Sedation of agitated patients in the emergency department

Intramuscular midazolam, olanzapine, or haloperidol for the management of acute agitation: A multi-centre, double-blind, randomised clinical trial

BACKGROUND

The safety and effectiveness of intramuscular olanzapine or haloperidol compared to midazolam as the initial pharmacological treatment for acute agitation in emergency departments (EDs) has not been evaluated.

METHODS

A pragmatic, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled trial was conducted from December 2014 to September 2019, in six Hong Kong EDs. Patients (aged 18-75 years) with undifferentiated acute agitation requiring parenteral sedation were randomised to 5 mg intramuscular midazolam (n = 56), olanzapine (n = 54), or haloperidol (n = 57). Primary outcomes were time to adequate sedation and proportion of patients who achieved adequate sedation at each follow-up interval. Sedation levels were measured on a 6-level validated scale (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02380118).

FINDINGS

Of 206 patients randomised, 167 (mean age, 42 years; 98 [58·7%] male) were analysed. Median time to sedation for IM midazolam, olanzapine, and haloperidol was 8·5 (IQR 8·0), 11·5 (IQR 30·0), and 23·0 (IQR 21·0) min, respectively. At 60 min, similar proportions of patients were adequately sedated (98%, 87%, and 97%). There were statistically significant differences for time to sedation with midazolam compared to olanzapine (p = 0·03) and haloperidol (p = 0·002). Adverse event rates were similar across the three arms. Dystonia (n = 1) and cardiac arrest (n = 1) were reported in the haloperidol group.

INTERPRETATION

Midazolam resulted in faster sedation in patients with undifferentiated agitation in the emergency setting compared to olanzapine and haloperidol. Midazolam and olanzapine are preferred over haloperidol's slower time to sedation and potential for cardiovascular and extrapyramidal side effects.

FUNDING

Research Grants Council, Hong Kong.

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.

Economic Evaluation of Midazolam-Droperidol Combination, Versus Droperidol or Olanzapine for the Management of Acute Agitation in the Emergency Department: A Within-Trial Analysis

BACKGROUND

The combination of midazolam and droperidol has proven superior to droperidol or olanzapine monotherapy in the management of acute agitation in emergency departments (EDs).

OBJECTIVE

This is the first economic analysis to evaluate the cost-benefit and cost effectiveness of the midazolam-droperidol combination compared with droperidol or olanzapine for the management of acute agitation in EDs.

METHODS

This analysis used data derived from a randomised, controlled, double-blind clinical trial conducted in two metropolitan Australian EDs between October 2014 and August 2015. The economic evaluation was from the perspective of Australian public hospital EDs. The main outcomes included agitation management time and the agitation-free time gained. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken.

RESULTS

The midazolam-droperidol combination was the least costly regimen (Australian dollars [AU$]46.25 per patient) compared with the droperidol and olanzapine groups (AU$92.18 and AU$110.45 per patient, respectively). The main cost driver for all groups was the cost of the labour required during the initial adequate sedation. The combination afforded an additional 10-13 min of mean agitation-free time gained, which can be translated to additional savings of AU$31.24-42.60 per patient compared with the droperidol and olanzapine groups. The benefit-cost ratio for the midazolam-droperidol combination was 12.2:1.0, or AU$122,000 in total benefit for every AU$10,000 spent on management of acute agitation. Sensitivity analyses over key variables indicated these results were robust.

CONCLUSIONS

The midazolam-droperidol combination may be a cost-saving and dominant cost-effective regimen for the treatment of acute agitation in EDs as it is more effective and less costly than either droperidol or olanzapine monotherapy.

A systematic review of psychotropic drug prescribing for prisoners

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a review of the literature on prescribing psychotropic drugs for prisoners.

METHODS

Articles were retrieved from nine databases, reference lists, citations, governmental prison websites, and contact with authors. The articles included were written in English, focused on adults' time as prisoners, included at least one drug of interest, and discussed prescribing. Thirty-two articles met these inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

Five main themes were identified from the reviewed studies: polypharmacy, high-dose therapy, duration of treatment, documentation and monitoring, and issues associated with the prisoners' environment.

CONCLUSIONS

Consideration of these themes within the included studies identified areas for future research, particularly models of good practice, as numerous descriptions of poor practice exist. Policy-makers and prescribers should review current systems and practices, to ensure the care being offered to prisoners is optimal.

The clinical toxicology of metamfetamine

INTRODUCTION

Metamfetamine is a highly addictive amfetamine analog that acts primarily as a central nervous system (CNS) stimulant. The escalating abuse of this drug in recent years has lead to an increasing burden upon health care providers. An understanding of the drug's toxic effects and their medical treatment is therefore essential for the successful management of patients suffering this form of intoxication.

AIM

The aim of this review is to summarize all main aspects of metamfetamine poisoning including epidemiology, mechanisms of toxicity, toxicokinetics, clinical features, diagnosis, and management.

METHODS

A summary of the literature on metamfetamine was compiled by systematically searching OVID MEDLINE and ISI Web of Science. Further information was obtained from book chapters, relevant news reports, and web material. Epidemiology. Following its use in the Second World War, metamfetamine gained popularity as an illicit drug in Japan and later the United States. Its manufacture and use has now spread to include East and South-East Asia, North America, Mexico, and Australasia, and its world-wide usage, when combined with amfetamine, exceeds that of all other drugs of abuse except cannabis. Mechanisms of toxicity. Metamfetamine acts principally by stimulating the enhanced release of catecholamines from sympathetic nerve terminals, particularly of dopamine in the mesolimbic, mesocortical, and nigrostriatal pathways. The consequent elevation of intra-synaptic monoamines results in an increased activation of central and peripheral α±- and β-adrenergic postsynaptic receptors. This can cause detrimental neuropsychological, cardiovascular, and other systemic effects, and, following long-term abuse, neuronal apoptosis and nerve terminal degeneration. Toxicokinetics. Metamfetamine is rapidly absorbed and well distributed throughout the body, with extensive distribution across high lipid content tissues such as the blood-brain barrier. In humans the major metabolic pathways are aromatic hydroxylation producing 4-hydroxymetamfetamine and N-demethylation to form amfetamine. Metamfetamine is excreted predominantly in the urine and to a lesser extent by sweating and fecal excretion, with reported terminal half-lives ranging from ∼5 to 30 h. Clinical features. The clinical effects of metamfetamine poisoning can vary widely, depending on dose, route, duration, and frequency of use. They are predominantly characteristic of an acute sympathomimetic toxidrome. Common features reported include tachycardia, hypertension, chest pain, various cardiac dysrhythmias, vasculitis, headache, cerebral hemorrhage, hyperthermia, tachypnea, and violent and aggressive behaviour. Management. Emergency stabilization of vital functions and supportive care is essential. Benzodiazepines alone may adequately relieve agitation, hypertension, tachycardia, psychosis, and seizure, though other specific therapies can also be required for sympathomimetic effects and their associated complications.

CONCLUSION

Metamfetamine may cause severe sympathomimetic effects in the intoxicated patient. However, with appropriate, symptom-directed supportive care, patients can be expected to make a full recovery.

Thiopentone sedation for sedation of acutely agitated, violent, intoxicated patients: evaluation of 2 cases

Two cases of violent, drug-intoxicated patients who presented considerable problems in management, and were resistant to standard sedative agents, are described. Effective and safe sedation, without the need for full anaesthesia and endotracheal intubation, was achieved using titrated doses of thiopentone. The merits of selecting this agent in these circumstances are discussed.