eight trials were included in our review, comprising 1490 participants. We compared PCA morphine vs. IV morphine. There were no differences in the pain score between PCA and IV morphine (standard mean difference [SMD] = -0.20, p = 0.25). Further subgroup analyses (origin of the pain, time of assessment and the durations) showed no difference except for the dosages as the PCA morphine reduced the pain compared to IV morphine in low and high dosages but only two studies were involved. However, the analysis showed PCA morphine increased patient satisfaction and reduced the number of patients who required additional analgesia compared to IV morphine (MD 0.12, P < 0.001), (MD 0.47, P < 0.001) respectively. Data obtained in this review pertaining to adverse effects such as nausea, vomiting, pruritus, and drowsiness is limited since not all the trials reported the events. CONCLUSIONS: PCA morphine do appear to have a beneficial effect on the outcome of patient satisfaction and the number of patients who required additional analgesia. However, further studies targeting a larger sample size is required to increase the certainty of the evidence.

Patient Ability to Use Old versus New/Modified Model Adrenaline Autoinjection Emergency Medical Devices for Anaphylaxis in Prehospital Setting: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The goal of this study was to determine the individual's ability to use new/modified model AAI compared to old model AAIs devices for anaphylaxis. METHODS: The protocol was established a priori and published on PROSPERO (CRD42021229691) and was conducted based on PRISMA guidelines. MEDLINE and CENTRAL were searched until 31 January 2021. Only RCTs were included in this review. Primary studies comparing old model AAI to new/modified model AAI emergency medical devices were included. Primary outcomes included number of successful administrations, and number of individuals to complete all steps. Secondary outcomes included successful removal of device safety guards, placement of correct end of the device against the thigh and holding of the device in place for adequate time after administration; the frequency of an adverse event (digital injection); individual preferences in terms of size, individual preference in terms of ease for carrying, overall patient preference; and the mean time of delivery. RESULTS: Overall, seven trials consisting of 1359 patients were analyzed. Reporting of adverse events was limited to digital injection, which was significantly higher in the old model AAI (RR 6.90, 95% CI 3.27 to 14.57; I2 statistic = 0%; p < 0.001; four trials, 610 participants; high quality evidence). No significant difference was found regarding successful administration between the old model AAI and new/modified model AAI (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.11; I2 statistic = 96%; p = 0.16; seven trials, 2196 participants; low quality evidence). CONCLUSIONS: We cannot make any new recommendations on the effectiveness of different models of AAIs regarding successful administration. However, considering the aspect of safety, we think that mew/modified model AAI can be chosen as the old model AAI was associated with a higher frequency of the adverse event (digital injection).

Efficacy of ketorolac in the treatment of acute migraine attack: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This review was designated to evaluate the efficacy of parenteral ketorolac in treating acute migraine headache. METHODS: We searched databases Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, and Google Scholar up to January 2021 and identified randomized controlled trials comparing ketorolac to any other medications in treating patients presenting with migraine headache. RESULTS: Thirteen trials were included in our review, comprising 944 participants. We derived seven comparisons: ketorolac versus phenothiazines, metoclopramide, sumatriptan, dexamethasone, sodium valproate, caffeine, and diclofenac. There were no significant differences in the reduction of pain intensity at 1 h under the comparisons between ketorolac and phenothiazines (standard mean difference [SMD] = 0.09, p = 0.74) or metoclopramide (SMD = 0.02, p = 0.95). We also found no difference in the outcome recurrence of headache (ketorolac vs. phenothiazines (risk ratio [RR] =0.98, p = 0.97)], ability to return to work or usual activity (ketorolac vs. metoclopramide [RR = 0.64, p = 0.13]), need for rescue medication (ketorolac vs. phenothiazines [RR = 1.72, p = 0.27], ketorolac vs. metoclopramide [RR 2.20, p = 0.18]), and frequency of adverse effects (ketorolac vs. metoclopramide [RR = 1.07, p = 0.82]). Limited trials suggested that ketorolac offered better pain relief at 1 h compared to sumatriptan and dexamethasone; had lesser frequency of adverse effects than phenothiazines; and was superior to sodium valproate in terms of reduction of pain intensity at 1 h, need for rescue medication, and sustained headache freedom within 24 h. CONCLUSIONS: Ketorolac may have similar efficacy to phenothiazines and metoclopramide in treating acute migraine headache. Ketorolac may also offer better pain control than sumatriptan, dexamethasone, and sodium valproate. However, given the lack of evidence due to inadequate number of trials available, future studies are warranted.

Patient Factors in Inappropriate Antibiotic Prescribing for Upper Respiratory Tract Infection in the Emergency Department.

BACKGROUND: Emergency departments (EDs) are frequently misused for non-emergency cases such as upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs). Flooding of these cases may contribute to inappropriate antibiotic prescribing. The aim of this study was to determine the patient factors associated with inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for URTIs in the EDs. METHODS: This cross-sectional study involved patients over age 3 years old who presented with URTI to the green zone of the ED of a tertiary hospital on the east coast of Malaysia in 2018-2019. Convenient sampling was done. The patients were categorised into two groups according to their McIsaac scores: positive (≥ 2) or negative (< 2). Antibiotics given to the negative McIsaac group were considered inappropriate. RESULTS: A total of 261 cases were included - 127 with positive and 134 with negative McIsaac scores. The most common symptoms were fever and cough. About 29% had inappropriate antibiotic prescribing with a high rate for amoxycillin. Duration of symptoms of one day or less (OR 18.5; 95% CI: 1.65, 207.10; P = 0.018), presence of chills (OR 4.36; 95% CI: 1.13, 16.88; P = 0.033) and diagnosis of acute tonsillitis (OR 5.26; 95% CI: 1.76, 15.72; P = 0.003) were significantly associated with inappropriate antibiotic prescription. CONCLUSION: Factors influencing inappropriate antibiotic prescribing should be pointed out to emergency doctors to reduce its incidence.

Norepinephrine in Septic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Most experts recommend norepinephrine as the first-line agent in septic shock. Our objective was to determine the effectiveness and safety of norepinephrine in patients with septic shock. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Epistemonikos, as well as MEDLINE from 1966 till August 2019. Screening of full texts, evaluation for eligibility, and data extraction were done by four independent reviewers. We estimated risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) using a random-effects model with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The primary outcomes included the number of participants who achieved the target mean arterial pressure (MAP), time to achieve the target MAP, and number of participants with all-cause 28-day mortality. The secondary outcomes included the length of stay in the intensive care unit, length of hospital stay, incidence of arrhythmia and myocardial infarction, vasopressor-free days, and number of participants with all-cause 90-day mortality. RESULTS: We identified 11 randomized controlled trials with a total of 4,803 participants. There was no difference in the number of participants who achieved the target MAP between those patients receiving norepinephrine and other vasopressors (RR 1.44; 95% CI, 0.32 to 6.54; P = 0.640; I2 = 94%; two trials, 116 participants). There was no significant difference in time to achieve the target MAP (MD -0.05; 95%, CI, -0.32 to 0.21; P = 0.690; I2 = 26%; two trials, 1763 participants) and all-cause 28-day mortality (RR 0.95; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.02; P = 0.160; I2 = 0%; seven trials, 4,139 participants). Regarding the secondary outcome, norepinephrine may significantly reduce the incidence of arrhythmia as compared to other vasopressors (RR 0.64; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.97; P = 0.030; I2 = 64%; six trials, 3974 participants). There was no difference in the incidence of myocardial infarction (RR 1.28; 95% CI, 0.79 to 2.09), vasopressor-free day (RR 0.46; 95% CI, -1.82 to 2.74) and all-cause 90-day mortality (RR 1.08; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.21) between norepinephrine and vasopressors. CONCLUSION: In minimizing the occurrence of an arrhythmia, norepinephrine is superior to other vasopressors, making it safe to be used in septic shock. However, there was insufficient evidence concerning mortality and achievement of the target MAP outcomes.

Ketamine-propofol (Ketofol) for procedural sedation and analgesia in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review is to elucidate the efficacy and side effects of ketofol in comparison to other anaesthetic agents during procedural sedation and analgesia. METHOD: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (1996 to Feb 2019) and MEDLINE (1966 to Feb 2019) were searched, including the related randomised control trials and reviewed articles to find unpublished trials or trials not obtained via electronic searches. Inclusion criteria for the studies included comparing recovery time, recording clinician satisfaction, and assessing the adverse effects of ketofol. RESULTS: Eleven trials consisting of a total of 1274 patients met our criteria and were included in this meta-analysis. Five trials compared ketofol with a single agent, while six trials compared ketofol with combined agents. While comparing between ketofol and a single agent (either ketamine or propofol), ketofol showed significant effect on recovery time (MD: -9.88, 95% CI: - 14.30 to - 5.46; P = 0.0003; I2 = 92%). However, no significant difference was observed while comparing ketofol with combined agents (RR: 0.75, 95% CI: - 6.24 to 7.74; P < 0.001; I2 = 98%). During single-agent comparison, ketofol showed no significant differences in terms of clinician satisfaction (RR: 2.86, 95% CI: 0.64 to 12.69; P = 0.001; I2 = 90%), airway obstruction (RR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.35 to 11.48; P = 0.81; I2 = 0%), apnoea (RR: 0.9, 95% CI: 0.33 to 2.44; P = 0.88; I2 = 0%), desaturation (RR: 1.11, 95% CI: 0.64 to 1.94; P = 0.28; I2 = 21%), nausea (RR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.91 to 1.41; P = 0.2; I2 = 38%), and vomiting (RR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.25 to 1.61; P = 0.18; I2 = 42%). During comparison with combined agents, ketofol was more effective in reducing hypotension (RR: 4.2, 95% CI: 0.2 to 0.85; P = 0.76; I2 = 0%), but no differences were observed in terms of bradycardia (RR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.14 to 03.63; P = 0.09; I2 = 53%), desaturation (RR: 1.9, 95% CI: 0.15 to 23.6; P = 0.11; I2 = 61%), and respiratory depression (RR: 1.98, 95% CI: 0.18 to 21.94; P = 0.12; I2 = 59%). CONCLUSION: There is low certainty of evidence that ketofol improves recovery time and moderate certainty of evidence that it reduces the frequency of hypotension. There was no significant difference in terms of other adverse effects when compared to other either single or combined agents. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019127278 .

An 11-Year Analysis of Emergency Presentations of Melioidosis in Northeastern Malaysia.

A neglected tropical disease, melioidosis is known to have variability in clinical presentations. Here, we described clinical features that should alert the physicians on the possibility of melioidosis. In this review of 86 cases from 2001 to 2011, the common presentations of melioidosis in the Emergency Department (ED), Hospital Universiti Sains Malaysia were; male gender (79.1 %), in working age group (47.8 ± 15.2 year-old), worked in contact with soil (73.3 %), presented with fever (91.9 %), in rainy season (55.8 %), have underlying diabetes mellitus (79.1 %), have leukocytosis (67.4 %) and high blood glucose (62.8 %) during presentation. In 34.9 % of cases, the antimicrobials were initiated at the ED and only 10.5 % include antimelioid drugs. Thirty-one patients (36.0 %) died due to melioidosis and 51.6 % of this were within 48 h of admission. Despite high mortality rate, the clinical awareness on the possibility of melioidosis among emergency physicians is still low and need to be strengthened.