Factors associated with paediatric and adolescent Emergency Department presentations involving acute behavioural disturbance events.

AIM: Studies reporting factors associated with paediatric/adolescent acute behavioural disturbance (ABD) in the Emergency Department (ED) are lacking. The aim of this study is to describe paediatric/adolescent ED presentations involving ABD events. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of presentations involving ABD events, identified via hospital security log, to a tertiary referral paediatric ED during the 2017 calendar year. Data reported included: cause of presentation, use of sedation/physical restraint, ED/inpatient length of stay (LOS) and time requiring security staff presence. RESULTS: From 280 reported ABD episodes 26 were excluded leaving 254 events involving 150 patients across 233 presentations of whom 38 (25.3%) presented on multiple occasions. Median age was 14 years (interquartile range (IQR): 13-16), 132/233 (56.7%) were female, 167/233 (71.7%) primary mental health complaints, 30/233 (12.9%) deliberate self-harm, 18/233 (7.7%) deliberate self-poisoning, 11/233 (4.7%) acute intoxication and 7/233 (3.0%) other. Transport to hospital involved police and ambulance in 124/233 (53.2%), ambulance only 71/233 (30.5%), police only 16/233 (6.9%), relative or carer 20/233 (8.6%), with self-presentation in 2/233 (0.9%). Sedation or physical restraint was used in 81/233 (34.8%), both 38/233 (16.3%), restraint only 26/233 (11.2%) and sedation only 17/234 (7.3%). Intra-muscular droperidol accounted for 57/96 (59.4%) sedations, IM/IV benzodiazepines 15/96 (15.6%), IM/IV ketamine 5/96 (5.2%) and 19/96 (19.8%) other. Discharge from ED occurred in 171/233 (73.1%) with median ED LOS 5.1 h (IQR: 3.5-7.7) and median hospital LOS 92.4 h (IQR: 47.5-273.4) for those admitted. The Mental Health Act was utilised in 183/233 (78.5%) presentations. Median security staff time requirement per presentation was 2.4 h (IQR: 1.0-3.9). CONCLUSIONS: Paediatric/adolescent ED presentations involving ABD are primarily due to mental health complaints. Less than half require the use of sedation/physical restraint. Time requiring security staff involvement is a significant resource consumption.

QT interval prolongation in opioid agonist treatment: analysis of continuous 12-lead electrocardiogram recordings.

AIMS: Methadone is a widely used opioid agonist treatment associated with QT prolongation and torsades de pointes. We investigated the QT interval in patients treated with methadone or buprenorphine using continuous 12-lead Holter recordings. METHODS: We prospectively made 24-h Holter recordings in patients prescribed methadone or buprenorphine, compared to controls. After their normal dose a continuous 12-lead Holter recorder was attached for 24 h. Digital electrocardiograms were extracted hourly from the Holter recordings. The QT interval was measured automatically (H-scribe software, Mortara Pty Ltd) and checked manually. The QT interval was plotted against heart rate (HR) on the QT nomogram to determine abnormality. Demographics, dosing, medical history and laboratory investigations were recorded. RESULTS: There were 58 patients (19 methadone, 20 buprenorphine and 19 control); median age 35 years (20-56 years); 33 males. Baseline characteristics were similar. Median dose of methadone was 110 mg day-1 (70-170 mg day-1 ) and buprenorphine was 16 mg day-1 (12-32 mg day-1 ). Seven participants had abnormal QT intervals. There was a significant difference in the proportion of prescribed methadone with abnormal QT intervals, 7/19 (37%; 95% confidence interval: 17-61%), compared to controls 0/19 (0%; 95% confidence interval: 0-21%; P = 0.008), but no difference between buprenorphine and controls (0/20). QT vs. HR plots showed patients prescribed methadone had higher QT-HR pairs over 24 h compared to controls. There was no difference in dose for patients prescribed methadone with abnormal QT intervals and those without. CONCLUSIONS: Methadone is associated with prolonged QT intervals, but there was no association with dose. Buprenorphine did not prolong the QT interval. Twenty four-hour Holter recordings using the QT nomogram is a feasible method to assess the QT interval in patients prescribed methadone.

Population pharmacokinetics of intramuscular droperidol in acutely agitated patients.

BACKGROUND: Intramuscular droperidol is used increasingly for sedation of aggressive and violent patients. This study aimed to characterise the pharmacokinetics of intramuscular droperidol in these patients to determine how rapidly it is absorbed and the expected duration of measurable drug concentrations. METHODS: We undertook a population pharmacokinetic analysis of a subgroup of patients from a clinical trial comparing droperidol and midazolam: 17 receiving 5 mg and 24 receiving 10 mg droperidol. Droperidol was measured using high-performance liquid chromatography. Pharmacokinetic modelling was performed under a nonlinear mixed effects modelling framework (NONMEM v7.2). The model was used to simulate concentration time profiles of three typical doses, 5 mg, 10 mg and 10 mg + 10 mg repeated at 15 min. RESULTS: A two-compartment first-order input with first-order output model fitted the data best. The absorption rate constant was poorly characterised by the data and an estimate of the first order rate constant of absorption when fixed to 10 h-1 provided a stable model and lowest objective function. This represents extremely rapid absorption with a half-life of 5 min. The final model had a clearance of 41.9 l h-1 and volume of distribution of the central compartment of, 73.6 l. Median and interquartile range of initial (alpha) half-life was 0.32 h (0.26-0.37 h) and second (beta) half-life was 3.0 h (2.5-3.6 h). Simulations indicate that 10 mg alone provides an 80% probability of being above the lower limit of quantification (5 µg l-1 ) for 7 h, 2 h longer than for 5 mg. Giving two 10 mg doses increased this duration to 10 h. CONCLUSIONS: Intramuscular droperidol is rapidly absorbed with high therapeutic concentrations after 5 and 10 mg doses, and supports clinical data in which droperidol sedates rapidly for up to 6 h.

Ketamine as Rescue Treatment for Difficult-to-Sedate Severe Acute Behavioral Disturbance in the Emergency Department.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We investigate the effectiveness and safety of ketamine to sedate patients with severe acute behavioral disturbance who have failed previous attempts at sedation. METHODS: This was a prospective study of patients given ketamine for sedation who had failed previous sedation attempts. Patients with severe acute behavioral disturbance requiring parenteral sedation were treated with a standardized sedation protocol including droperidol. Demographics, drug dose, observations, and adverse effects were recorded. The primary outcome was the number of patients who failed to sedate within 120 minutes of ketamine administration or requiring further sedation within 1 hour. RESULTS: Forty-nine patients from 2 hospitals were administered rescue ketamine during 27 months; median age was 37 years (range 20-82 years); 28 were men. Police were involved with 20 patients. Previous sedation included droperidol (10 mg; 1), droperidol (10+10 mg; 33), droperidol (10+10+5 mg; 1), droperidol (10+10+10 mg; 11), and combinations of droperidol and benzodiazepines (2) and midazolam alone (1). The median dose of ketamine was 300 mg (range 50 to 500 mg). Five patients (10%; 95% confidence interval 4% to 23%) were not sedated within 120 minutes or required additional sedation within 1 hour. Four of 5 patients received 200 mg or less. Median time to sedation postketamine was 20 minutes (interquartile range 10 to 30 minutes; 2 to 500 minutes). Three patients (6%) had adverse effects, 2 had vomiting, and a third had a transient oxygen desaturation to 90% after ketamine that responded to oxygen. CONCLUSION: Ketamine appeared effective and did not cause obvious harm in this small sample and is a potential option for patients who have failed previous attempts at sedation. A dose of 4 to 5 mg/kg is suggested, and doses less than 200 mg are associated with treatment failure.

Droperidol v. haloperidol for sedation of aggressive behaviour in acute mental health: randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Agitation and aggression are significant problems in acute psychiatric units. There is little consensus on which drug is most effective and safest for sedation of these patients. AIMS: To compare the effectiveness and safety of haloperidol v. droperidol for patients with agitation and aggression. METHOD: In a masked, randomised controlled trial (ACTRN12611000565943) intramuscular droperidol (10 mg) was compared with intramuscular haloperidol (10 mg) for adult patients with acute behavioural disturbance in a psychiatric intensive care unit. The primary outcome was time to sedation within 120 min. Secondary outcomes were use of additional sedation, adverse events and staff injuries. RESULTS: From 584 patients, 110 were randomised to haloperidol and 118 to droperidol. Effective sedation occurred in 210 (92%) patients within 120 min. There was no significant difference in median time to sedation: 20 min (interquartile range 15-30, range 10-75) for haloperidol v. 25 min (IQR 15-30, range 10-115) for droperidol (P = 0.89). Additional sedation was used more often with haloperidol (13% v. 5%, P = 0.06), but adverse effects were less common with haloperidol (1% v. 5%, P = 0.12). There were 8 staff injuries. CONCLUSIONS: Both haloperidol and droperidol were effective for sedation of patients with acute behavioural disturbance.

The Safety and Effectiveness of Droperidol for Sedation of Acute Behavioral Disturbance in the Emergency Department.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We investigate the safety and effectiveness of droperidol for sedation of acute behavioral disturbance in the emergency department (ED). METHODS: This was a prospective observational study in 6 EDs (August 2009 to April 2013). Adult patients requiring parenteral sedation for acute behavioral disturbance received droperidol 10 mg. If this did not sedate the patient within 15 minutes, further sedation was allowed but droperidol 10 mg was recommended as part of a sedation protocol. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with an abnormal QT interval, defined by the at-risk line on the QT nomogram. Secondary outcomes were effectiveness determined by the time to sedation measured on the Sedation Assessment Tool, use of additional sedation, adverse events, and injury to staff or patients. RESULTS: There were 1,009 patients with an ECG performed within 2 hours of droperidol administration, with a median dose of 10 mg (interquartile range [IQR]10 to 17.5 mg). Thirteen of the 1,009 patients had an abnormal QT (1.3%; 95% confidence interval 0.7% to 2.3%), but 7 of these had another cause attributed for prolonged QT (methadone, escitalopram, amiodarone, or preexisting). In 1,403 patients sedated with a median total dose of droperidol of 10 mg (IQR 10 to 20 mg), the median time to sedation was 20 minutes (IQR 10 to 30 minutes) and 97% were sedated within 120 minutes. Additional sedation was required for 435 patients (31.0%; 95% confidence interval 28.6% to 33.5%). Adverse events occurred in 70 patients (5%) and oversedation without complications in 109 (8%), the latter more common for patients receiving benzodiazepines as additional sedation (16/109 [15%]). There were no cases of torsades de pointes. Injuries occurred in 34 staff members and 4 patients. CONCLUSION: The study supports the use of high-dose droperidol as a safe sedating agent for patients with acute behavioral disturbance in the ED. There is no evidence of increased risk for QT prolongation with the doses used in this study.

High dose droperidol and QT prolongation: analysis of continuous 12-lead recordings.

AIMS: To investigate the QT interval after high dose droperidol using continuous 12-lead Holter recordings. METHODS: This was a prospective study of patients given droperidol with a continuous Holter recording. Patients were recruited from the DORM II study which included patients with aggression presenting to the emergency department. Patients initially received 10 mg droperidol as part of a standardized sedation protocol. An additional 10 mg dose was given after 15 min if required and further doses at the clinical toxicologist's discretion. Continuous 12-lead Holter recordings were obtained for 2-24 h utilizing high resolution digital recordings with automated QT interval measurement. Electrocardiograms were extracted hourly from Holter recordings. The QT interval was plotted against heart rate (HR) on the QT nomogram to determine if it was abnormal. QTc F (Fridericia's HR correction) was calculated and >500 ms was defined as abnormal. RESULTS: Forty-six patients had Holter recordings after 10-40 mg droperidol and 316 QT-HR pairs were included. There were 32 abnormal QT measurements in four patients, three given 10 mg and one 20 mg. In three of the four patients QTc F >500 ms but only in one taking methadone was the timing of QTc F >500 ms consistent with droperidol dosing. Of the three other patients, one took amphetamines, one still had QT prolongation 24 h after droperidol and one took a lamotrigine overdose. No patient given >30 mg had a prolonged QT. There were no arrhythmias. CONCLUSION: QT prolongation was observed with high dose droperidol. However, there was little evidence supporting droperidol being the cause and QT prolongation was more likely due to pre-existing conditions or other drugs.

Randomized controlled trial of intravenous antivenom versus placebo for latrodectism: the second Redback Antivenom Evaluation (RAVE-II) study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Latrodectism is the most important spider envenomation syndrome worldwide. There remains considerable controversy over antivenom treatment. We aimed to investigate whether antivenom resulted in resolution of pain and systemic effects in patients with latrodectism who received standardized analgesia. METHODS: In a multicenter randomized placebo-controlled trial of redback spider antivenom for latrodectism, 224 patients (>7 years) with a redback spider bite and severe pain, with or without systemic effects, were randomized to receive normal saline solution (placebo) or antivenom after receiving standardized analgesia. The primary outcome was a clinically significant reduction in pain 2 hours after trial medication compared with baseline. A second primary outcome for the subgroup with systemic features of envenomation was resolution of systemic features at 2 hours. Secondary outcomes were improved pain at 4 and 24 hours, resolution of systemic features at 4 hours, administration of opioid analgesics or unblinded antivenom after 2 hours, and adverse reactions. RESULTS: Two hours after treatment, 26 of 112 patients (23%) from the placebo arm had a clinically significant improvement in pain versus 38 of 112 (34%) from the antivenom arm (difference in favor of antivenom 10.7%; 95% confidence interval -1.1% to 22.6%; P=.10). Systemic effects resolved after 2 hours in 9 of 41 patients (22%) in the placebo arm and 9 of 35 (26%) in the antivenom arm (difference 3.8%; 95% confidence interval -15% to 23%; P=.79). There was no significant difference in any secondary outcome between antivenom and placebo. Acute systemic hypersensitivity reactions occurred in 4 of 112 patients (3.6%) receiving antivenom. CONCLUSION: The addition of antivenom to standardized analgesia in patients with latrodectism did not significantly improve pain or systemic effects.

Effectiveness of pharmacological treatments for severe agitation in real-world emergency settings: protocol of individual-participant-data network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Severe psychomotor agitation and aggression often require immediate pharmacological intervention, but clear evidence-based recommendations for choosing among the multiple options are lacking. To address this gap, we plan a systematic review and individual-participant-data network meta-analysis to investigate their comparative effectiveness in real-world emergency settings with increased precision. METHODS: We will include randomized controlled trials investigating intramuscular or intravenous pharmacological interventions, as monotherapy or in combination, in adults with severe psychomotor agitation irrespective of the underlying diagnosis and requiring rapid tranquilization in general or psychiatric emergency settings. We will exclude studies before 2002, those focusing on specific reasons for agitation and placebo-controlled trials to avoid concerns related to the transitivity assumption and potential selection biases. We will search for eligible studies in BIOSIS, CENTRAL, CINAHL Plus, Embase, LILACS, MEDLINE via Ovid, PubMed, ProQuest, PsycINFO, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO-ICTRP. Individual-participant data will be requested from the study authors and harmonized into a uniform format, and aggregated data will also be extracted from the studies. At least two independent reviewers will conduct the study selection, data extraction, risk-of-bias assessment using RoB 2, and applicability evaluation using the RITES tool. The primary outcome will be the number of patients achieving adequate sedation within 30 min after treatment, with secondary outcomes including the need for additional interventions and adverse events, using odds ratios as the effect size. If enough individual-participant data will be collected, we will synthesize them in a network meta-regression model within a Bayesian framework, incorporating study- and participant-level characteristics to explore potential sources of heterogeneity. In cases where individual-participant data are unavailable, potential data availability bias will be explored, and models allowing for the inclusion of studies reporting only aggregated data will be considered. We will assess the confidence in the evidence using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) approach. DISCUSSION: This individual-participant-data network meta-analysis aims to provide a fine-tuned synthesis of the evidence on the comparative effectiveness of pharmacological interventions for severe psychomotor agitation in real-world emergency settings. The findings from this study can greatly be provided clearer evidence-based guidance on the most effective treatments. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42023402365.

A prospective study of high dose sedation for rapid tranquilisation of acute behavioural disturbance in an acute mental health unit.

BACKGROUND: Acute behavioural disturbance (ABD) is a common problem in psychiatry and both physical restraint and involuntary parenteral sedation are often required to control patients. Although guidelines are available, clinical practice is often guided by experience and there is little agreement on which drugs should be first-line treatment for rapid tranquilisation. This study aimed to investigate sedation for ABD in an acute mental healthcare unit, including the effectiveness and safety of high dose sedation. METHODS: A prospective study of parenteral sedation for ABD in mental health patients was conducted from July 2010 to June 2011. Drug administration (type, dose, additional doses), time to sedation, vital signs and adverse effects were recorded. High dose parenteral sedation was defined as greater than the equivalent of 10 mg midazolam, droperidol or haloperidol (alone or in combination), compared to patients receiving 10 mg or less (normal dose). Effective sedation was defined as a fall in the sedation assessment tool score by two or a score of zero or less. Outcomes included frequency of adverse drug effects, time to sedation/tranquilisation and use of additional sedation. RESULTS: Parenteral sedation was given in 171 cases. A single drug was given in 96 (56%), including droperidol (74), midazolam (19) and haloperidol (3). Effective sedation occurred in 157 patients (92%), and the median time to sedation was 20 min (Range: 5 to 100 min). The median time to sedation for 93 patients receiving high dose sedation was 20 min (5-90 min) compared to 20 min (5-100 min; p = 0.92) for 78 patients receiving normal dose sedation. Adverse effects occurred in 16 patients (9%); hypotension (14), oxygen desaturation (1), hypotension and oxygen desaturation (1). There were more adverse effects in the high dose sedation group compared to the normal dose group [11/93 (12%) vs. 5/78 (6%); p = 0.3]. Additional sedation was given in 9 of 171 patients (5%), seven in the high dose and two in the normal dose groups. CONCLUSIONS: Large initial doses of sedative drugs were used for ABD in just over half of cases and additional sedation was uncommon. High dose sedation did not result in more rapid or effective sedation but was associated with more adverse effects.

Parenteral sedation of elderly patients with acute behavioral disturbance in the ED.

PURPOSES: This study aimed to investigate sedation of elderly patients with acute behavioral disturbance (ABD) in the emergency department (ED), specifically the safety and effectiveness of droperidol. BASIC PROCEDURES: This was a prospective study of elderly patients (>65 years) with ABD requiring parenteral sedation and physical restraint in the ED. Patients were treated with a standardized sedation protocol that included droperidol. Drug administration, time to sedation, additional sedation, and adverse effects were recorded. Effective sedation was defined as a drop in the sedation assessment tool score by 2 or a score of zero or less. MAIN FINDINGS: There were 49 patients with median age of 81 years (range, 65-93 years); 33 were males. Thirty patients were given 10 mg droperidol, 15 were given 5 mg droperidol, 2 were given 2.5 mg, and 2 were given midazolam. Median time to sedation for patients receiving 10 mg droperidol was 30 minutes (interquartile range, 18-40 minutes), compared with 21 minutes (interquartile range, 10-55 minutes; P = .55) for patients receiving 5 mg droperidol. Three patients were not sedated within 120 minutes. Eighteen patients required additional sedation-10 of 30 (33%; 95% confidence interval, 18%-53%) given droperidol 10 mg compared with 7 of 15 (47%; 95% confidence interval, 22%-73%) given 5 mg. Fourteen patients required resedation. Adverse effects occurred in 5 patients (hypotension [2], oversedation [2], hypotension/oversedation [1])-2 of 30 given 10 mg droperidol and 3 of 19 not treated according to protocol. Midazolam was given initially or for additional sedation in 2 of 5 adverse effects. No patient had QT prolongation. PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS: Droperidol was effective for sedation in most elderly patients with ABD, and adverse effects were uncommon. An initial 5-mg dose appears prudent with the expectation that many will require another dose.

Dexmedetomidine in the emergency department: assessing safety and effectiveness in difficult-to-sedate acute behavioural disturbance.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the safety and effectiveness of dexmedetomidine for sedating patients in whom previous attempts at sedation in the emergency department have failed. METHODS: A study was carried out on dexmedetomidine for sedation of patients with acute behavioural disturbance for whom at least two previous attempts at sedation with other drugs had failed. Either a loading dose of dexmedetomidine was administered or a loading dose then an infusion. Administration was titrated to the sedative effect and vital signs. The sedation assessment tool was used to assess effectiveness, and adverse effects were recorded. Effective sedation was defined as a fall in the sedation assessment tool by two levels or more for an hour or more. RESULTS: A total of 13 patients were given dexmedetomidine. Five of the 13 had a loading dose only. Of these five, successful sedation was achieved in two, and the other three were only briefly sedated during the loading dose. One patient had hypotension. Eight patients received an infusion after the loading dose. Three were successfully sedated, but one developed hypotension. Four patients required a decrease in the infusion rate for hypotension, and in three of these the rate decrease compromised the sedation and one of these required intubation for sedation. The final patient had persistent acute behavioural disturbance, which required intubation for management. Five of the eight patients developed hypotension, and, of the five, one had bradycardia and one went into atrial fibrillation. CONCLUSION: Intravenous dexmedetomidine for difficult-to-sedate patients with acute behavioural disturbance is not safe in the emergency department setting.

Risperidone overdose causes extrapyramidal effects but not cardiac toxicity.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe the clinical and electrocardiographic features of risperidone overdose, including the frequency of dystonic reactions. METHODS: A consecutive series of admissions for risperidone overdose (>6 mg) were identified from a prospective database of poisoning admissions to a regional toxicology service. Data extracted included patient demographics, details of ingestion, clinical features including neurological findings and evidence of dystonias, electrocardiographic parameters (heart rate [HR], QRS, and QT intervals), complications, and medical outcomes including intensive care unit admission. In addition to descriptive statistics, visual inspection of plots of QT-HR pairs compared with the QT nomogram was performed. RESULTS: There were 107 patients with 157 presentations, including 38 patients with 45 risperidone-alone overdoses. Of the 38 patients who ingested risperidone alone, the median age was 25 years (interquartile range [IQR],16-31 years), and 19 (50%) were female. The median dose ingested was 33 mg (IQR, 15-75 mg; range, 8-248 mg). Median length of stay was 16 hours (IQR, 8-18 hours), and none was ventilated or admitted to the intensive care unit. There were 5 cases (11%) with dystonic reactions, 26 (58%) with tachycardia (HR >or=100 beats/min), and no cases with hypotension (blood pressure <90 mm Hg). Only 1 patient (2%) recorded a decreased Glasgow Coma Scale score of 14, and there were no seizures or deaths. On review of electrocardiograms in 41 of the 45 cases where risperidone was ingested alone, there were no acute dysrhythmias. In 4 electrocardiograms (10%), there was an abnormal QT-HR pair, but all bar one were associated with an HR of greater than 110 beats/min. The median maximum QRS width was 80 milliseconds (IQR, 80-80 milliseconds; range, 40-120 milliseconds). CONCLUSIONS: Risperidone taken alone in overdose causes minimal effects. Tachycardia and dystonic reactions were the main features of toxicity. Significant cardiac and other neurological features seem to be uncommon.

Randomized controlled trial of intramuscular droperidol versus midazolam for violence and acute behavioral disturbance: the DORM study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We determine whether droperidol, midazolam, or the combination is more effective for intramuscular sedation in violent and acute behavioral disturbance in the emergency department (ED). METHODS: We conducted a blinded randomized controlled trial of intramuscular sedation for violent and acute behavioral disturbance, comparing droperidol (10 mg), midazolam (10 mg), and droperidol (5 mg)/midazolam (5 mg). Inclusion criteria were patients requiring physical restraint and parenteral sedation. The primary outcome was the duration of the violent and acute behavioral disturbance, defined as the time security staff were required. Secondary outcomes included time until additional sedation was administered, staff and patient injuries, further episodes of violent and acute behavioral disturbance, and drug-related adverse effects. RESULTS: From 223 ED patients with violent and acute behavioral disturbance, 91 patients were included; 33 received droperidol, 29 received midazolam, and 29 received the combination. There was no difference in the median duration of the violent and acute behavioral disturbance: 20 minutes (interquartile range [IQR] 11 to 37 min) for droperidol, 24 minutes (IQR 13 to 35 minutes) for midazolam, and 25 minutes (IQR 15 to 38 minutes) for the combination. Additional sedation was required in 11 (33%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 19% to 52%) droperidol patients, 18 (62%; 95% CI 42% to 79%) midazolam patients, and 12 (41%; 95% CI 24% to 61%) in the combination group. The hazard ratio for additional sedation in the midazolam versus droperidol group was 2.31 (95% credible interval 1.01 to 4.71); for the combination versus droperidol, 1.18 (95% credible interval 0.46 to 2.50). Patient and staff injuries and number of further episodes of violent and acute behavioral disturbance did not differ between groups. There were two adverse effects for droperidol (6%; 95% CI 1% to 22%), 8 for midazolam (28%; 95% CI 13% to 47%), and 2 for the combination (7%; 95% CI 1% to 24%). An abnormal QT occurred in 2 of 31 (6%; 95% CI 1% to 23%) droperidol patients, which was not different from the other groups. CONCLUSION: Intramuscular droperidol and midazolam resulted in a similar duration of violent and acute behavioral disturbance, but more additional sedation was required with midazolam. Midazolam caused more adverse effects because of oversedation, and there was no evidence of QT prolongation associated with droperidol compared with midazolam.

The impact of a standardised intramuscular sedation protocol for acute behavioural disturbance in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Acute behavioural disturbance (ABD) is an increasing problem in emergency departments. This study aimed to determine the impact of a structured intramuscular (IM) sedation protocol on the duration of ABD in the emergency department. METHODS: A historical control study was undertaken comparing 58 patients who required physical restraint and parenteral sedation with the structured IM sedation protocol, to 73 historical controls treated predominantly by intravenous sedation, according to individual clinician preference. The primary outcome was the duration of the ABD defined as the time security staff were required. Secondary outcomes were the requirement for additional sedation, drug related-adverse effects and patient and staff injuries. RESULTS: The median duration of the ABD in patients with the new sedation protocol was 21 minutes (IQR: 15 to 35 minutes; Range: 5 to 78 minutes) compared to a median duration of 30 minutes (IQR: 15 to 50 minutes; Range: 5 to 135 minutes) in the historical controls which was significantly different (p = 0.03). With IM sedation only 27 of 58 patients (47%; 95% CI: 34% to 60%) required further sedation compared to 64 of 73 historical controls (88%; 95%CI: 77% to 94%). There were six (10%) drug-related adverse events with the new IM protocol [oxygen desaturation (5), oxygen desaturation/airway obstruction (1)] compared to 10 (14%) in the historical controls [oxygen desaturation (5), hypoventilation (4) and aspiration (1)]. Injuries to staff occurred with three patients using the new sedation protocol and in seven of the historical controls. Two patients were injured during the new protocol and two of the historical controls. CONCLUSION: The use of a standardised IM sedation protocol was simple, more effective and as safe for management of ABD compared to predominantly intravenous sedation.

Intralipid therapy does not improve level of consciousness in overdoses with sedating drugs: a case series.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of intralipid emulsion therapy (ILE) in sedating drugs presenting to an urban emergency department. METHODS: Following the introduction of a clinical protocol for the use of ILE a retrospective chart review was undertaken, which describes the use of ILE in treating sedating drug overdose in a facility with a tertiary referral level clinical toxicology unit. Demographic data as well as details of drug ingested, physiological parameters and disposition were extracted from the medical record. RESULTS: Over a 7 month period nine cases were treated with intralipid, of which two were male and the median age was 33 years (17-52 years). Endotracheal intubation was required in seven cases and of the other two, one required a nasopharyngeal airway for several hours while being observed in a critical care area. One patient was managed in the intensive care unit without intubation. The median duration of ventilation in the seven patients was 31 h (22-82 h), and median length of stay for all nine cases was 63 h (24-133 h). CONCLUSION: This study does not support any clinically significant effect of intralipid in sedating drug overdose.

Individual patient assessment of methadone-induced QT prolongation with digital holter recording.

A 27-year-old male who had been on methadone therapy for 6 months was investigated with a 12-lead digital holter because of a prolonged QT on a standard 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG). The patient had 24-hour holter recording on and off methadone therapy and multiple digitized 12-lead ECG data were captured for on-screen measurement of the QT interval. For each 24-hour period QT-HR pairs were plotted on the QT nomogram showing QT prolongation on methadone but not when it was ceased. This provides a highly accurate method for evaluating drug-induced QT prolongation.

Sedation assessment tool to score acute behavioural disturbance in the emergency department.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the sedation assessment tool (SAT) in assessing patient response to treatment for acute behavioural disturbance (ABD). METHODS: The SAT is a simplified version of the altered mental status score (AMSS) and is a 7-point scale assessing levels of agitation and sedation using only two descriptors. To assess the SAT we firstly compared plots of the SAT and the AMSS versus time in patients with ABD recruited to a clinical trial. AMSS were converted to the SAT for this comparison. Second, the sensitivity and specificity were calculated for an increase in the SAT to +2 or +3 as a predictor of whether additional sedation was required in a prospective cohort of 138 patients. Third, interrater reliability was assessed using two individuals to score the same patient at two different time points and finally the time to record the score was measured. RESULTS: Plots of AMSS and SAT for 91 patients in the clinical trial illustrated similar trends in agitation/sedation. Seventeen of 138 patients in the second cohort had an increase in the SAT. Fifteen of 17 (88%) received additional sedation. The sensitivity and specificity of the SAT for additional sedation was 100% (95% CI 75-100%) and 98% (95% CI 94-100%), respectively. The median time for staff to assign the SAT was 10 s (range 3-15 s). Interrater reliability was high with a kappa of 0.87. CONCLUSION: The SAT is a simple, rapid and useful measure of the level of agitation/sedation in patients with ABD. Increases in the score reliably indicated the need for further sedation.

Digital Holter measurement of QT prolongation in ziprasidone overdose.

OBJECTIVE: QT prolongation is an important complication in drug overdose, particularly with some antidepressants and antipsychotics. There are problems with the accurate measurement of the QT interval and determining for what QT interval patients should be monitored, because of the risk of torsades des pointes (TdP). We report a case of ziprasidone overdose with QT prolongation, demonstrating different methods of measuring the QT interval. CASE REPORT: A 47-year-old female presented after taking 1.2 g of ziprasidone and 250 mg of diazepam. She was taking propranolol and venlafaxine therapeutically. She developed bradycardia and QT prolongation (540 msec). She was transferred to a telemetry bed and observed for 48 h until her QT interval returned to normal (460 msec). QT intervals were extracted from (1) 12-lead digital Holter recordings (gold standard); (2) automated measurements on standard electrocardiograms (ECGs); and (3) manual measurements on standard ECGs, and compared on a QT versus time plot. An abnormal QT was determined based on the QT nomogram. Manual QT measurements showed a clear temporal association between ziprasidone overdose and a long QT, consistent with accurate QT measurements using continuous 12-lead Holter recordings with automatic QT measurements. However, standard automated measurements did not indicate an abnormal QT. CONCLUSIONS: Manual measurement of the QT interval appeared to be similar to the more accurate measurement of the QT by automated digital Holter recordings and better than standard automated measurements. Manual QT measurements would be more appropriate in clinical assessment of patients.