Ketamine Compared With Morphine for Out-of-Hospital Analgesia for Patients With Traumatic Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Pain is a common out-of-hospital symptom among patients, and opioids are often prescribed. Research suggests that overprescribing for acute traumatic pain is still prevalent, even when limits restricting opioid prescriptions have been implemented. Ketamine hydrochloride is an alternative to opioids in adults with out-of-hospital traumatic pain. Objective: To assess the noninferiority of intravenous ketamine compared with intravenous morphine sulfate to provide pain relief in adults with out-of-hospital traumatic pain. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Intravenous Subdissociative-Dose Ketamine Versus Morphine for Prehospital Analgesia (KETAMORPH) study was a multicenter, single-blind, noninferiority randomized clinical trial comparing ketamine hydrochloride (20 mg, followed by 10 mg every 5 minutes) with morphine sulfate (2 or 3 mg every 5 minutes) in adult patients with out-of-hospital trauma and a verbal pain score equal to or greater than 5. Enrollment occurred from November 23, 2017, to November 26, 2022, in 11 French out-of-hospital emergency medical units. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to ketamine (n = 128) or morphine (n = 123). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the between-group difference in mean change in verbal rating scale pain scores measured from the time before administration of the study drug to 30 minutes later. A noninferiority margin of 1.3 was chosen. Results: A total of 251 patients were randomized (median age, 51 [IQR, 34-69] years; 111 women [44.9%] and 140 men [55.1%] among the 247 with data available) and were included in the intention-to-treat population. The mean pain score change was -3.7 (95% CI, -4.2 to -3.2) in the ketamine group compared with -3.8 (95% CI, -4.2 to -3.4) in the morphine group. The difference in mean pain score change was 0.1 (95% CI, -0.7 to 0.9) points. There were no clinically meaningful differences for vital signs between the 2 groups. The intravenous morphine group had 19 of 113 (16.8% [95% CI, 10.4%-25.0%]) adverse effects reported (most commonly nausea [12 of 113 (10.6%)]) compared with 49 of 120 (40.8% [95% CI, 32.0%-49.6%]) in the ketamine group (most commonly emergence phenomenon [24 of 120 (20.0%)]). No adverse events required intervention. Conclusions and Relevance: In the KETAMORPH study of patients with out-of-hospital traumatic pain, the use of intravenous ketamine compared with morphine showed noninferiority for pain reduction. In the ongoing opioid crisis, ketamine administered alone is an alternative to opioids in adults with out-of-hospital traumatic pain. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03236805.

Factors associated with tracheal intubation-related complications in the prehospital setting: a prospective multicentric cohort study.

Background Emergency tracheal intubation is routinely performed in the prehospital setting. Airway management in the prehospital setting has substantial challenges. Objective The aim of the present study was to determine risk factors predicting tracheal intubation-related complications on the prehospital field. Setting A prospective, multicentric, cohort study which was conducted in three mobile ICUs (MICUs; service mobile d'urgence et de réanimation).Outcome measures and analysis Tracheal intubation-related complications were defined as the occurrence of at least one of the following events: oxygen desaturation (SpO2 < 90%) during tracheal intubation, aspiration (regurgitation visualized during laryngoscopy), and vomiting. Difficult intubation was defined as more than two failed direct laryngoscopic attempts, or the need for any alternative tracheal intubation method. Multivariate logistic regressions were used. Results During the 5-year study period, 1915 consecutive patients were intubated in the MICUs participating in the study. Overall, 1287 (70%) patients were successfully intubated after the first laryngoscopic attempt, with rates of 90, 74, 42, and 30% for Cormack-Lehane grade 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Tracheal intubation was difficult in 663 cases (36%). Tracheal intubation-related complications occurred in 267 (14%) patients. In the multivariate analysis, we found that the leading risk factors for tracheal intubation-related complications were Cormack and Lehane grade 3 and 4 [odds ratio (OR) = 1.65; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.05-2.61; and OR = 2.79; 95% CI, 1.56-4.98, respectively], a BMI of more than 30 (OR = 1.61; 95% CI, 1.13-2.28), when intubation was difficult (OR = 1.72; 95% CI, 1.15-2.57), and when tracheal intubation required more than one operator (OR = 2.30; 95% CI, 1.50-3.49).Conclusions In this prospective study, we found that Cormack and Lehane more than grade 2, BMI >30, difficult intubation, and tracheal intubation requiring more than one operator were all independent predictors of tracheal intubation-related complications in the prehospital setting. When these risk factors are identified on scene, adapted algorithms that anticipate the use of a bougie should be generalized to reduce morbidity on the prehospital field.

Intravenous acetaminophen with morphine versus intravenous morphine alone for acute pain in the emergency room: protocol for a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded study (ADAMOPA).

BACKGROUND: In emergency medicine, pain is a frequent reason for consultation. However, there is a great variation in its management which is often insufficient. The use intravenous morphine alone or multimodal analgesia with paracetamol is recommended for severe pain. But robust data are lacking to justify the association of paracetamol with morphine versus morphine alone for pain management in the emergency room (ER). The aim of our study is therefore to assess if in patients with acute pain of moderate to severe intensity with a numerical verbal scale (NVS) ≥5 in the ER, the intravenous administration of morphine alone is not inferior to the administration of intravenous morphine combined with paracetamol at 30 min from the first administration of the study drug. METHODS: ADAMOPA is a prospective, non-inferiority, multicenter, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, randomized (1:1), double-blind trial. Subjects will be enrolled in the ER if they experience moderate to severe, acute, non-traumatic, and traumatic pain, defined as an NVS ≥5. The primary endpoint will be the between-group difference in mean change in NVS pain scores among patients receiving the combination of intravenous morphine plus paracetamol or intravenous morphine given alone, measured from the time before administration of the study medication to 30 min later. DISCUSSION: This trial will determine the clinical utility of the association of paracetamol with morphine for pain management in the emergency room. The ADAMOPA trial will be conducted in accordance with the International Council on Harmonization Good Clinical Practices. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT number: 2019-002149-39. CLINICALTRIALS: gov identifier: NCT04148495. Date of trial registration: November 1, 2019.

Connect dispatch centers for call handling improves performance.

The aim of this Letter to the Editor was to report a strategy to reduce time waiting for emergency calls in a dispatch center, in line with a recently published article that reviewed evidence for medical dispatching systems to accurately dispatch Emergency medical Services. Here, we tested the effect of a connected distribution of calls, where a call is allocated to the first available resource among a pooled group of telecommunicators from several dispatch centers. We found that connect dispatch centers improve dispatch center performance, especially during an overloaded period. It could be leveraged to handle emergency calls without delay and to appropriately dispatch Emergency Medical Services.

Is intravenously administered, subdissociative-dose KETAmine non-inferior to MORPHine for prehospital analgesia (the KETAMORPH study): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Acute pain is a common condition among prehospital patients and prompt management is pivotal. Opioids are the most frequently analgesics used in the prehospital setting. However, opioids are highly addictive, and some patients may develop opioid dependence, even when they are exposed to brief opioid treatments. Therefore, alternative non-opioid analgesia should be developed to manage pain in the prehospital setting. Used at subdissociative doses, ketamine, a noncompetitive N-methyl-D-aspartate and glutamate receptor antagonist, provides analgesic effects accompanied by preservation of protective airway reflexes. In this context, we will carry out a randomized controlled, open-label, multicenter trial to compare a subdissociative dose of ketamine to morphine to provide pain relief in the prehospital setting, in patients with traumatic and non-traumatic pain. METHODS/DESIGN: This will be a multicenter, single-blind, randomized controlled trial. Consecutive adults will be enrolled in the prehospital setting if they experience moderate to severe, acute, non-traumatic and traumatic pain, defined as a numeric rating scale score greater or equal to 5. Patients will be randomized to receive ketamine or morphine by intravenous push. The primary outcome will be the between-group difference in mean change in numeric rating scale pain scores measured from the time before administration of the study medication to 30 min later. DISCUSSION: This upcoming randomized clinical trial was design to assess the efficacy and safety of ketamine, an alternative non-opiate analgesia, to manage non-traumatic and traumatic pain in the prehospital setting. We aim to provide evidence to change prescribing practices to reduce exposition to opioids and the subsequent risk of addiction. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT03236805 . Registered on 2 August 2017.

Key performance indicators' assessment to develop best practices in an Emergency Medical Communication Centre.

INTRODUCTION: Emergency Medical Communication Centre (EMCC) represents a pivotal link in the chain of survival for those requiring rapid response for out-of-hospital medical emergencies. Assessing and grading the performance of EMCCs are warranted as it can affect the health and safety of the served population. OBJECTIVE: The aim of our work was to describe the activity on an EMCC and to explore the associations between different key performance indicators. METHODS: We carried out our prospective observational study in the EMCC of Nantes, France, from 6 June 2011 to 6 June 2015. The EMCC performance was assessed with the following key performance indicators: answered calls, Quality of Service 20 s (QS20), occupation rate and average call duration. RESULTS: A total of 35 073 h of dispatch activity were analysed. 1 488 998 emergency calls were answered. The emergency call incidence varied slightly from 274 to 284 calls/1000 citizens/year between 2011 and 2015. The median occupation rate was 35% (25-44). QS20 was correlated negatively with the occupation rate (Spearman's ρ: -0.78). The structural equation model confirmed that the occupation rate was highly correlated with the QS20 (standardized coefficient: -0.89). For an occupation rate of 26%, the target value estimated by our polynomial model, the probability of achieving a QS20 superior or equal to 95% varied between 56 and 84%. CONCLUSION: The occupation rate appeared to be the most important factor contributing towards the QS20. Our data will be useful to develop best practices and guidelines in the field of emergency medicine communication centres.

The effect of work shift configurations on emergency medical dispatch center response.

OBJECTIVE: It has been proved that emergency medical dispatch centers (EMDC) save lives by promoting an appropriate allocation of emergency medical service resources. Indeed, optimal dispatcher call duration is pivotal to reduce the time gap between the time a call is placed and the delivery of medical care. However, little is known about the impact of work shift configurations (i.e., work shift duration and work shift rotation throughout the day) and dispatcher call duration. Thus, the objective of our study was to assess the effect of work shift configurations on dispatcher call duration. METHODS: During a 1-year study period, we analyzed the dispatcher call durations for medical and trauma calls during the 4 different work shift rotations (day, morning, evening, and night) and during the 10-hour work shift of each dispatcher in the EMDC of Nantes. We extracted dispatcher call durations from our advanced telephone system, configured with CC Pulse + (Genesys, Alcatel Lucent), and collected them in a custom designed database (Excel, Microsoft). Afterward, we analyzed these data using linear mixed effects models. RESULTS: During the study period, our EMDC received 408,077 calls. Globally, the mean dispatcher call duration was 107 ± 45 seconds. Based on multivariate linear mixed effects models, the dispatcher call duration was affected by night work shift and work shift duration greater than 8 hours, increasing it by about 10 ± 1 seconds and 4 ± 1 seconds, respectively (both p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Our study showed that there was a statistically significant difference in dispatcher call duration over work shift rotation and duration, with longer durations seen over night shifts and shifts over 8 hours. While these differences are small and may not have clinical significance, they may have implications for EMDC efficiency.

Does midazolam enhance pain control in prehospital management of traumatic severe pain?

PURPOSE: Midazolam comedication with morphine is a routine practice in pre and postoperative patients but has not been evaluated in prehospital setting. We aimed to evaluate the comedication effect of midazolam in the prehospital traumatic adults. METHODS: A prehospital prospective randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial of intravenous morphine 0.10 mg/kg and midazolam 0.04 mg/kg vs morphine 0.10 mg/kg and placebo. Pain assessment was done using a validated numeric rating scale (NRS). The primary end point was to achieve an efficient analgesic effect (NRS≤3) 20 minutes after the baseline. The secondary end points were treatment safety, total morphine dose required until obtaining NRS≤3, and efficient analgesic effect 30 minutes after the baseline. FINDINGS: Ninety-one patients were randomized into midazolam (n=41) and placebo (n=50) groups. No significant difference in proportion of patients with a pain score≤3 was observed between midazolam (43.6%) and placebo (45.7%) after 20 minutes (P=.849). Secondary end points were similar in regard with proportion of patients with a pain score≤3 at T30, the side effects and adverse events except for drowsiness in midazolam vs placebo, 43.6% vs 6.5% (P<.001). No significant difference in total morphine dose was observed, that is, midazolam (14.09 mg±6.64) vs placebo (15.53 mg±6.27) (P=.315). CONCLUSIONS: According to our study, midazolam does not enhance pain control as an adjunctive to morphine regimen in the management of trauma-induced pain in prehospital setting. However, such midazolam use seems to be associated with an increase in drowsiness.

Predictive factors of successful telephone-assisted cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

BACKGROUND: Our emergency medical service developed a telephone (phone)-assisted cardiopulmonary resuscitation (PACPR) procedure. OBJECTIVES: To describe this procedure and study the factors modulating its implementation. METHODS: We conducted a single-center prospective study of telephone calls to our emergency medical communication center for cardiac arrest, for which PACPR was initiated. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients were included in the study. In six cases, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) had been started before the call. When PACPR was initiated, CPR was performed until the rescue team arrived in 27 cases. One-third (n = 9) of the bystanders in these cases knew first-aid interventions, and all of these bystanders continued CPR until the rescue team arrived. The absence of a familial relationship between bystander and patient facilitated the continuation of CPR (100% vs. 37% with family ties, p = 0.01). CPR was continued more often if the bystander immediately agreed to PACPR than when he or she did not agree at first (88% vs. 45%, respectively, p = 0.01). When an obstacle to performing CPR was encountered, CPR was then performed in 57% of cases vs. 100% of cases with no obstacle (p = 0.003). These obstacles were associated with either the bystander (panic, apprehension, feelings of inadequacy, physical inability, indirect witness, tiredness) or the victim (morphotype, physical position). The presence of an obstacle, compared to no obstacle, associated with the bystander lowered the CPR performance rate (58% vs. 94%, respectively, p = 0.01). The presence of an obstacle, compared to no obstacle, associated with the victim also lowered CPR performance rate (50% vs. 85%, respectively, p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates the feasibility of PACPR. The results may lead to a better understanding of facilitating factors and obstacles to telephone-assisted CPR, with the goal of improving its implementation. Good command of communication tools, identification of an appropriate bystander, and appropriate victim positioning are three fundamental factors of success.

[The Brugada syndrome. To be evoked in case of malaise in a young adult]. / Le syndrome de Brugada. A évoquer devant un malaise du sujet jeune.

A DIAGNOSIS TO BE EVOKED: The Brugada syndrome is a rare but serious inherited disease that causes sudden cardiac death by ventricular tachycardia and fibrillation, especially in younger men. Diagnostic problems are related to the possible absence of symptoms although the electrocardiogram (ECG) reveals the characteristics of a Brugada syndrome and to the variations in the ECG in the same patient over time. THREE ELECTROCARDIOLOGICAL ASPECTS: Type 1 corresponds to the historical description with ST segment elevation at point J of at least 3 mm from its summit and upward convex ST segment followed by a negative T wave. In Type 2, the extent of point I is of 2 mm, the ST segment has a saddle form and remains at least 1 mm above the isoelectric line, the T wave is positive or biphasic. In Type 3, the terminal section of the ST segment never exceeds 1 mm above the isoelectric line. In the case of a Type 1 ECG, a pharmacodynamic test is of no interest. REGARDING TREATMENT: The only treatment to have demonstrated its efficacy is the implantable automatic defibrillator, indicated in symptomatic patients.