RESUMO
Acute disturbance is a broad term referring to escalating behaviors secondary to a change in mental state, such as agitation, aggression, and violence. Available management options include de-escalation techniques and rapid tranquilization, mostly via parenteral formulations of medication. While the intramuscular route has been extensively studied in a range of clinical settings, the same cannot be said for intravenous (IV); this is despite potential benefits, including rapid absorption and complete bioavailability. This systematic review analyzed existing evidence for effectiveness and safety of IV medication for management of acute disturbances. It followed a preregistered protocol (PROSPERO identification CRD42020216456) and is reported following the guidelines set by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. APA PsycINFO, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases were searched for eligible interventional studies up until May 30th, 2023. Data analysis was limited to narrative synthesis since primary outcome measures varied significantly. Results showed mixed but positive results for the effectiveness of IV dexmedetomidine, lorazepam, droperidol, and olanzapine. Evidence was more limited for IV haloperidol, ketamine, midazolam, chlorpromazine, and valproate. There was no eligible data on the use of IV clonazepam, clonidine, diazepam, diphenhydramine, propranolol, ziprasidone, fluphenazine, carbamazepine, or promethazine. Most studies reported favorable adverse event profiles, though they are unlikely to have been sufficiently powered to pick up rare serious events. In most cases, evidence was of low or mixed quality, accentuating the need for further standardized, large-scale, multi-arm randomized controlled trials with homogeneous outcome measures. Overall, this review suggests that IV medications may offer an effective alternative parenteral route of administration in acute disturbance, particularly in general hospital settings.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to find the association of inflammation and respiratory failure with delirium in COVID-19 patients. We compare the inflammatory and arterial blood gas markers between patients with COVID-19 delirium and delirium in other medical disorders. METHODS: This cross-sectional study used the CHART-DEL, a validated research tool, to screen patients for delirium retrospectively from clinical notes. Inflammatory markers C-reactive protein (CRP) and white cell count (WBC), and the partial pressures of oxygen (PO2) and carbon dioxide (PCO2) were compared between patients with COVID-19 delirium and delirium in other medical disorders. RESULTS: In bivariate analysis, CRP (mg/L) was significantly higher in the COVID-19 group, (81.7 ± 80.0 vs. 58.8 ± 87.7, p = 0.04), and WBC (109/L) was significantly lower (7.44 ± 3.42 vs. 9.71 ± 5.45, p = 0.04). The geometric mean of CRP in the COVID-19 group was 140% higher in multiple linear regression (95% CI = 7-439%, p = 0.03) with age and sex as covariates. There were no significant differences in pO2 or pCO2 across groups. CONCLUSION: The association between higher CRP and COVID-19 in patients with delirium may suggest an inflammatory basis for delirium in COVID-19. Our findings may assist clinicians in establishing whether delirium is due to COVID-19, which may improve management and outcomes of infected patients.
