Ketamine for Rapid Sedation of Agitated Patients in the Prehospital and Emergency Department Settings: A Systematic Review and Proportional Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Rapid tranquilization of agitated patients can prevent injuries and expedite care. Whereas antipsychotics and benzodiazepines are commonly used for this purpose, ketamine has been suggested as an alternative. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review is to determine the safety and effectiveness of ketamine to sedate prehospital and emergency department (ED) patients with undifferentiated agitation. METHODS: Studies and case series of patients receiving ketamine for agitation were included. Studies were excluded if ketamine was used for analgesia, procedural sedation, asthma, or induction. Information sources included traditional and gray literature. RESULTS: The initial search yielded 1176 results from 14 databases. After review of titles and abstracts, 32 studies were reviewed and 18 were included in the analysis, representing 650 patient encounters. The mean dose of ketamine was 315 mg (SD 52) given intramuscularly, with adequate sedation achieved in 7.2 min (SD 6.2, range 2-500). Intubation occurred in 30.5% of patients (95% confidence interval [CI] 27.0-34.1%). In the majority of those patients, ketamine was administered by paramedics during ground transport and the patient was intubated on ED arrival. When ketamine was administered in the ED, the intubation rate was 1.8% (95% CI 0.0-4.4%); in air medical transport, the rate was 4.9% (95% CI 0.0-10.3%). Other reported side effects included: vomiting, 5.2% (2.3-8.1%); hypertension, 12.1% (5.7-18.6%); emergence reactions, 3.5% (1.4-5.6%); transient hypoxia, 1.8% (0.1-3.6%) and laryngospasm, 1.3% (0.3-2.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Ketamine provides rapid sedation for undifferentiated agitated patients and is associated with higher intubation rates when used by ground Emergency Medical Services paramedics, compared with ED or air medical transport patients. Other side effects are common but usually self-limiting.

Laceration Management.

BACKGROUND: Traumatic lacerations to the skin represent a fairly common reason for seeking emergency department care. Although the incidence of lacerations has decreased over the past decades, traumatic cutaneous lacerations remain a common reason for patients to seek emergency department care. OBJECTIVE: Innovations in laceration management have the potential to improve patient experience with this common presentation. DISCUSSION: Studies have confirmed that delays in wound closure rarely confer increased rates of infection, although comorbidities such as diabetes, chronic renal failure, obesity, human immunodeficiency virus, smoking, and cancer should be considered. Antibiotics should be reserved for high-risk wounds, such as those with comorbidities, gross contamination, involvement of deeper structures, stellate wounds, and selected bite wounds. Topical anesthetics, which are painless to apply, have a role in select populations. In most studies, absorbable sutures perform similarly to nonabsorbable sutures and do not require revisit for removal. Novel atraumatic closure devices and expanded use of tissue adhesives for wounds under tension further erode the primacy of regular sutures in wound closure. Maintaining a moist wound environment with occlusive dressings is more important than previously thought. Most topical wound agents are of limited benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Recent innovations in wound closure are allowing emergency physicians to shift toward painless, atraumatic, and rapid closure of lacerations.