A Prospective Observational Study of Patients Receiving Intravenous and Intramuscular Olanzapine in the Emergency Department.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Parenteral olanzapine is an emerging therapy for a variety of conditions in the emergency department (ED). Intramuscular administration is standard; however, intravenous administration has been proposed as a safe alternative route. We investigate the safety and efficacy of both intramuscular and intravenous olanzapine in the ED when used for a variety of indications. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study of patients presenting to an urban Level I trauma center ED. Trained research associates screened the ED for patients receiving parenteral olanzapine. The primary outcome of the study was incidence of respiratory depression measured with standard markers. Secondary outcomes included use of additional doses or sedatives, corrected QT interval (QTc) data, time to nadir sedation, adverse events, and physician assessment of efficacy. RESULTS: There were 784 patients included in the final analysis. Intravenous olanzapine was administered to 295 patients; 489 received intramuscular olanzapine. Respiratory depression occurred in 11 of 295 patients (3.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.6% to 5.9%) receiving intravenous olanzapine and 10 of 489 (2.0%; 95% CI 0.8% to 3.3%) receiving intramuscular olanzapine. Seven patients required intubation, 2 in the intravenous group and 5 in the intramuscular group. Nonrespiratory complications occurred in 8 patients, 6 of 295 (2.0%; 95% CI 0.4% to 3.6%) in the intravenous group and 2 of 489 (0.4%; 95% CI 0% to 0.96%) in the intramuscular group. Dysrhythmias were isolated to 2 episodes of bradycardia requiring only supportive care. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that, with proper monitoring, administration of olanzapine, both intramuscular and intravenous, is safe for several indications in the ED.

Echocardiographic evaluation of a TASER-X26 application in the ideal human cardiac axis.

OBJECTIVES: TASER electronic control devices (ECDs) are used by law enforcement to subdue aggressive persons. Some deaths temporally proximate to their use have occurred. There is speculation that these devices can cause dangerous cardiac rhythms. Swine research supports this hypothesis and has reported significant tachyarrhythmias. It is not known if this occurs in humans. The objective of this study was to determine the occurrence of tachyarrhythmias in human subjects subjected to an ECD application. METHODS: This was a prospective, nonblinded study. Human volunteers underwent limited echocardiography before, during, and after a 10-second TASER X26 ECD application with preplaced thoracic electrodes positioned in the upper right sternal border and the cardiac apex. Images were analyzed using M-mode through the anterior leaflet of the mitral valve for evidence of arrhythmia. Heart rate (HR) and the presence of sinus rhythm were determined. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: A total of 34 subjects were enrolled. There were no adverse events reported. The mean HR prior to starting the event was 108.7 beats/min (range 65 to 146 beats/min, 95% CI = 101.0 to 116.4 beats/min). During the ECD exposure, the mean HR was 120.1 beats/min (range 70 to 158 beats/min, 95% CI = 112.2 to 128.0 beats/min) and a mean of 94.1 beats/min (range 55 to 121 beats/min, 95% CI = 88.4 to 99.7 beats/min) at 1 minute after ECD exposure. Sinus rhythm was clearly demonstrated in 21 (61.7%) subjects during ECD exposure (mean HR 121.4 beats/min; range 75 to 158 beats/min, 95% CI = 111.5 to 131.4). Sinus rhythm was not clearly demonstrated in 12 subjects due to movement artifact (mean HR 117.8 beats/min, range 70 to 152 beats/min, 95% CI = 102.8 to 132.8 beats/min). CONCLUSIONS: A 10-second ECD exposure in an ideal cardiac axis application did not demonstrate concerning tachyarrhythmias using human models. The swine model may have limitations when evaluating ECD technology.

Personal Protection Measures Against Mosquitoes, Ticks, and Other Arthropods.

Arthropod-associated diseases are a major cause of morbidity among travelers. Obtaining a detailed travel itinerary and understanding traveler-specific and destination-specific risk factors can help mitigate the risk of vector-borne diseases. DEET, picaridin, PMD, and IR3535 are insect repellents that offer sufficient protection against arthropod bites. IR3535 does not provide adequate protection against Anopheles mosquitoes, and should be avoided in malaria-endemic regions. General protective measures, such as bite avoidance, protective clothing, insecticide-treated bed nets, and insecticide-treated clothing, should be recommended, especially in malaria-endemic areas. Spatial repellents may prevent nuisance biting, but have not been shown to prevent against vector-borne disease.