Illya Pushkar

Intravenous Subdissociative-Dose Ketamine Versus Morphine for Analgesia in the Emergency Department: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE We assess and compare the analgesic efficacy and safety of subdissociative intravenous-dose ketamine with morphine in emergency department (ED) patients. METHODS This was a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial evaluating ED patients aged 18 to 55 years and experiencing moderate to severe acute abdominal, flank, or musculoskeletal pain, defined as a numeric rating scale score greater than or equal to 5. Patients were randomized to receive ketamine at 0.3 mg/kg or morphine at 0.1 mg/kg by intravenous push during 3 to 5 minutes. Evaluations occurred at 15, 30, 60, 90, and 120 minutes. Primary outcome was reduction in pain at 30 minutes. Secondary outcome was the incidence of rescue analgesia at 30 and 60 minutes. RESULTS Forty-five patients per group were enrolled in the study. The primary change in mean pain scores was not significantly different in the ketamine and morphine groups: 8.6 versus 8.5 at baseline (mean difference 0.1; 95% confidence interval -0.46 to 0.77) and 4.1 versus 3.9 at 30 minutes (mean difference 0.2; 95% confidence interval -1.19 to 1.46; P=.97). There was no difference in the incidence of rescue fentanyl analgesia at 30 or 60 minutes. No statistically significant or clinically concerning changes in vital signs were observed. No serious adverse events occurred in either group. Patients in the ketamine group reported increased minor adverse effects at 15 minutes post-drug administration. CONCLUSION Subdissociative intravenous ketamine administered at 0.3 mg/kg provides analgesic effectiveness and apparent safety comparable to that of intravenous morphine for short-term treatment of acute pain in the ED.

A prospective randomized, double-dummy trial comparing intravenous push dose of low dose ketamine to short infusion of low dose ketamine for treatment of moderate to severe pain in the emergency department

Study objective Compare adverse effects and analgesic efficacy of low‐dose ketamine for acute pain in the ED administered either by single intravenous push (IVP) or short infusion (SI). Methods Patients 18–65, presenting to ED with acute abdominal, flank, or musculoskeletal pain with initial pain score ≥ 5, were randomized to ketamine 0.3 mg/kg by either IVP or SI with placebo double‐dummy. Adverse effects were evaluated by Side Effects Rating Scale for Dissociative Anesthetics (SERSDA) and Richmond Agitation‐Sedation Scale (RASS) at 5, 15, 30, 60, 90, and 120 min post‐administration; analgesic efficacy was evaluated by Numerical Rating Scale (NRS). Results 48 patients enrolled in the study. IVP group had higher overall rates of feeling of unreality on SERSDA scale: 92% versus 54% (difference 37.5%; p = 0.008; 95% CI 9.3–59.5%). At 5 min median severity of feeling of unreality was 3.0 for IVP versus 0.0 for SI (p = 0.001). IVP also showed greater rates of sedation on RASS scale at 5 min: median RASS − 2.0 versus 0.0 (p = 0.01). Decrease in mean pain scores from baseline to 15 min was similar across groups: 5.2 ± 3.53 (95% CI 3.7–6.7) for IVP; 5.75 ± 3.48 (95% CI 4.3–7.2) for SI. There were no statistically significant differences with respect to changes in vital signs and need for rescue medication. Conclusion Low‐dose ketamine given as a short infusion is associated with significantly lower rates of feeling of unreality and sedation with no difference in analgesic efficacy in comparison to intravenous push.

Comparison of Intravenous Ketorolac at Three Single-Dose Regimens for Treating Acute Pain in the Emergency Department: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Study objective Nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs are used extensively for the management of acute and chronic pain, with ketorolac tromethamine being one of the most frequently used parenteral analgesics in the emergency department (ED). The drugs may commonly be used at doses above their analgesic ceiling, offering no incremental analgesic advantage while potentially adding risk of harm. We evaluate the analgesic efficacy of 3 doses of intravenous ketorolac in ED patients with acute pain. Methods We conducted a randomized, double‐blind trial to assess the analgesic efficacy of 3 doses of intravenous ketorolac (10, 15, and 30 mg) in patients aged 18 to 65 years and presenting to the ED with moderate to severe acute pain, defined by a numeric rating scale score greater than or equal to 5. We excluded patients with peptic ulcer disease, gastrointestinal hemorrhage, renal or hepatic insufficiency, allergies to nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs, pregnancy or breastfeeding, systolic blood pressure less than 90 or greater than 180 mm Hg, and pulse rate less than 50 or greater than 150 beats/min. Primary outcome was pain reduction at 30 minutes. We recorded pain scores at baseline and up to 120 minutes. Intravenous morphine 0.1 mg/kg was administered as a rescue analgesic if subjects still desired additional pain medication at 30 minutes after the study drug was administered. Data analyses included mixed‐model regression and ANOVA. Results We enrolled 240 subjects (80 in each dose group). At 30 minutes, substantial pain reduction was demonstrated without any differences between the groups (95% confidence intervals 4.5 to 5.7 for the 10‐mg group, 4.5 to 5.6 for the 15‐mg group, and 4.2 to 5.4 for the 30‐mg group). The mean numeric rating scale pain scores at baseline were 7.7, 7.5, and 7.8 and improved to 5.1, 5.0, and 4.8, respectively, at 30 minutes. Rates of rescue analgesia were similar, and there were no serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes showed similar rates of adverse effects per group, of which the most common were dizziness, nausea, and headache. Conclusion Ketorolac has similar analgesic efficacy at intravenous doses of 10, 15, and 30 mg, showing that intravenous ketorolac administered at the analgesic ceiling dose (10 mg) provided effective pain relief to ED patients with moderate to severe pain without increased adverse effects.

Ultrasound-guided nerve blocks for intracapsular and extracapsular hip fractures☆☆☆

OBJECTIVES To compare pain relief between patients with intracapsular and extracapsular hip fractures who received an ultrasound-guided femoral nerve block (USFNB). DESIGN A multicenter, prospective, randomized, clinical trial. SETTING The study was conducted in the emergency departments of 3 academic hospitals located in New York City. SUBJECTS Patients aged ≥60 years presenting to the emergency department with hip fracture. METHODS A subgroup analysis from a larger data set was conducted of patients with intracapsular and extracapsular hip fractures who received an USFNB. We compared pain scores at baseline and then at 2 and 3 hours after the nerve block was performed, and also assessed pain relief at 2 and 3 hours. RESULTS Seventy-seven patients were randomized to receive USFNB, of which 68 had follow-up data at 2 and 3 hours and were included in the data analysis. Thirty-one were diagnosed with intracapsular and 37 with extracapsular hip fractures. In both groups, reductions in pain scores were clinically and statistically significant. In the intracapsular group, mean pain scores decreased from 6.23 to 3.81 (P < .0001) at 2 hours and from 6.23 to 3.87 (P < .0001) at 3 hours. In the extracapsular group, mean pain scores decreased from 6.62 to 3.89 (P < .0001) at 2 hours and from 6.62 to 3.46 (P < .0001) at 3 hours. These differences were similar between the extracapsular and intracapsular groups at 2 hours (P = .92) and at 3 hours (P = .58), thus demonstrating similar reductions in pain in the 2 groups. The differences in pain relief between the intracapsular and extracapsular groups were also similar: 1.61 (confidence interval [CI], 1.14-2.08) vs 1.35 (CI, 0.96-1.75) at 2 hours (P = .39) and 1.68 (CI, 1.21-2.15) vs 1.38 (CI, 0.89-1.87) at 3 hours (P = .38). CONCLUSION Ultrasound-guided femoral nerve block was equally effective in reducing pain for patients with both intracapsular and extracapsular hip fractures.

A prospective analysis of patients presenting for medical attention at a large electronic dance music festival

Mass-Gathering Medicine studies have identified variables that predict greater patient presentation rates (PPRs) and transport to hospital rates (TTHRs). This is a descriptive report of patients who presented for medical attention at an annual electronic dance music festival (EDMF). At this large, single EDMF in New York City (NYC; New York, USA), the frequency of patient presentation, the range of presentations, and interventions performed were identified. This descriptive report examined consecutive patients who presented to the medical tent of a summertime EDMF held at an outdoor venue with an active, mobile, bounded crowd. Alcohol was available for sale. Entry was restricted to persons 18 years and older. The festival occurred on three consecutive days with a total cumulative attendance of 58,000. Medical staffing included two Emergency Medicine physicians, four registered nurses, and 86 Emergency Medical Services (EMS) providers. Data collected included demographics, past medical history, vital signs, physical exam, drug and alcohol use, interventions performed, and transport decisions. Eighty-four patients were enrolled over 2.5 days. Six were transported and zero died. The ages of the subjects ranged from 17 to 61 years. Forty-three (51%) were male. Thirty-eight (45%) initially presented with abnormal vital signs; four (5%) were hyperthermic. Of these latter patients, 34 (90%) reported ingestions with 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) or other drugs. Eleven (65%) patients were diaphoretic or mydriatic. The most common prehospital interventions were intravenous normal saline (8/84; 10%), ondansetron (6/84; 7%), and midazolam (3/84; 4%). Electronic dance music festivals are a growing trend and a new challenge for Mass-Gathering Medicine as new strategies must be employed to decrease TTHR and mortality. Addressing common and expected medical emergencies at mass-gathering events through awareness, preparation, and early, focused medical interventions may decrease PPR, TTHR, and overall mortality. Friedman MS , Plocki A , Likourezos A , Pushkar I , Bazos AN , Fromm C , Friedman BW . A prospective analysis of patients presenting for medical attention at a large electronic dance music festival. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2017; 32(1):78-82.

Isolated non-cardiogenic pulmonary edema — A rare complication of MDMA toxicity

This is a case of a 19-year-old male who presented to the medical tent at an outdoor electronic dance music festival (EDMF) due to an altered mental state in the setting of acute 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) intoxication. He was noted to be in severe respiratory distress, required endotracheal intubation in the field and subsequently developed Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) without other acute organ dysfunction. He was hospitalized for 5days requiring endotracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation. By presenting this case, we will explore and discuss the cardiopulmonary effects of MDMA intoxication that can lead to a rare, deleterious complication of MDMA intoxication other than previously reported adverse outcomes.

Does oral radiocontrast affect image quality of abdominal sonography

Objective: Emergency Department patients with abdominal pain may require both an ultrasound (US) and computed tomography (CT) for an accurate diagnosis. Patients are often asked to drink oral radiocontrast while awaiting ultrasound, in order to better expedite a CT in the case of a non‐diagnostic US. The impact of oral radiocontrast on US image quality has not been studied. We compared the quality of US images obtained before and after the ingestion of oral radiocontrast in healthy adult volunteers. Methods: This was a prospective study in which adult volunteer subjects underwent sonographic studies of the aorta, the right upper quadrant, the right lower quadrant, and the Focused Assessment with Sonography in Trauma (FAST) examination. Initial studies were performed prior to ingestion of oral radiocontrast, with subsequent imaging occurring at 1 and 2 hour post‐ingestion. All of the images from the sonographic exams were randomized and subsequently scored for quality by two emergency ultrasound fellowship trained emergency physicians with extensive experience in performing and interpreting US. Results: 638 images from 240 exams were obtained from 20 subjects at three time points. Six exams were not scored due to inadequate images. There were no significant differences in image quality for any of the US exam types after the ingestion of oral radiocontrast at 1 and 2 h. Conclusion: Ingestion of oral radiocontrast did not affect image quality of four common abdominal ultrasound examinations.