Rapid tranquilization: new approaches in the emergency treatment of behavioral disturbances

Involuntary sedation of patients in the emergency department for mental health: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Involuntary sedation of agitated mental health patients in the Emergency Department (ED) is standard practice to obtain accurate medical assessments and maintain safety. However, the rate of this practice and what factors are associated with the use of involuntary sedation is unknown. The purpose of this study was to obtain baseline data on involuntary sedation in our EDs.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review of patients with ED visits for mental health care in 2020-2021. Patients >12 years old who received both a psychiatry consultation and involuntary sedation were included. Data variables included demographics, medical and mental health diagnoses, sedatives given, substance use, ED length of stay, and disposition. The primary outcome was repeated involuntary sedation.

RESULTS

Involuntary sedation was used in 18.8% of the mental health patients screened for study inclusion. 334 patients were included in the study cohort and 31.6% (n = 106) required repeated involuntary sedation. Their average age was 35.5 ± 13.5 years with 58.4% men, 40.1% women, and 1.2% transgender persons. Most (90.0%, n = 299) had prior mental health diagnoses with the most common being substance use disorder (38.9%, n = 130), bipolar disorder (34.1%, n = 114), depressive disorder (29.0%, n = 97), and schizophrenia (24.3%, n = 81). Two-thirds (65.9%, n = 220) had current substance use and 41.9% (n = 142) reported current use with a chemical associated with aggression. Hospital security was called for 73.1% (n = 244). Current cocaine, methamphetamines, or alcohol use was associated with decreased odds of repeated sedation (0.52 OR, 95% CI 0.32-0.85). Prior mental health diagnosis and non-white race were associated with increased odds of repeated sedation. In the multivariable regression, the effect of race was more significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Involuntary sedation was used in 18.8% of ED patients for mental health care and almost a third were repeatedly sedated, with race being a potential risk factor for repeated sedation. ED care could benefit from evidence-based interventions to reduce the need for involuntary sedation.

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.

Intravenous Valproic Acid Add-On Therapy in Acute Agitation Adolescents With Suspected Substance Abuse: A Report of Six Cases

The aim of this study was to test efficacy and safety of intravenous (IV) valproate for aggression in children and adolescents with mood or conduct disorder and concomitant substance abuse. Six patients received a 20 mg/kg dose of IV valproic acid as an add-on therapy to their standard therapy with second-generation antipsychotics and benzodiazepines. Agitation and general psychopathology were measured at baseline and after the first injection using the Modified Overt Aggression Scale, the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, and the Children's Global Assessment Scale. The findings suggested that in emergency psychiatry clinical settings, IV valproate was effective in reducing agitation and aggressive behaviors with a good tolerability profile and better treatment compliance.

Management of acute agitation in psychosis: an evidence-based approach in the USA

Agitation in psychiatric settings, particularly in psychosis, presents a staggering challenge for clinicians, who must both manage the patient's acute symptoms and simultaneously make an accurate diagnosis. Too often, the management of the former confounds the latter. Patients are very often sedated medically, which masks their underlying condition, rendering accurate diagnosis delayed and inherently difficult. Significant data are available regarding both pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for agitation that maximise symptom control while minimising confounding side-effects. In this article, a review of the historical evolution of agitation management in psychotic illness is presented, followed by an evidence-based clinical guideline for managing agitation in psychosis in the USA.

A growing evidence base for management guidelines

We review key recent research and guidance for staff working with acutely disturbed psychiatric patients. Assessment of aggressive patients and their situation should enable full risk assessment, which may ideally involve the use of advance directives. We discuss appropriate use of the Mental Health Act 1983 and consider benefits and adverse effects of rapid tranquillisation. We present a simple protocol for oral or intramuscular rapid tranquillisation. Staff using physical restraint should be properly trained and consider sensitively issues of the patient's diginity, gender and the most appropriate location for restraint to occur. Simple precautions can improve safety when working with potentially disturbed patients. Staff need support during and after the management of an aggressive incident.

Rapid Tranquilization for Psychiatric Patients with Psychomotor Agitation: What is Known About it?

Rapid tranquilization is an intervention used in control of agitation or aggression in patients with mental disorders. This study synthesized the available evidence regarding efficacy and safety of drugs used for rapid tranquilization in psychiatric patients with psychomotor agitation. It is an overview study of systematic reviews and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) identified in the database MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and LILACS until April 2015. A team of reviewers, in pairs and independently, identified eligible studies and assessed methodological quality using AMSTAR. Data were extracted from four studies (61 RCT, 8021 participants). The association of haloperidol with promethazine (H + P) promoted tranquilization and presented better safety profile, with moderate quality evidence. Olanzapine demonstrated benefit towards tranquilization and good safety profile, but needed additional administration to keep tranquilization. There was no benefit in the use of haloperidol alone or associated to another psychotropic to most outcomes evaluated. The evidence was of low quality to most of the interventions. H + P was considered a good option for rapid tranquilization, however, more RCT are necessary to confirm the efficacy and safety of the available interventions.

Pharmacological management of acute severe behavioural disturbance: a survey of current protocols

OBJECTIVES

The investigators reviewed protocols for the pharmacological management of acute severe behavioural disturbance (ASBD) used in Australasian psychiatric settings. Relevant literature was also examined, with a focus on Australian research.

METHODS

All Fellows of the RANZCP were emailed on two occasions in 2014 requesting a copy of the guidelines for pharmacological management of the ASBD patient used in their workplace. A literature search was also undertaken.

RESULTS

Thirty-six pharmacological management protocols for the ASBD patient were received. Twenty-six of these referred to patients aged 18-65 years and were selected for analysis. A number of recent publications provided new evidence in relation to the safe and effective management of patients with ASBD.

CONCLUSIONS

ASBD is a heterogeneous, transnosological set of presentations requiring careful assessment and rational clinical decision making. Treatment protocols arising from an evolving evidence base provide safe and effective pathways for the majority of patients. However, sound clinical knowledge and a careful assessment of each presentation is required to enable the clinician to tailor treatment individually.

State of Acute Agitation at Psychiatric Emergencies in Europe: The STAGE Study

Background:

Agitation is an array of syndromes and types of behaviors that are common in patients with psychiatric disorders. In Europe, the estimation of prevalence of agitation has been difficult due to the lack of standard studies or systematic data collection done on this syndrome.

Objective:

An observational, cross-sectional, multicenter study aimed to assess the prevalence of agitation episodes in psychiatric emergencies in different European countries.

Method:

For 1 week, all episodes of acute agitation that were attended to at the psychiatric emergency room (ER) or Acute Inpatient Unit (AIU) in the 27 participating centers were registered. The clinical characteristics and management of the agitation episode were also described. A descriptive analysis was performed.

Results:

A total of 334 agitation episodes out of 7295 psychiatric emergencies were recorded, giving a prevalence rate of 4.6% (95% CI: 4.12-5.08). Of them, 172 [9.4% (95% CI: 8.2-10.9)] were attended at the ER and 162 [2.8% (95% CI: 2.4-3.3)] at AIU. Only data from 165 episodes of agitation (those with a signed informed consent form) was registered and described in this report. The most common psychiatric conditions associated with agitation were schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and personality disorder. The management of agitation included from non-invasive to more coercive measures (mechanical, physical restraint or seclusion) that were unavoidable in more than half of the agitation episodes (59.5%).

Conclusion:

The results show that agitation is a common symptom in the clinical practice, both in emergency and inpatient psychiatric departments. Further studies are warranted to better recognize (using a standardized definition) and characterize agitation episodes.

[Pharmacotherapy of psychiatric acute and emergency situations: General principles]

The pharmacotherapy of psychiatric emergencies is essentially determined by the acuteness, the scene of the emergency, the diagnostic assessment and the special pharmacological profile of the drug used. As there are no specific drugs, syndromic treatment is carried out. For this, primarily antipsychotic drugs and benzodiazepines are available. This article gives an overview of the current state of treatment options for major psychiatric emergency syndromes, namely agitation, delirium, stupor and catatonia, anxiety and panic, as well as drug-induced emergencies.

[Acute agitation conditions]

Acute agitation psychiatric emergencies as frequently occur in psychiatric as well as in non-psychiatric settings, such as general hospitals, specialized clinics, emergency services and private practices. Psychiatric emergencies can be life-threatening and necessitate immediate treatment. This article presents the core symptomatology, differential diagnoses and treatment options of acute agitation emergencies. Case control studies and reliable data regarding prevalence and treatment of acute agitation in psychiatric and general hospitals or private practices are sparse. Existing evidence suggests that optimization of diagnosis and therapy of psychiatric emergencies, such as acute agitation is warranted. Treatment of acute agitation, psychological distress and other psychiatric emergencies are highly demanding regarding psychiatric expertise and concerning the personality and behavior of the therapist. The basis of therapy comprises the ability to form a stable and trustworthy relationship with the patient as well as to patiently calm down agitated patients. Unambiguous and rapid decision-making that takes effective pharmacological treatment options into account usually leads to swift amelioration of the acute symptomatology.

Prescribing preferences in rapid tranquillisation: a survey in Belgian psychiatrists and emergency physicians

Background

The pharmacotherapeutic management of agitation is a common clinical challenge. Pharmacotherapy is frequently used, the use of published guidelines is not known. The purpose of this study was twofold; to describe the prescribing patterns of psychiatrists and emergency physicians and to evaluate to which extent guidelines are used.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey in the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium is carried out in 39 psychiatric hospitals, 11 psychiatric wards of a general hospital and 61 emergency departments. All physicians are asked for demographic information, their prescribing preferences, their use of guidelines and the type of monitoring (effectiveness, safety). For the basic demographic data and prescription preferences descriptive statistics are given. For comparing prescribing preferences of the drug between groups Chi square tests (or in case of low numbers Fisher’s exact test) were performed. Mc Nemar test for binomial proportions for matched-pair data was performed to see if the prescription preferences of the participants differ between secluded and non-secluded patients.

Results

550 psychiatrist and emergency physicians were invited. The overall response rate was 20% (n = 108). The number 1 preferred medication classes were antipsychotics (59.3%) and benzodiazepines (40.7%). In non-secluded patients, olanzapine (22.2%), lorazepam (21.3%) and clotiapine (19.4%) were most frequently picked as number 1 choice drug. In secluded patients, clotiapine (21.3%), olanzapine (21.3%) and droperidol (14.8%) were the three most frequently chosen number 1 preferred drugs. Between-group comparisons show that emergency physicians prefer benzodiazepines significantly more than psychiatrists do. Zuclopenthixol and olanzapine show a particular profile in both groups of physicians. Polypharmacy is more frequently used in secluded patients. Published guidelines and safety or outcome monitoring are rarely used.

Conclusions

Our results show that prescription practice in Flanders (Belgium) in acute agitation shows a complex relationship with published guidelines. Prescription preferences differ accordingly to medical specialty. These findings should be taken into account in future research.

[Psychopharmacotherapy in emergency medicine]

Part two of the CME article Psychotropic agents and psychopharmacotherapy in emergency medicine aims to give an understanding of the pharmacotherapy of psychiatric disorders in emergency medicine. In contrast to somatic emergencies, many emergency physicians are not familiar with the treatment of psychiatric emergencies, although there are guidelines and recommendations. In the following article, treatment recommendations for the 5 most common and relevant syndromes in emergency medicine (i.e., suicide, delirium, agitation, stupor, and syndromes due to psychopharmaceutical use) are described based on the German S2-Guideline Emergency Psychiatry that will be published soon.

Issues in the management of acute agitation: how much current guidelines consider safety?

Agitated behavior constitutes up to 10% of emergency psychiatric interventions. Pharmacological tranquilization is often used as a valid treatment for agitation but a strong evidence base does not underpin it. Available literature shows different recommendations, supported by research data, theoretical considerations, or clinical experience. Rapid tranquilization (RT) is mainly based on parenteral drug treatment and the few existing guidelines on this topic, when suggesting the use of first generation antipsychotics and benzodiazepines, include drugs with questionable tolerability profile such as chlorpromazine, haloperidol, midazolam, and lorazepam. In order to systematically evaluate safety concerns related to the adoption of such guidelines, we reviewed them independently from principal diagnosis while examining tolerability data for suggested treatments. There is a growing evidence about safety profile of second generation antipsychotics for RT but further controlled studies providing definitive data in this area are urgently needed.

Modulation of ion channels in clinical psychopharmacology: adults and younger people

This review focuses on the use of Na(+), Ca(2+) and Cl(-) channel modulators in psychiatric disease. Drugs that modulate ion channels have been used in psychiatry for more than a century, and in this review we critically evaluate clinical research that reports the therapeutic effects of drugs acting on GABA(A), voltage-gated Na(+) and voltage-gated Ca(2+) channels in pediatric and adult patients. As in other fields, the evidence underpinning the use of medicines in younger people is far less robust than for adults. In addition, we discuss some current developments and highlight clinical disorders in which current molecules could be further tested. Notable success stories, such as benzodiazepines (in sleep and anxiety disorders) and antiepileptics (in bipolar disorder), have been the result of serendipitous discoveries or refinements of serendipitous discoveries, as in all other major treatments in psychiatry. Genomic, high-throughput screening and molecular pharmacology discoveries may, however, guide further developments in the future. This could include increased research in promising targets that have been perceived as commercially risky, such as selective α-subunit GABA(A) receptors.

Inhaled loxapine for acute agitation in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder

Agitation is a common presentation in medical and psychiatric emergency departments, as well as clinics. Agitation ranges in severity and as the agitation rises, the choices for treatment lessen. The agitated patient is typically less cooperative, necessitating use of medications that cannot be diverted – usually rapid-dissolving forms or intramuscular medications. There is currently a medication/device being studied that can be used with this patient population. The medication is older but the device is an entirely new concept. Staccato® loxapine offers rapid delivery of loxapine via an inhaled device. The aerosol is able to penetrate deep into the lung, allowing for quick delivery to systemic circulation. The studies have been favorable, showing intravenous-like pharmacokinetics and rapid onset effect. As the delivery method is noninvasive, it is a more patient-friendly alternative to intramuscular medication.

Clinical characteristics of agitated psychotic patients treated with an oral antipsychotics attended in the emergency room setting: NATURA study

Purpose. Prospective observational study to describe the clinical characteristics of patients with acute psychosis and agitation who receive oral psychopharmacological treatment at psychiatric emergency services (PES). Methods. A total of 278 patients with acute psychosis and agitation were admitted to PES and received oral psychopharmacological treatment. Diagnosis at admission, agitation level at entry and discharge, use of mechanical restraints, pharmacological and time to reintervention were prospectively explored. Severity of the disease was evaluated according to the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale-Excitement Component (PANSS-EC), Agitation Calmness Evaluation Scale (ACES) and Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S) at admission, before first reintervention (if any) and at discharge from PES. Results. Most prevalent diagnoses were schizophrenia (77%) and bipolar disorder (12.2%). Mean (SD) scores in rating scales at baseline and at discharge were, respectively: PANSS-EC, 20.38(5.3) and 13.04 (5.5); CGI-S, 3.86(1.1) and 2.17(0.9); and ACES, 2.35(0.6) and 3.60(1.1). A total of 21.6% (60/278) of the patients required mechanical restraints and 38.1% (106/278) reintervention. From the emergency room, 20.5% patients went home while 71.2% were transferred to inpatient units. Conclusion. Clinical characteristics of psychotic agitated patients may help in deciding which type of treatment should be used and may be useful for the design of future prospective trials to explore treatment of agitation.

Managing the acutely agitated and psychotic patient

Agitation can present as an emergency in the course of numerous psychiatric conditions including intoxication, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and delirium. This article reviews relevant literature regarding the definition, etiology, measurement, and management of episodic agitation and pays particular attention to intramuscular treatments. The impact of changes in methodology between the era of first- and second-generation antipsychotics, the implications of those changes for external validity of studies of second-generation studies, and the recent evolution of expert consensus are discussed.

The expert consensus guideline series. Treatment of behavioral emergencies 2005

OBJECTIVES

Due to inherent dangers and barriers to research in emergency settings, few data are available to guide clinicians about how best to manage behavioral emergencies. Key constructs such as agitation are poorly defined. This lack of empirical data led us to undertake a survey of expert opinion, results of which were published in the 2001 Expert Consensus Guidelines on the Treatment of Behavioral Emergencies. Several second-generation (atypical) antipsychotics (SGAs) are now available in new formulations for treating behavioral emergencies (e.g., intramuscular [i.m.] olanzapine and ziprasidone; rapidly dissolving tablets of olanzapine and risperidone). Critical questions face the field. The SGAs are significantly different from the FGAs and from each other and have not been studied in unselected patients as were the FGAs. Can the SGAs can be thought of as a class, do all antipsychotics have similar anti-agitation effects in different conditions, and, if equally effective, what limits might their safety profiles impose? Should antipsychotics be used more specifically to treat psychotic conditions, while benzodiazepines (BNZs) alone are used nonspecifically? Few data are available concerning combinations of SGAs and BNZs, and findings concerning the traditional combination of haloperidol plus a BNZ may not be relevant to combinations with SGAs. The culture is also evolving with more emphasis on patient involvement in treatment decisions. An international consensus has been developing that calming rather than sedation is the appropriate endpoint of behavioral emergency interventions. We undertook a new survey of expert opinion to update recommendations from the earlier survey.

METHOD

A written survey of 61 questions (1,020 options) was mailed to 50 experts in the field, 48 (96%) of whom completed it. The survey sought to define level of agitation at which emergency interventions are appropriate, scope of assessment depending on urgency and patients' ability to cooperate, guiding principles for selecting interventions, and appropriate physical and medication strategies at different levels of diagnostic confidence for a variety of provisional diagnoses and complicating conditions. A modified version of the RAND Corporation's 9-point scale for rating appropriateness of medical decisions was used to score most options. Consensus was defined as a non-random distribution of scores by chi-square "goodness-of-fit" test. We assigned a categorical rank (first line/preferred, second line/alternate, third line/usually inappropriate) to each option based on the 95% confidence interval around the mean. Ratings were used to develop guidelines for preferred strategies in key clinical situations. This study received financial support from multiple sponsors, with the panel kept blind to sponsorship to reduce possible bias. Medication ratings were based on responses of only those respondents with direct experience with each drug. In reporting practice patterns, the panel was asked to respond based on actual data rather than estimates.

RESULTS

The expert panel reached consensus on 78% of the options rated on the 9-point scale. The responses suggest that physicians can make provisional diagnoses with some confidence and that pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions are selected differentially based on diagnosis and other salient demographic and medical features. BNZs are recommended when no data are available, when there is no specific treatment (e.g., personality disorder), or when they may have specific benefits (e.g., intoxication). No single SGA emerges as a nonspecific replacement for haloperidol; instead, different SGAs are preferred in various circumstances consistent with current evidence. To the degree that haloperidol is recommended, it is almost always in combination with a BNZ; haloperidol alone is preferred only in the medically compromised. In contrast, the SGAs are more often recommended for use alone, and the panel would avoid combining BNZs with some SGAs. Oral risperidone alone or combined with a BNZ receives strong support in a variety of situations. Oral olanzapine was rated very similarly to risperidone, with slightly higher ratings than risperidone in situations where it has been studied (e.g., schizophrenia, mania) and slightly lower ratings where it has not been studied or safety may be a concern; there was less support for combining oral olanzapine with a BNZ. For oral treatment of agitation related to schizophrenia or mania, olanzapine alone, risperidone alone or combined with a BNZ, and haloperidol plus a BNZ are first line, with strong support also for combining divalproex with the antipsychotic for presumed mania. Oral ziprasidone and quetiapine generally received similar second-line ratings in most situations. If a parenteral agent is needed, i.m. olanzapine alone received somewhat more support than i.m. ziprasidone alone; however, there was more support for i.m. ziprasidone alone or combined with a BNZ than for i.m. olanzapine plus a BNZ, probably reflecting safety concerns. For example, for a provisional diagnosis of schizophrenia, first-line parenteral options are i.m. olanzapine or ziprasidone alone or i.m. haloperidol or ziprasidone combined with a BNZ. Neither of the new parenteral formulations received as much support as traditional agents (i.m. BNZs, i.m. haloperidol) when no data are available or the diagnosis involves medical comorbidity or intoxication. When initial intervention with risperidone, ziprasidone, or haloperidol is unsuccessful, the panel recommended adding a BZD to the antipsychotic. However, when initial treatment with olanzapine or quetiapine is unsuccessful, increasing the dosage is recommended. Perphenazine was consistently rated second line and droperidol and chlorpromazine received third-line ratings throughout.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limits of expert opinion and with the expectation that future research data will take precedence, these guidelines suggest that the SGAs are now preferred for agitation in the setting of primary psychiatric illnesses but that BNZs are preferred in other situations.