Francesca L. Beaudoin

Ultrasound-guided femoral nerve blocks in elderly patients with hip fractures ~,**

OBJECTIVES The primary objective of this study was to determine the feasibility of ultrasound-guided femoral nerve blocks in elderly patients with hip fractures in the emergency department (ED). The secondary objective was to examine the effectiveness of this technique as an adjunct for pain control in the ED. METHODS This prospective observational study enrolled a convenience sample of 13 patients with hip fractures. Ultrasound-guided femoral nerve block was performed on all participants. To determine feasibility, time to perform the procedure, number of attempts, and complications were measured. To determine effectiveness of pain control, numerical rating scores were assessed at baseline and at 15 minutes, 30 minutes, and hourly after the procedure for 4 hours. Summary statistics were calculated for feasibility measures. Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank tests and Friedman analysis of variance test were used to compare differences in pain scores. RESULTS The median age of the participants was 82 years (range, 67-94 years); 9 were female. The median time to perform the procedure was 8 minutes (range, 7-11 minutes). All procedures required only one attempt; there were no complications. After the procedure, there were 44% and 67% relative decreases in pain scores at 15 minutes (P < or = .002) and at 30 minutes (P < or = .001), respectively. Pain scores were unchanged from 30 minutes to 4 hours after the procedure (P < or = .77). CONCLUSIONS Ultrasound-guided femoral nerve blocks are feasible to perform in the ED. Significant and sustained decreases in pain scores were achieved with this technique.

A comparison of ultrasound-guided three-in-one femoral nerve block versus parenteral opioids alone for analgesia in emergency department patients with hip fractures: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES The primary objective was to compare the efficacy of ultrasound (US)-guided three-in-one femoral nerve blocks to standard treatment with parenteral opioids for pain control in elderly patients with hip fractures in the emergency department (ED). METHODS A randomized controlled trial was conducted at a large urban academic ED over an 18-month period. A convenience sample of older adults (age ≥ 55 years) with confirmed hip fractures and moderate to severe pain (numeric rating score ≥ 5) were randomized to one of two treatment arms: US-guided three-in-one femoral nerve block plus morphine (FNB group) or standard care, consisting of placebo (sham injection) plus morphine (SC group). Intravenous (IV) morphine was prescribed and dosed at the discretion of the treating physician; physicians were advised to target a 50% reduction in pain or per-patient request. The primary outcome measure of pain relief, or pain intensity reduction, was derived using the 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS) and calculated as the summed pain-intensity difference (SPID) over 4 hours. Secondary outcome measures included the amount of rescue analgesia and occurrence of adverse events (respiratory depression, hypotension, nausea, or vomiting). Outcome measures were compared between groups using analysis of variance for continuous variables and Fishers exact test for categorical data. RESULTS Thirty-six patients (18 in each arm) completed the study. There was no difference between treatment groups with respect to age, sex, fracture type, vital signs (baseline and at 4 hours), ED length of stay (LOS), pre-enrollment analgesia, or baseline pain intensity. In comparing pain intensity at the end of the study period, NRS scores at 4 hours were significantly lower in the FNB group (p < 0.001). Over the 4-hour study period, patients in the FNB group experienced significantly greater overall pain relief than those in the SC group, with a median SPID of 11.0 (interquartile range [IQR] = 4.0 to 21.8) in the FNB group versus 4.0 (IQR = -2.0 to 5.8) in the SC group (p = 0.001). No patient in the SC group achieved a clinically significant reduction in pain. Moreover, patients in the SC group received significantly more IV morphine than those in the FNB group (5.0 mg, IQR = 2.0 to 8.4 mg vs. 0.0 mg, IQR = 0.0 to 1.5 mg; p = 0.028). There was no difference in adverse events between groups. CONCLUSIONS Ultrasound-guided femoral nerve block as an adjunct to SC resulted in 1) significantly reduced pain intensity over 4 hours, 2) decreased amount of rescue analgesia, and 3) no appreciable difference in adverse events when compared with SC alone. Furthermore, standard pain management with parenteral opioids alone provided ineffective pain control in our study cohort of patients with severe pain from their hip fractures. Regional anesthesia has a role in the ED, and US-guided femoral nerve blocks for pain management in older adults with hip fractures should routinely be considered, particularly in cases of refractory or severe pain.

Opioid Prescribing in a Cross Section of US Emergency Departments

STUDY OBJECTIVE Opioid pain reliever prescribing at emergency department (ED) discharge has increased in the past decade but specific prescription details are lacking. Previous ED opioid pain reliever prescribing estimates relied on national survey extrapolation or prescription databases. The main goal of this study is to use a research consortium to analyze the characteristics of patients and opioid prescriptions, using a national sample of ED patients. We also aim to examine the indications for opioid pain reliever prescribing, characteristics of opioids prescribed both in the ED and at discharge, and characteristics of patients who received opioid pain relievers compared with those who did not. METHODS This observational, multicenter, retrospective, cohort study assessed opioid pain reliever prescribing to consecutive patients presenting to the consortium EDs during 1 week in October 2012. The consortium study sites consisted of 19 EDs representing 1.4 million annual visits, varied geographically, and were predominantly academic centers. Medical records of all patients aged 18 to 90 years and discharged with an opioid pain reliever (excluding tramadol) were individually abstracted by standardized chart review by investigators for detailed analysis. Descriptive statistics were generated. RESULTS During the study week, 27,516 patient visits were evaluated in the consortium EDs; 19,321 patients (70.2%) were discharged and 3,284 (11.9% of all patients and 17.0% of discharged patients) received an opioid pain reliever prescription. For patients prescribed an opioid pain reliever, mean age was 41 years (SD 14 years) and 1,694 (51.6%) were women. Mean initial pain score was 7.7 (SD 2.4). The most common diagnoses associated with opioid pain reliever prescribing were back pain (10.2%), abdominal pain (10.1%), and extremity fracture (7.1%) or sprain (6.5%). The most common opioid pain relievers prescribed were oxycodone (52.3%), hydrocodone (40.9%), and codeine (4.8%). Greater than 99% of pain relievers were immediate release and 90.0% were combination preparations, and the mean and median number of pills was 16.6 (SD 7.6) and 15 (interquartile range 12 to 20), respectively. CONCLUSION In a study of ED patients treated during a single week across the country, 17% of discharged patients were prescribed opioid pain relievers. The majority of the prescriptions had small pill counts and almost exclusively immediate-release formulations.

Low-dose Ketamine Improves Pain Relief in Patients Receiving Intravenous Opioids for Acute Pain in the Emergency Department: Results of a Randomized, Double-blind, Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVES Low-dose ketamine has been used perioperatively for pain control and may be a useful adjunct to intravenous (IV) opioids in the control of acute pain in the emergency department (ED). The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of low-dose ketamine as an adjunct to morphine versus standard care with morphine alone for the treatment of acute moderate to severe pain among ED patients. METHODS A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial with three study groups was conducted at a large, urban academic ED over a 10-month period. Eligible patients were 18 to 65 years old with acute moderate to severe pain (score of at least 5 out of 10 on the numerical pain rating scale [NRS] and pain duration < 7 days) who were deemed by their treating physician to require IV opioids. The three study groups were: 1) morphine and normal saline placebo (standard care group), 2) morphine and 0.15 mg/kg ketamine (group 1), or 3) morphine and 0.3 mg/kg ketamine (group 2). Participants were assessed at 30, 60, and 120 minutes after study medication administration and received rescue analgesia as needed to target a 50% reduction in pain. The primary outcome measure of pain relief, or pain intensity reduction, was derived using the NRS and calculated as the summed pain-intensity (SPID) difference over 2 hours. The amount and timing of rescue opioid analgesia was evaluated as a secondary outcome. The occurrence of adverse events was also measured. RESULTS Sixty patients were enrolled (n = 20 in each group). There were no differences between study groups with respect to age, sex, race/ethnicity, preenrollment analgesia, or baseline NRS. Over the 2-hour poststudy medication administration period, the SPIDs were higher (greater pain relief) for the ketamine study groups than the control group (standard care 4.0, interquartile range [IQR] = 1.8 to 6.5; group 1 7.0, IQR = 4.3 to 10.8; and group 2 7.8, IQR = 4.8 to 12.8; p < 0.02). The SPIDs for the ketamine groups were similar (p < 0.46). When compared to standard care, group 2 sustained the reduction in pain intensity up to 2 hours, whereas group 1 was similar to standard care by 2 hours. Similar numbers of patients received rescue analgesia: standard care group, seven of 20, 35%; group 1, four of 20, 20%; and group 2, four of 20, 20% (p = 0.48). Among those receiving rescue analgesia, those in the standard care group received analgesia sooner than either low-dose ketamine group, on average. More participants in the low-dose ketamine groups reported dysphoria and dizziness. CONCLUSIONS Low-dose ketamine is a viable analgesic adjunct to morphine for the treatment of moderate to severe acute pain. Dosing of 0.3 mg/kg is possibly more effective than 0.15 mg/kg, but may be associated with minor adverse events. Future studies should evaluate additional outcomes, optimum dosing, and use in specific populations.

Prescription opioid misuse among ED patients discharged with opioids

STUDY OBJECTIVES The purposes of this study were to determine the prevalence of prescription opioid misuse in a cohort of discharged emergency department (ED) patients who received prescription opioids and to examine factors predictive of misuse. METHODS This prospective observational study enrolled a sample of ED patients aged 18 to 55 years who were discharged with a prescription opioid. Participants completed surveys at baseline in the ED, then 3 and 30 days later. Follow-up surveys contained questions about opioid use and misuse, including screening questions from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. Patients were categorized as misusers if they (1) self-escalated their dose, (2) obtained additional prescription opioids without a prescription, or (3) used for a reason besides pain. RESULTS Of the 85 patients who completed follow-ups, 36 (42%) reported misuse at either 3 or 30 days. There was no difference in demographic variables, pain scores, analgesic treatment, or discharge diagnoses between misusers and nonmisusers. Self-escalation of dose was the most common category of misuse (33/36; 92%). Taking prescription opioids without a doctors prescription was reported by 39% (14/36), and taking pain medications for a reason other than pain was reported by 36% (13/36). The presence of disability, chronic pain, preexisting prescription opioid use, oxycodone use, and past 12-month risk of substance abuse were associated with misuse. CONCLUSIONS Prescription opioid misuse was prevalent among this cohort of ED patients. A heterogeneous mixture of behaviors was captured. Future research should focus on the etiologies of misuse with directed screening and interventions to decrease misuse.

Ovarian torsion: Case–control study comparing the sensitivity and specificity of ultrasonography and computed tomography for diagnosis in the emergency department

OBJECTIVE Evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of pelvic ultrasound (US) and abdominopelvic computed tomography (CT) for the identification of ovarian torsion in women presenting to the emergency department with acute lower abdominal or pelvic pain. MATERIALS AND METHODS This is a retrospective study of 20 cases of ovarian torsion and 20 control patients, all of whom had both US and CT performed in the emergency department. Two radiologists who were blinded to clinical data interpreted all studies as (1) demonstrating an abnormal ovary or not, and (2) suggestive of torsion or not. Sensitivity, specificity and interobserver variation were calculated for each imaging modality. RESULTS Pelvic US was interpreted as demonstrating an abnormal ovary in 90.0% of ovarian torsion cases by reader 1, and in 100.0% by reader 2, whereas CT was interpreted as revealing an abnormal ovary in 100.0% of torsion cases by both readers. Pelvic US for ovarian torsion was 80.0% sensitive (95% CI, 58.4-91.9%) and 95.0% specific (95% CI, 76.4-99.1%) for reader 1, while 80.0% sensitive (95% CI, 58.4-91.9%) and 85.0% specific (95% CI, 64.0-95.0%) for reader 2. Interobserver agreement for pelvic US was fair (Kappa=0.60). Abdominopelvic CT for ovarian torsion was 100.0% sensitive (95% CI, 83.9-100.0%) and 85.0% specific (95% CI, 64.0-94.5%) for reader 1, while 90.0% sensitive (95% CI, 69.9-97.2%) and 90.0% specific (95% CI, 69.9-97.2%) for reader 2. Interobserver agreement was excellent (Kappa=0.85). CONCLUSION The diagnostic performance of CT is not shown to be significantly different from that of US in identifying ovarian torsion in this study. These results suggest that when CT demonstrates findings of ovarian torsion, the performance of another imaging exam (i.e. US) that delays therapy is unlikely to improve preoperative diagnostic yield.

C-reactive protein as predictor of bacterial infection among patients with an influenza-like illness

OBJECTIVE During the influenza season patients are labeled as having an influenza-like illness (ILI) which may be either a viral or bacterial infection. We hypothesize that C-reactive protein (CRP) levels among patients with ILI diagnosed with a bacterial infection will be higher than patients diagnosed with an influenza or another viral infection. METHODS We enrolled a convenience sample of adults with ILI presenting to an urban academic emergency department from October to March during the 2008 to 2011 influenza seasons. Subjects had nasal aspirates for viral testing, and serum CRP. Bacterial infection was determined by positive blood cultures, radiographic evidence of pneumonia, or a discharge diagnosis of bacterial infection. Receiver operating characteristic curve, analysis of variance, and Student t test were used to analyze results. RESULTS Over 3 influenza seasons there were 131 total patients analyzed (48 influenza infection, 42 other viral infection and 41 bacterial infection). CRP values were 25.65 mg/L (95% CI, 18.88-32.41) for influenza, 18.73 mg/L (95% CI, 12.97-24.49) for viral and 135.96 mg/L (95% CI, 99.38-172.54) for bacterial. There was a significant difference between the bacterial group, and both the influenza and other viral infection groups (P < .001). The receiver operating characteristic curve for CRP as a determinant of bacterial infection had an area under the curve of 0.978, whereby a CRP value of <20 had a sensitivity of 100% and >80 had a specificity of 100%. CONCLUSION C-reactive protein is both a sensitive and specific marker for bacterial infection in patients presenting with ILI during the influenza season.

State-level and system-level opioid prescribing policies: The impact on provider practices and overdose deaths, a systematic review

OBJECTIVE In response to persistent public health concerns regarding prescription opioids, many states and healthcare systems have implemented legislation and policies intended to regulate or guide opioid prescribing. The overall impact of these policies is still uncertain. The aim of this systematic review was to examine the existing evidence of provider-level and patient-level outcomes preimplementation and postimplementation of policies and legislation constructed to impact provider prescribing practices around opioid analgesics. DESIGN A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Web of Science, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was conducted to identify studies evaluating the impact of opioid prescribing policies on provider-level and patient-level outcomes. The systematic review was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. RESULTS Eleven studies were included in the review. A meta-analysis was not possible due to between-study heterogeneity. Six of the studies assessed state-level policies, and five were at the level of the healthcare system or hospital. Studies showed temporal associations between policy implementation and reductions in opioid prescribing, as well as opioid-related overdoses. Results were mixed regarding the impact of policies on misuse. The majority of the studies were judged to be of low quality based on the GRADE criteria. CONCLUSIONS There is low to moderate quality evidence suggesting that the presence of opioid prescribing policy will reduce the amount and strength of opioid prescribed. The presence of these policies may impact the number of overdoses, but there is no clear evidence to suggest that it reduces opioid misuse.

Preventing iatrogenic overdose: a review of in-emergency department opioid-related adverse drug events and medication errors.

STUDY OBJECTIVE We describe characteristics of patients with in-emergency department (ED) opioid-related adverse drug events, medication errors, and harm resulting from medication errors; identify patient-, provider-, and system-based factors associated with in-ED opioid-related medication errors and harm; and create a list of strategies to prevent future events. METHODS This retrospective study was conducted at 2 urban academic EDs. Potential iatrogenic opioid overdoses were identified by querying the ED electronic medical record for cases when naloxone was administered after an opioid was administered in the ED. Cases involving medication errors resulting in harm were reviewed qualitatively for common patient-, provider-, and systems-based factors that might have contributed to the event. RESULTS Of 73 ED patients with in-ED opioid-related adverse events that required reversal with naloxone, 43 had a medication error resulting in harm. Patient-, provider-, and systems-based factors that might have contributed to the events included chronic health conditions that could predispose an individual to an opioid-related adverse event, failure to adjust opioid dosing in the elderly and for hepatic or renal impairment, multiple doses and routes of administration of opioids, coadministration of opioids with other sedating medications, and systems-based problems with patient handoffs and pharmacy oversight. CONCLUSION We identified patient-, provider-, and systems-based factors related to opioid-related adverse drug events and medication errors among ED patients who had received naloxone. The results from our assessment can be used to inform educational and policy initiatives aimed to prevent in-ED opioid-related adverse drug events and medication errors.

Reducing hip fractures in the elderly

Clinical question: Is there evidence that hip protectors and vitamin D with calcium supplementation reduce hip fractures in the elderly? Results: The results are that vitamin D and calcium supplementation reduce incidence of hip fractures. Hip protectors provide some benefit in reducing hip fractures in elderly patients in residential facilities. Implementation: Primary care providers should assess patients for the risk of hip fracture and consider using hip protectors and nutritional supplementaton in selected individuals to prevent fractures.