Droperidol or Olanzapine, Intramuscularly or Intravenously, Monotherapy or Combination Therapy for Sedating Acute Behavioral Disturbance

Hyperventilation and Respiratory Alkalosis After Olanzapine for Insomnia: A Case Report

Olanzapine is increasingly used as a sleep aid in hospitalized patients. Although thought to have less extrapyramidal effects, known side effects include oversedation, arrythmias, and hypotension. We present the unusual case of hyperventilation with respiratory alkalosis after the administration of olanzapine for insomnia in an elderly postoperative patient. This led to a second admission to the intensive care unit with invasive interventions including mechanical ventilation and vasopressor support. Caution must be exercised in prescribing antipsychotics for off-label use, especially in a population whose baseline characteristics can affect the pharmacokinetics of second-generation antipsychotics.

A Prospective Study of Intramuscular Droperidol or Olanzapine for Acute Agitation in the Emergency Department: A Natural Experiment Owing to Drug Shortages

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Intramuscular medications are commonly used to treat agitation in the emergency department (ED). The purpose of this study is to compare intramuscular droperidol and olanzapine for treating agitation.

METHODS

This was a prospective observational study of ED patients receiving intramuscular droperidol or olanzapine for acute agitation. The treating physician determined the medication and dose; however, over time drug shortages made either olanzapine (July to September 2019) or droperidol (November 2019 to March 2020) unavailable, creating a natural experiment. The primary outcome was time to adequate sedation, assessed by the Altered Mental Status Scale (AMSS), defined as time to AMSS score less than or equal to 0.

RESULTS

We analyzed 1,257 patients (median age 42 years; 73% men); 538 received droperidol (median dose 5 mg) and 719 received olanzapine (median dose 10 mg). The majority of patients (1,086; 86%) had agitation owing to alcohol intoxication. Time to adequate sedation was 16 minutes (interquartile range 10 to 30 minutes) for droperidol and 17.5 minutes (interquartile range 10 to 30 minutes) for olanzapine (absolute difference -0.7 minutes; 95% confidence interval -2.1 to 0.5 minutes). Adjusted Cox proportional hazard model analysis revealed no difference between groups in time to sedation (hazard ratio for adequate sedation for droperidol compared with olanzapine 1.12; 95% confidence interval 1.00 to 1.25). Patients receiving olanzapine were more likely to receive additional medications for sedation (droperidol 17%; olanzapine 24%; absolute difference -8% [95% confidence interval -12% to -3%]). We observed no difference between drugs regarding adverse effects except for extrapyramidal adverse effects, which were more common with droperidol (n=6; 1%) than olanzapine (n=1; 0.1%).

CONCLUSION

We found no difference in time to adequate sedation between intramuscular droperidol and olanzapine.

Randomized Double-blind Trial of Intramuscular Droperidol, Ziprasidone, and Lorazepam for Acute Undifferentiated Agitation in the Emergency Department

BACKGROUND

The optimal agent to treat acute agitation in the emergency department (ED) has not been determined. The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of intramuscular droperidol, ziprasidone, and lorazepam for acute agitation in the ED.

METHODS

This was a randomized, double-blind trial of ED patients with acute agitation requiring parenteral sedation. The study was conducted under exception from informed consent (21 CFR 50.24) from July 2004 to March 2005. Patients were randomized to receive 5 mg of droperidol, 10 mg of ziprasidone, 20 mg of ziprasidone, or 2 mg of lorazepam intramuscularly. We recorded Altered Mental Status Scale (AMSS) scores, nasal end-tidal carbon dioxide (ETCO₂ ), and pulse oximetry (SpO₂ ) at 0, 15, 30, 45, 60, 90, and 120 minutes as well as QTc durations and dysrhythmias. Respiratory depression was defined as a change in ETCO₂ consistent with respiratory depression or SpO₂  < 90%. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients adequately sedated (AMSS ≤ 0) at 15 minutes.

RESULTS

We enrolled 115 patients. Baseline AMSS scores were similar between groups. For the primary outcome, adequate sedation at 15 minutes, droperidol administration was effective in 16 of 25 (64%) patients, compared to seven of 28 (25%) for 10 mg of ziprasidone, 11 of 31 (35%) for 20 mg of ziprasidone, and nine of 31 (29%) for lorazepam. Pairwise comparisons revealed that droperidol was more effective that the other medications, with 39% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 3% to 54%) more compared to 20 mg of ziprasidone and 33% (95% CI = 8% to 58%) more compared to lorazepam. There was no significant difference between groups in need of additional rescue sedation. Numerically, respiratory depression was lower with droperidol (3/25 [12%]) compared to 10 mg of ziprasidone (10/28 [36%]), 20 mg of ziprasidone (12/31 [39%]), or lorazepam (15/31 [48%]). One patient receiving 20 mg of ziprasidone required intubation to manage an acute subdural hematoma. No patients had ventricular dysrhythmias. QTc durations were similar in all groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Droperidol was more effective than lorazepam or either dose of ziprasidone for the treatment of acute agitation in the ED and caused fewer episodes of respiratory depression.

Chemical restraint: A qualitative synthesis review of adult service user and staff experiences in mental health settings

With an imperative to reduce or eliminate the use of coercive practices in mental health care it is important to understand the experience of service users and staff. This review aimed to synthesize qualitative studies, published between 1996 and 2020, reporting on mental health service users' and staff's experiences of chemical restraint. The databases PsycINFO, CINAHL, MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched. Three analytic themes were identified from 17 included articles, synthesizing the experiences of service users and staff. These were "Unjustified versusjustified," "Violence versus necessity," and "Reflecting back: Positives and negatives." Service users viewed chemical restraint as an unjustified response to "behaviors of concern" and experienced it as a violent act with negative outcomes, although some saw it as necessary in retrospect and preferred it to other forms of coercion. Staff generally viewed it as a justified response to "behaviors of concern" and experienced it as appropriate within the constraints of staff numbers and limited alternatives. These findings identify nuances not apparent in the literature, which has generally conflated all forms of coercive practices.

Safety and effectiveness of olanzapine and droperidol for chemical restraint for non-consenting adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Chemical restraint (CR) is emergency drug management for acute behavioural disturbances in people with mental illness, provided with the aim of rapid calming and de-escalating potentially dangerous situations.

AIMS

To describe a systematic review of Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) reporting on short-term safety and effectiveness of drugs used for CR, administered to non-consenting adults with mental health conditions, who require emergency management of acute behavioural disturbances. A meta-analysis was conducted of those RCTs with comparable interventions, outcome measures and measurement timeframes.

METHOD

Academic databases were searched for RCTs published between 1 January 1996 and 20th April 2020. Relevant RCTs were critically appraised using the 13-item JBI checklist. All RCTs were described, and step-wise filters were applied to identify studies suitable for meta-analysis. For these, forest and funnel plots were constructed, and Q and I² statistics guided interpretation of pooled findings, tested using MedCalc Version 19.1.

RESULTS

Of 23 relevant RCTs, 18 (78.2% total) had excellent methodological quality scores (at least 90%). Eight RCTs were potentially relevant for meta-analysis (six of excellent quality), reporting 20 drug arms in total. Adverse events for 6-36% patients were reported in all 20 drug arms. Four drug arms from two homogenous studies of N = 697 people were meta-analysed. These RCTs tested two antipsychotic drugs (droperidol, olanzapine) delivered intravenously in either 5 mgs or 10 mg doses, with outcomes of time to calm, percentage calm within five or 10 min, and adverse events. There were no significant differences between drug arms for either measure of calm. However, 5 mg olanzapine incurred significantly lower risk of adverse events than 10 mg olanzapine (OR 0.4 (95%CI 0.2-0.8)), although no dose differences were found for droperidol.

CONCLUSION

5 mg intravenous olanzapine is recommended for quick, safe emergency management of people with acute behavioural disturbances associated with mental illness.

Prevalence of the use of chemical restraint in the management of challenging behaviours associated with adult mental health conditions: A meta-synthesis

WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: The use of chemical restraint in emergency situations is to control aggression or violence to protect consumers and staff and is to be used as a last resort when all other behavioural control alternatives have been exhausted. Chemical restraint involves the use of medication. WHAT THE PAPER ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE?: This is the first paper to systematically review the prevalence of the use of chemical restraint. The use of chemical restraint is common across emergency departments and acute psychiatric inpatient units worldwide. Consumers who are restrained are also likely to receive chemical restraint. The studies reviewed demonstrate that there is a need for more standardized data collection so that clearer comparisons can be made between healthcare settings and countries. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: Implications of practice include the need to report adverse events post-chemical restraint as these can deleteriously affect a person's physical health. Identification of and staff education about first-line management techniques before chemical restraint is administered are significant to reduce its use. ABSTRACT: Introduction Chemical restraint is used to manage uncontrolled aggression, agitation or violent behaviours of consumers with mental health disorders admitted to acute psychiatric or emergency settings. Aim This systematic review aimed to synthesize the international prevalence of chemical restraint for non-consenting adults. Method PsycINFO, CINAHL, MEDLINE/PubMed and Google Scholar databases were searched for peer-reviewed literature published between January 1996 and July 2018. This paper reports on data extracted from retrospective audits of chemical restraint practice. Results Forty-eight papers were included. The median prevalence of use of any restraint was 21.2% (25th% 8.0 to 75th% 36.3). Median prevalence of people who were chemically restrained, of all people restrained in any manner, was 43.1% (25th% 22.9% to 75th% 70.7%). Of all people admitted to facility(ies), the median prevalence of chemical restraint was 7.4% (25th% 2.7 to 75th% 17.6). There was no statistically significant difference in any prevalence measure considering healthcare setting or country. There was a significant decrease over the review period in the use of any restraint, including chemical restraint. Discussion and implications for practice This is the first known comprehensive meta-view of chemical restraint use worldwide, highlighting the need for standardized data collection to enable comparisons between healthcare settings and countries. Relevance statement There is an international imperative to reduce or eliminate the use of coercive practices, such as physical and chemical restraint, in mental health care. This study provides important information for mental health nursing by synthesizing the international prevalence of chemical restraint for non-consenting adults. This meta-view of the worldwide use of chemical restraint can inform ongoing efforts to reduce its use.

International research into 22 years of use of chemical restraint: An evidence overview

BACKGROUND

Chemical restraint (CR) (also known as rapid tranquilisation) is the forced (non-consenting) administration of medications to manage uncontrolled aggression, anxiety, or violence in people who are likely to cause harm to themselves or others. Our population of interest was adults with mental health disorders (with/without substance abuse). There has been a growing international movement over the past 22 years towards reducing/eliminating restrictive practices such as CR. It is appropriate to summarise the research that has been published over this time, identify trends and gaps in knowledge, and highlight areas for new research to inform practice.

AIMS

To undertake a comprehensive systematic search to identify, and describe, the volume and nature of primary international research into CR published since 1995.

METHODS

This paper reports the processes and overall findings of a systematic search for all available primary research on CR published between 1 January 1996 and 31 July 2018. It describes the current evidence base by hierarchy of evidence, country (ies) producing the research, CR definitions, study purpose, and outcome measures.

RESULTS

This review identified 311 relevant primary studies (21 RCTs; 46 non-controlled experimental or prospective observational studies; 77 cross-sectional studies; 69 retrospective studies; 67 opinion pieces, position or policy statements; and 31 qualitative studies). The USA, UK, and Australia contributed over half the research, whilst cross-country collaborations comprised 6% of it. The most common research settings comprised acute psychiatric wards (23.3%), general psychiatric wards (21.6%), and general hospital emergency departments (19.0%).

DISCUSSION

A key lesson learnt whilst compiling this database of research into CR was to ensure that all papers described non-consenting administration of medications to manage adults with uncontrolled aggression, anxiety, or violence. There were tensions in the literature between using effective CR without producing adverse events, and how to decide when CR was needed (compared with choosing non-chemical intervention for behavioural emergencies), respecting patients' dignity whilst safeguarding their safety, and preserving safe workplaces for staff, and care environments for other patients. The range of outcome measures suggests opportunities to standardise future research.

Methamphetamine presentations to an emergency department: Management and complications

OBJECTIVE

There is little recent published data characterising methamphetamine intoxication. The present study aims to describe the clinical effects, management, complications and disposition of patients with methamphetamine exposure.

METHODS

This is a retrospective review of patients presenting with methamphetamine intoxication to an ED in 2016. All presentations were extracted from a relational database and each medical record reviewed. Demographics, clinical features, complications and disposition were extracted.

RESULTS

There were 378 presentations of 329 patients (234 men [71%]), median age 31 years (range 16-68 years). The most common clinical effect was acute behavioural disturbance, occurring in 295 (78%) presentations. This was successfully managed with oral sedation alone in 180 (61%) patients, with the remainder receiving parenteral sedation. Other effects included tachycardia in 212 (56%), hypertension in 160 (42%) and hyperthermia in 17 (5%) presentations. No anti-hypertensives were given. One patient was actively cooled. Complications included 21 (30%) presentations with rhabdomyolysis and 41 (13%) presentations with acute kidney injury. There were two seizures, three intracranial bleeds and one myocardial infarction. The majority (317 [84%]) of patients were managed solely within the ED. The median length of stay was 14 h. There were 41 (11%) mental health admissions. Two deaths occurred: one following an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and the other a subarachnoid haemorrhage.

CONCLUSION

The main toxicity seen with methamphetamines is acute behavioural disturbance, which is managed well with sedation. Complications, apart from rhabdomyolysis and acute kidney injury, are rare. Most patients are managed within the ED and discharged home.