CJEM Articles: analgesia
Displaying 1-8 of 8 results
-
September
2008
10
5
Dror Soffer, Michael Yanuka, Pinchas Halpern
Objective: We sought to document the adequacy of acute pain management in a high-volume urban emergency department and the impact of a structured intervention.
Methods: We conducted a prospective, single-blind, pre- and postintervention study on patients who suffered minor-to-moderate trauma. The intervention consisted of structured training sessions on emergency department (ED) analgesia practice and the implementation of a voluntary analgesic protocol.
Results: Preintervention data showed that only 340 of 1000 patients (34%) received analgesia. Postintervention data showed that 693 of 700 patients (99%) received analgesia, an absolute increase of 65% (95% CI 61%-68%), and that delay to analgesia administration fell from 69 (standard deviation [SD] 54) minutes to 35 (SD 43) minutes. Analgesics led to similar reductions in visual analog pain scale ratings during the pre- and postintervention phases (4.5 cm, SD 2.0 cm, and 4.3 cm, SD 3.0 cm, respectively).
Conclusion: Our multifaceted ED pain management intervention was highly effective in improving quality of analgesia, timeliness of care and patient satisfaction. This protocol or similar ones have the potential to substantially improve pain management in diverse ED settings. -
November
2007
9
6
David W. Harrison, Peter J. Zed, Riyad B. Abu-Laban, Winnie W.Y. Chan
Objective: We evaluated the efficacy, safety and patient satisfaction with the use of propofol for procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department (ED).
Methods: All patients receiving propofol for procedural sedation and analgesia in the ED between December 1, 2003, and November 30, 2005, were prospectively assessed. Propofol was administered using a standardized protocol, which included an initial dose of 0.25-0.5 mg/kg followed by 10-20 mg/minute until sedated. Efficacy was evaluated using procedural success rate, recovery time and physician satisfaction. Adverse respiratory effects were defined as apnea for more than 30 seconds or an oxygen saturation of less than 90%. Hypotension was defined as systolic blood pressure < 90 mm Hg or > 20% decrease from baseline. Patient and physician satisfaction were determined using 5-point Likert scales.
Results: Our study included 113 patients with a mean age of 50 (standard deviation [SD] 19) years; 62% were male. The most common procedures were orthopedic manipulation (44%), cardioversion (37%), and abscess incision and drainage (13%). The mean total propofol dose required was 1.6 (SD 0.9) mg/kg. Procedural success was achieved in 90% of cases and the mean patient recovery time was 7.6 (SD 3.4) minutes. No patient (0%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0%-3%) experienced apnea; however, 1 patient (1%, 95% CI 0%-5%) experienced emesis, which resulted in an oxygen saturation < 90%. Nine patients (8%, 95% CI 4%-15%) experienced hypotension and 7 (6%, 95% CI 3%-12%) experienced pain on injection. All patients were very satisfied (92%, 95% CI 85%-96%) or satisfied (8%, 95% CI 4%-15%), and 94% (95% CI 88%-98%) reported no recollection of the procedure. The majority of physicians were very satisfied (85%, 95% CI 77%-91%) or satisfied (6%, 95% CI 3%-12%) with the sedation and the conditions achieved.
Conclusion: When administered as part of a standardized protocol, propofol appears to be a safe and effective agent for performing procedural sedation and analgesia in the ED, and is associated with high patient and physician satisfaction.
-
March
2007
9
2
Andrew Healey, Mark Mensour
-
January
2007
9
1
Jonathan G. Wagner, Mel Herbert, Sanjay Arora
-
March
2006
8
2
David A. Petrie, David G. Urquhart, George J. Kovacs, John M. Tallon, Kirk D. Magee, Linda Hutchins, Robert McKinley, Sam G. Campbell
Objectives: To examine the safety of emergency department (ED) procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) and the patterns of use of pharmacologic agents at a Canadian adult teaching hospital.
Methods: Retrospective analysis of the PSA records of 979 patients, treated between Aug. 1, 2004, and July 31, 2005, with descriptive statistical analysis. This represents an inclusive consecutive case series of all PSAs performed during the study period.
Results: Hypotension (systolic blood pressure ≤ 85 mm Hg) was documented during PSA in 13 of 979 patients (1.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.3%-2.3%), and desaturation (SaO 2 ≤ 90) in 14 of 979 (1.4%; CI 0.1%-2.7%). No cases of aspiration, endotracheal intubation or death were recorded. The most common medication used was fentanyl (94.0% of cases), followed by propofol (61.2%), midazolam (42.5%) and then ketamine (2.7%). The most frequently used 2-medication combinations were propofol and fentanyl (P/F) followed by midazolam and fentanyl (M/F), used with similar frequencies 58.1% (569/979) and 41.0% (401/979) respectively. There was no significant difference in the incidence of hypotension or desaturation between the P/F and M/F treated groups. In these patients, 9.1% (90/979) of patients received more than 2 different drugs.
Conclusions: Adverse events during ED PSA are rare and of doubtful clinical significance. Propofol/fentanyl and midazolam/fentanyl are used safely, and at similar frequencies for ED PSA in this tertiary hospital case series. The use of ketamine for adult PSA is unusual in our facility. -
November
2005
7
6
Lee V. Toner, Steven J. Socransky
Anterior shoulder dislocations are the most common major joint dislocation seen in emergency departments. Intra-articular lidocaine is a useful method of analgesia for facilitating the reduction of anterior shoulder dislocations. Posterior shoulder dislocations represent a small minority of shoulder dislocations. We present the case of a posterior shoulder reduction in an elderly female whose reduction was performed following the intra-articular injection of lidocaine. Intra-articular lidocaine represents a useful alternative to facilitate the reduction of shoulder dislocations, particularly in patients at higher risk for complications from sedation.
-
November
2004
6
6
Katrina Hurley
-
April
1999
1
1
Cathy Metcalfe, Edward C. Dillon, Grant D. Innes, Iain MacPhail, Min Gao
Objective: To determine whether the addition of intravenous dexamethasone to standard emergency department (ED) migraine therapy would decrease the incidence of severe recurrent headache 24 to 48 hours after initial treatment.
Methods: Patients aged 19 to 65 years whose headache was severe enough to require parenteral therapy and who met International Headache Society migraine criteria were eligible for this randomized, double- blind trial. The study was conducted in the ED of 2 community hospitals, 1 of which was a tertiary referral centre. Exclusion criteria included pregnancy, focal findings, fever, meningismus, allergy to the study drug, active peptic ulcer disease and diabetes mellitus. Demographic and clinical data, including headache severity, were recorded. After abortive therapy (antiemetics, intravenous nonsteroidal agents, dihydroergotamine or opioids), blinded nurses administered dexamethasone (24 mg intravenously) or placebo. Patients recorded headache severity on a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) at time T = 0, T = 30 minutes and T = 60 minutes and at discharge. They were contacted 48 to 72 hours later and asked whether they had suffered a recurrence of their headache, categorized as class A (severe, provoking another physician visit), class B (severe, interfering with daily activity but not provoking a physician visit), class C (mild, requiring self-medication but not limiting activity) or class D (mild, requiring no treatment).
Results: Two of 100 patients were lost to follow-up, leaving 98 in the study sample. Placebo recipients were more likely to be female; other baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Median VAS pain score was 83 mm on ED arrival, 35 mm after initial treatment and 12 mm on discharge. At followup, 65 of 98 patients had suffered headache recurrence. In the placebo versus dexamethasone groups, respectively, the results were 11 versus 0 in class A, 11 versus 9 in class B, 7 versus 11 in class C and 4 versus 12 in class D. Regarding the primary outcome, 9 of 49 dexamethasone patients (18%) and 22 of 49 placebo patients (45%) had severe (classes A and B) recurrent headache (odds ratio 0.28; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.69; p = 0 .005).
Conclusions: Migraine recurrence is common after “successful” ED treatment. Inflammation may be a critical factor in migraine genesis. Intravenous dexamethasone decreases the incidence of severe recurrent headache after ED treatment and should be offered to patients thought to be at risk of recurrent headache.
