Does the choice of induction agent in rapid sequence intubation in the emergency department influence the incidence of post-induction hypotension?

OBJECTIVE: To describe the effects of different induction agents on the incidence of post-induction hypotension (PIH) and its associated interventions during rapid sequence intubation (RSI) in the ED. METHODS: A single centre retrospective study of patients intubated between 2018 and 2021 was conducted in a regional Australian ED. The impact of induction agent choice, in addition to demographic and clinical factors on the incidence of PIH were determined using descriptive statistics and a multivariate analysis presented as adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Ketamine and propofol, used either individually or in conjunction with fentanyl, were significantly associated with PIH (ketamine aOR 4.5, 95% CI 1.35-14.96; propofol aOR 4.88, 95% CI 1.46-16.29). Age >60 years was associated with a greater requirement for vasopressors (aOR 4.46, 95% CI 2.49-7.97) and a higher risk of mortality after RSI (aOR 4.2, 95% CI 1.87-9.40). Patients with a shock index >1.0 were significantly more likely to require vasopressors (aOR 5.13, 95% CI 2.35-11.2) and have a cardiac arrest within 15 min of RSI (aOR 3.56, 95% CI 1.07-11.8). CONCLUSIONS: Exposure to both propofol and ketamine is significantly associated with PIH after RSI, alongside age and shock index. PIH is likely multifactorial in nature, and this data supports the sympatholytic effect of induction agents as the underlying cause of PIH rather than the choice of agent itself. Further prospective work including a randomised controlled trial between induction agents is justified to further clarify this important clinical question.

Acute Severe Behavioral Disturbance Requiring Parenteral Sedation in Pediatric Mental Health Presentations to Emergency Medical Services: A Retrospective Chart Review.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To describe the epidemiological factors of mental health presentations in young people to emergency medical services (EMS) and define those experiencing acute severe behavioral disturbance by reviewing parenteral sedation use. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of records of EMS attendance for young people (aged <18 years) with mental health presentations between July 2018 and June 2019 to a statewide EMS system in Australia of a population of 6.5 million persons. In addition, epidemiological data and information about parenteral sedation for acute severe behavioral disturbance and any adverse events were extracted from the records and analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 7,816 patients had mental health presentations with a median age of 15 years (IQR 14-17). The majority (60%) were female. These presentations accounted for 14% of all pediatric presentations to EMS. Out of them, 612 (8%) received parenteral sedation for acute severe behavioral disturbance. A number of factors were associated with increased odds of parenteral sedative medication being used, including autism spectrum disorder (odds ratio [OR] 3.3; confidence interval [CI], 2.7 to 3.9), posttraumatic stress disorder (OR 2.8; CI, 2.2 to 3.5) and intellectual disability (OR 3.6; CI, 2.6 to 4.8). The majority (460, 75%) of young people received midazolam as their first-line medication, with the remaining patients being provided ketamine (152, 25%). No serious adverse events were noted. CONCLUSION: Mental health conditions were a common presentation to EMS. A history of autism spectrum disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, or an intellectual disability increased the odds of receiving parenteral sedation for acute severe behavioral disturbance. Sedation appears generally safe in the out-of-hospital setting.

Pharmacological Emergency management of Agitation in Children and Young people: protocol for a randomised controlled trial of intraMuscular medication (PEAChY-M).

INTRODUCTION: Acute severe behavioural disturbance (ASBD) is a condition seen with increasing frequency in emergency departments (EDs) in adults and young people. Despite the increasing number of presentations and significant associated risks to patients, families and caregivers, there is limited evidence to guide the most effective pharmacological management in children and adolescents. The aim of this study is to determine whether a single dose of intramuscular olanzapine is more effective than intramuscular droperidol at successfully sedating young people with ASBD requiring intramuscular sedation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study is a multicentre, open-label, superiority randomised controlled trial. Young people aged between 9 and 17 years and 364 days presenting to an ED with ASBD who are deemed to require medication for behavioural containment will be recruited to the study. Participants will be randomised in a 1:1 allocation between a single weight-based dose of intramuscular olanzapine and intramuscular droperidol. The primary outcome is the proportion of participants who achieve successful sedation at 1-hour post randomisation without the need for additional sedation. Secondary outcomes will include assessing for adverse events, additional medications provided in the ED, further episodes of ASBD, length of stay in the ED and hospital and satisfaction with management.Effectiveness will be determined using an intention-to-treat analysis, with medication efficacy determined as part of the secondary outcomes using a per-protocol analysis. The primary outcome of successful sedation at 1 hour will be presented as a percentage within each treatment group, with comparisons presented as a risk difference with its 95% CIs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was received from the Royal Children's Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/69948/RCHM-2021). This incorporated a waiver of informed consent for the study. The findings will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal and at academic conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12621001238864.

Pharmacological emergency management of agitation in children and young people: protocol for a randomised controlled trial of oral medication (PEAChY-O).

INTRODUCTION: Acute severe behavioural disturbance (ASBD) is a condition seen with increasing frequency in emergency departments (EDs) in adults and young people. Despite the increasing number of presentations and significant associated risks to patients, families and caregivers, there is limited evidence to guide the most effective pharmacological management in children and adolescents. The aim of this study is to determine whether a single dose of oral olanzapine is more effective than a dose of oral diazepam at successfully sedating young people with ASBD. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study is a multicentre, open-label, superiority randomised controlled trial. Young people aged between 9 years and 17 years and 364 days presenting to an ED with ASBD who are deemed to require medication for behavioural containment will be recruited to the study. Participants will be randomised in a 1:1 allocation between a single weight-based dose of oral olanzapine and oral diazepam. The primary outcome is the proportion of participants who achieve successful sedation at 1-hour post randomisation without the need for additional sedation. Secondary outcomes will include assessing for adverse events, additional medications provided in the ED, further episodes of ASBD, length of stay in the ED and hospital and satisfaction with management.Effectiveness will be determined using an intention-to-treat analysis, with medication efficacy determined as part of the secondary outcomes using a per-protocol analysis. The primary outcome of successful sedation at 1 hour will be presented as a percentage within each treatment group, with comparisons presented as a risk difference with its 95% CIs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was received from the Royal Children's Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/66478/RCHM-2020). This incorporated a waiver of informed consent for the study. The findings will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal and at academic conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12621001236886.

Management of paediatric acute severe behavioural disturbance in emergency departments across Australia: A PREDICT survey of senior medical staff.

OBJECTIVE: Acute severe behavioural disturbance (ASBD) is a condition seen with increasing frequency in EDs. It poses a significant risk to the patient and those around them. Little is known about the epidemiology or most effective management in the paediatric population. The aim of the present study is to clarify the practice of senior emergency doctors in Australia when managing paediatric ASBD. METHODS: The present study was a voluntary electronic questionnaire distributed to and undertaken by senior medical staff in EDs affiliated with the Paediatric Research in Emergency Departments International Collaborative (PREDICT) network. Respondents reported on exposure to and confidence in managing paediatric ASBD and their current practices. RESULTS: A total of 227 (33%) clinicians completed the survey between February and May 2020. Most clinicians were caring for at least two young people with ASBD each week (72%), felt confident regarding the majority of components of management and referred to local clinical practice guidelines (69%). Agitation/sedation rating scales were seldom used (19%). There was a significant variation in self-reported management practices. The choice of whether to use medication at all, the medication chosen and route of administration all varied greatly. Respondents were more willing to provide parenteral medication to young people reported as having recreational drug intoxication (84%) than those with neurodevelopment disorders (65%) when the same degree of agitation was reported. CONCLUSIONS: Within Australia, there is considerable variation in paediatric ASBD practice, in particular regarding medication provision. Further prospective research is required to inform best clinical practice.

Emergency mental health presentations in children with autism spectrum disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

AIM: To characterise the key features and management of young people presenting to the emergency department (ED) with a mental health (MH) complaint and a known diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). METHODS: Retrospective review of all ED MH presentations in children aged 7-17 years, presenting over a 12-month period from the 1st of January 2018 to the 31st of December 2018, to the Royal Children's Hospital in Melbourne, Australia. Univariate analyses were carried out to examine the relationship between an underlying diagnosis of ASD and/or ADHD and a number of key presentation variables. Relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for ED management outcomes. RESULTS: There were 374 presentations in this cohort, representing 28% of the total MH presentations in 2018. The most common reason for presentation was acute severe behavioural disturbance. Young people with ASD and ADHD were at increased risk of having an acute crisis team response activated (ASD RR 2.3, CI 1.6-3.3, ADHD RR 2.2, CI 1.2-4.1). Compared to those without either diagnosis, young people with ASD were more likely to be physically restrained (RR 2.8, CI 1.7-4.6), managed in seclusion (RR 3.3, CI 1.7-6.4) and to receive medication to assist with behavioural de-escalation (RR 2.8, CI 1.6-4.9). CONCLUSIONS: Children with ASD and/or ADHD represent one-quarter of all children presenting to the ED with MH complaints. They experience high rates of acute severe behavioural disturbance. Future research is needed to co-design, implement and evaluate better approaches for their management.

A prospective, randomized, double-blind trial of intravenous chlorpromazine versus intravenous prochlorperazine for the treatment of acute migraine in adults presenting to the emergency department.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of intravenous chlorpromazine versus intravenous prochlorperazine for the treatment of acute migraine in adults presenting to the emergency department (ED). BACKGROUND: Migraine is a common, incapacitating neurological condition. Although chlorpromazine and prochlorperazine are known to be safe, efficacious treatments for migraine, they have never been directly compared. DESIGN: We performed a prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial at a tertiary hospital in Melbourne, Australia. Adults aged 18-65 years, who presented with migraine, were eligible for recruitment. Sixty-six patients were randomized to either chlorpromazine 12.5 mg or prochlorperazine 12.5 mg, both infused in 500 ml of sodium chloride 0.9% over 30 min. Headache severity score, nausea severity score, and the presence of photophobia and phonophobia were assessed at 0, 30, 60, and 120 min. Adverse effects and the need for rescue therapy were recorded. The primary outcome was a reduction in headache severity score from baseline at 60 min post-commencement of the study medicine infusion. RESULTS: Sixty-five patients were included in the analysis. There was a median reduction in headache severity score at 60 min of 3.0 (interquartile range 1.0-4.0) in the chlorpromazine arm versus 2.0 (1.0-4.0) in the prochlorperazine arm (median difference -0.5 (95% confidence interval, -1.9 to 0.9)). We saw no evidence of a difference in secondary outcomes at 30, 60, or 120 min. Side effects were reported in 16/32 (50%) patients in the chlorpromazine group versus 7/33 (21%) in the prochlorperazine group (p = 0.020). Rescue therapy was required in 7/32 (22%) patients in the chlorpromazine group versus 12/33 (36%) in the prochlorperazine group (p = 0.277). CONCLUSIONS: Both chlorpromazine and prochlorperazine are efficacious treatments for acute migraine in adult patients presenting to the ED. This trial found no evidence of superiority of either agent over the other. Caution should be used when prescribing these medicines in the borderline hypotensive patient; in that circumstance, prochlorperazine should be preferentially used.

Iatrogenic medication errors reported to the Victorian Poisons Information Centre.

BACKGROUND: Iatrogenic medication errors are a cause of medical morbidity and mortality. They result in significant cost to the Australian healthcare system each year. There is limited Australian evidence describing the iatrogenic errors occurring within the hospital system. AIMS: To examine and describe iatrogenic medication errors occurring in Victorian healthcare settings through the analysis of referrals to a state Poisons Information Centre (PIC). METHODS: A retrospective review of iatrogenic medication errors reported to the Victorian PIC (VPIC) from community and hospital healthcare settings from January 2015 to December 2019. RESULTS: Over a 5-year period, 357 iatrogenic errors were identified, 63% (n = 224) of which occurred in a hospital setting. The remaining errors occurred in a community healthcare setting. One in five patients were symptomatic from the medication error at the time of the call to the VPIC, and a change in management was required in 45% (n = 165) of all cases. Five percent (n = 17) of patients developed moderate to severe clinical toxicity as determined by the recorded poisoning severity score, and 88% (n = 18) of these required critical care management. Incorrect medication dosing accounted for 62% (n = 221) of errors. Common medication dosing errors included: double dose (51%, n = 114), incorrect medication administered (14%, n = 49), incorrect route (9%, n = 31), incorrect patient (6%, n = 22) and adult dose given to a child (4%, n = 15). CONCLUSIONS: Iatrogenic errors are occurring in the Victorian health care system. These errors can result in serious morbidity. Identification of causative factors and investment in preventative strategies will likely reduce associated morbidity and healthcare costs.