Response to "Scrutinizing the causal link between excited delirium syndrome and restraint - a commentary on: 'The role of restraint in fatal excited delirium: a research synthesis and pooled analysis' by E.M.F. Strömmer, W. Leith, M.P. Zeegers and M.D. Freeman".

de Boer et al. criticize the conclusions in our 2020 paper on the validity of Excited Delirium Syndrome (ExDS) as "egregiously misleading." Our conclusion was that there "is no existing evidence that indicates that ExDS is inherently lethal in the absence of aggressive restraint." The basis for de Boer and colleague's criticism of our paper is that the ExDS literature does not provide an unbiased view of the lethality of the condition, and therefore the true epidemiologic features of ExDS cannot be determined from what has been published. The criticism is unrelated to the goals or methods of the study, however. Our stated purpose was to investigate "how the term ExDS has evolved in the literature and been endowed with a uniquely lethal quality," and whether there is "evidence for ExDS as a unique cause of a death that would have occurred regardless of restraint, or a label used when a restrained and agitated person dies, and which erroneously directs attention away from the role of restraint in explaining the death." We cannot fathom how de Boer et al. missed this clearly stated description of the study rationale, or why they would endorse a series of fallacious and meaningless claims that gave the appearance that they failed to grasp the basic design of the study. We do acknowledge and thank these authors for pointing out 3 minor citation errors and an equally minor table formatting error (neither of which altered the reported results and conclusions in the slightest), however.

The role of restraint in fatal excited delirium: a research synthesis and pooled analysis.

The purpose of the present study was to perform a comprehensive scientific literature review and pooled data risk factor analysis of excited delirium syndrome (ExDS) and agitated delirium (AgDS). All cases of ExDS or AgDS described individually in the literature published before April 23, 2020 were used to create a database of cases, including demographics, use of force, drug intoxication, mental illness, and survival outcome. Odds ratios were used to quantify the association between death and diagnosis (ExDS vs. AgDS) across the covariates. There were 61 articles describing 168 cases of ExDS or AgDS, of which 104 (62%) were fatal. ExDS was diagnosed in 120 (71%) cases, and AgDS in 48 (29%). Fatalities were more likely to be diagnosed as ExDS (OR: 9.9, p < 0.0001). Aggressive restraint (i.e. manhandling, handcuffs, and hobble ties) was more common in ExDS (ORs: 4.7, 14, 29.2, respectively, p < 0.0001) and fatal cases (ORs: 7.4, 10.7, 50, respectively, p < 0.0001). Sedation was more common in AgDS and survived cases (OR:11, 25, respectively, p < 0.0001). The results of the study indicate that a diagnosis of ExDS is far more likely to be associated with both aggressive restraint and death, in comparison with AgDS. There is no evidence to support ExDS as a cause of death in the absence of restraint. These findings are at odds with previously published theories indicating that ExDS-related death is due to an occult pathophysiologic process. When death has occurred in an aggressively restrained individual who fits the profile of either ExDS or AgDS, restraint-related asphyxia must be considered a likely cause of the death.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Videofluoroscopy for Symptomatic Cervical Spine Injury Following Whiplash Trauma.

BACKGROUND: Intervertebral instability is a relatively common finding among patients with chronic neck pain after whiplash trauma. Videofluoroscopy (VF) of the cervical spine is a potentially sensitive diagnostic tool for evaluating instability, as it offers the ability to examine relative intervertebral movement over time, and across the entire continuum of voluntary movement of the patient. At the present time, there are no studies of the diagnostic accuracy of VF for discriminating between injured and uninjured populations. METHODS: Symptomatic (injured) study subjects were recruited from consecutive patients with chronic (>6 weeks) post-whiplash pain presenting to medical and chiropractic offices equipped with VF facilities. Asymptomatic (uninjured) volunteers were recruited from family and friends of patients. An ethical review and oversight were provided by the Spinal Injury Foundation, Broomfield, CO. Three statistical models were utilized to assess the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) of positive VF findings to correctly discriminate between injured and uninjured subjects. RESULTS: A total of 196 subjects (119 injured, 77 uninjured) were included in the study. All three statistical models demonstrated high levels of sensitivity and specificity (i.e., receiver operating characteristic (ROC) values of 0.71 to 0.95), however, the model with the greatest practical clinical utility was based on the number of abnormal VF findings. For 2+ abnormal VF findings, the ROC was 0.88 (93% sensitivity, 79% specificity) and the PPV and NPV were both 88%. The highest PPV (1.0) was observed with 4+ abnormal findings. CONCLUSIONS: Videofluoroscopic examination of the cervical spine provides a high degree of diagnostic accuracy for the identification of vertebral instability in patients with chronic pain stemming from whiplash trauma.