Substance Use Disorders in Trauma Patients: Diagnosis, Treatment, and Outcome

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled dose range study of dexmedetomidine as adjunctive therapy for alcohol withdrawal

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate dexmedetomidine as adjunctive therapy to lorazepam for severe alcohol withdrawal.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

SETTING

Single center; medical ICU.

PATIENTS

Twenty-four adult patients with a Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment score greater than or equal to 15 despite greater than or equal to 16 mg of lorazepam over a 4-hour period.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients received a symptom-triggered Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment protocol with lorazepam and were randomized to dexmedetomidine 1.2 μg/kg/hr (high dose), 0.4 μg/kg/hr (low dose), or placebo as adjunctive therapy for up to 5 days or resolution of withdrawal symptoms.

MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS

High-dose and low-dose groups were combined as a single dexmedetomidine group for primary analysis with secondary analysis exploring a dose-response relationship. The difference in 24-hour lorazepam requirements after versus before study drug was greater in the dexmedetomidine group compared with the placebo group (-56 mg vs -8 mg, p = 0.037). Median differences were similar for high dose and low dose. The 7-day cumulative lorazepam requirements were not statistically different between dexmedetomidine and placebo (159 mg vs 181 mg). Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment or Riker sedation-agitation scale scores representing severe agitation (13% vs 25%) or moderate agitation (27% vs 22%) within 24 hours of initiating study drug were similar for dexmedetomidine and placebo groups, respectively. Bradycardia occurred more frequently in the dexmedetomidine group versus placebo group (25% vs 0%, p = not significant), with the majority of bradycardia occurring in the high-dose group (37.5%). Study drug rate adjustments occurred more often in the dexmedetomidine group compared with the placebo group (50% vs 0%, p = 0.02). Neither endotracheal intubation nor seizure occurred in any group while on study drug.

CONCLUSIONS

Adjunctive dexmedetomidine for severe alcohol withdrawal maintains symptom control and reduces lorazepam exposure in the short term, but not long term, when using a symptom-triggered protocol. Monitoring for bradycardia is needed with dexmedetomidine but the occurrence may be lessened with low dose. Further study is needed to evaluate the clinical impact of dexmedetomidine.

Alcohol-use disorders in the critically ill patient

Alcohol abuse and dependence, referred to as alcohol-use disorders (AUDs), affect 76.3 million people worldwide and account for 1.8 million deaths per year. AUDs affect 18.3 million Americans (7.3% of the population), and up to 40% of hospitalized patients have AUDs. This review discusses the development and progression of critical illness in patients with AUDs. In contrast to acute intoxication, AUDs have been linked to increased severity of illness in a number of studies. In particular, surgical patients with AUDs experience higher rates of postoperative hemorrhage, cardiac complications, sepsis, and need for repeat surgery. Outcomes from trauma are worse for patients with chronic alcohol abuse, whereas burn patients who are acutely intoxicated may not have worse outcomes. AUDs are linked to not only a higher likelihood of community-acquired pneumonia and sepsis but also a higher severity of illness and higher rates of nosocomial pneumonia and sepsis. The management of sedation in patients with AUDs may be particularly challenging because of the increased need for sedatives and opioids and the difficulty in diagnosing withdrawal syndrome. The health-care provider also must be watchful for the development of dangerous agitation and violence, as these problems are not uncommonly seen in hospital ICUs. Despite studies showing that up to 40% of hospitalized patients have AUDs, relatively few guidelines exist on the specific management of the critically ill patient with AUDs. AUDs are underdiagnosed, and a first step to improving patient outcomes may lie in systematically and accurately identifying AUDs.

Assessing substance abuse treatment need: a statewide hospital emergency department study

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Health care providers in hospital emergency departments rarely take substance abuse histories or assess associated treatment need. This study compares documentation of psychoactive drug-related diagnoses for adult ED patients in medical records with treatment need assessed through self-report, toxicologic screening, and Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition (DSM-IV), criteria.

METHODS

A statewide, 2-stage, probability sample survey was conducted in 7 Tennessee general hospital EDs from June 1996 to January 1997. Main outcome measures were the prevalence of diagnosed substance abuse problems, positive bioassay results, denied use, and treatment need. Sensitivity and multivariate analyses were conducted by using varied case definitions of treatment need.

RESULTS

Thirty-one percent (95% confidence interval [CI] 27.3% to 34.7%) of screened ED patients (n=1,330) had positive test results for substance use. Their prevalence of denial of use in the 30 days before the survey ranged from 10% for alcohol (95% CI 5.7% to 14.3%) to 100% for phencyclidine. One percent of all ED patients (n=1,502) had a recorded diagnosis of substance abuse. By contrast, as many as 27% (95% CI 23.3% to 31.8%) were assessed as needing substance abuse treatment on the basis of a comprehensive case definition that accounted for denial and positive test results. A sensitivity analysis using other case definitions is also presented. For example, 4% (95% CI 2.8% to 5.3%) of patients met the very strict definition of DSM-IV current drug dependence only. Under the comprehensive case definition, TennCare patients (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.63; 95% CI 1.30 to 2.05) and Medicare patients (adjusted OR 2.50; 95% CI 1.34 to 4.65) showed excess treatment need relative to the privately insured. Excess need was also exhibited by patients reporting 1 or more prior ED visits in the past year (adjusted OR 1.62; 95% CI 1.13 to 2.31) and by patients taking 2 or more hours to reach the ED after the onset of injury or illness (adjusted OR 1.54; 95% CI 1.16 to 2.04). Treatment need was inversely associated with age. Irrespective of case definition, less than 10% of ED patients who needed substance abuse treatment were receiving such treatment.

CONCLUSION

EDs can be important venues for detecting persons in need of substance abuse treatment.

Substance abuse and withdrawal in the intensive care unit. Contemporary issues

Because 36% of intentional injury victims are drug dependent, the association between drug abuse and violence, especially in urban settings, is high. Withdrawal syndromes in ICU patients confuse their clinical management, may be extremely difficult to diagnose, are often lethal, need to be suspected, and should be prophylaxed against; therefore, all ICU patients should be considered to be at high risk for drug or alcohol dependence, should be tested for evidence of such drugs, and should be interviewed (together with their family members) for the presence of drug dependence traits. Appropriate patients should be referred for formal evaluation and treatment. Withdrawal syndromes must be promptly recognized, differentiated from traumatic or metabolic deterioration, and immediately treated. As patients are unique, so is their drug dependence. Individualized withdrawal therapy, not a "one method fits all" approach, works best. The mainstay of most withdrawal therapy is supportive care and benzodiazepine therapy. Also, considering the high rate of multiple intoxicants present in trauma patients, withdrawal can occur from multiple agents in a single patient, further compounding these difficulties. Withdrawal from unusual substances, such as GHB, or from therapeutic interventions (e.g., prolonged opioid or benzodiazepine administration) also must be considered.

Acute care management of spinal cord injuries

Meeting the health care needs of the spinal cord-injured patient is an immense challenge for the acute care multidisciplinary team. The critical care nurse clinician, as well as other members of the team, needs to maintain a comprehensive knowledge base to provide the care management that is essential to the care of the spinal cord-injured patient. With the active participation of the patient and family in care delivery decisions, the health care professionals can help to meet the psychosocial and physical needs of the patient/family unit. This article provides an evidence-based, comprehensive review of the needs of the spinal cord-injured patient in the acute care setting including optimal patient outcomes, methods to prevent complications, and a plan that provides an expeditious transition to rehabilitation.