Analgesic use in the emergency department

Ethnicity and analgesic practice

STUDY OBJECTIVE

We previously reported that Hispanic ethnicity was an independent risk factor for inadequate analgesic administration among patients presenting to a single emergency department. We then attempted to generalize these findings to other ethnic groups and EDs. Our current study objective is to determine whether black patients with extremity fractures are less likely to receive ED analgesics than similarly injured white patients.

METHODS

We conducted the following retrospective cohort study at an urban ED in Atlanta, GA. All black and white patients presenting with new, isolated long-bone fractures over a 40-month period were studied. After abstracting demographic information from the medical record and subsequently removing ethnic identifiers, we submitted the medical record to a physician who recorded characteristics of the patients' injury and treatment. We then submitted the records to a nurse, again blinded to ethnicity, who recorded analgesic administration. We used multiple logistic regression to determine the independent effect of ethnicity on analgesic use while controlling for multiple potential confounders. Our main outcome measure was the proportion of black versus white patients receiving ED analgesics.

RESULTS

The study group consisted of 217 patients, of whom 127 were black and 90 were white. White patients were significantly more likely than black patients to receive ED analgesics (74% versus 57%, P =.01) despite similar records of pain complaints in the medical record. The risk of receiving no analgesic while in the ED was 66% greater for black patients than for white patients (relative risk 1.66, 95% confidence interval, 1.11 to 2.50). This effect persisted after controlling for multiple potential confounders.

CONCLUSION

Black patients with isolated long-bone fractures were less likely than white patients to receive analgesics in this ED. No covariate measured in this study could account for this effect. Our findings have implications for efforts to improve analgesic practices for all patients.

Updates in wound management for the pediatrician

Lacerations are common in children, and skills in wound management, especially laceration repair, are important. The minimization of pain and anxiety should be considered an essential part of the procedure. Newer techniques using topical anesthetics and tissue adhesives have significantly simplified the process of laceration repair promoting application in office, clinic, and emergency department settings. In situations inappropriate for topical anesthesia and closure, the use of buffered lidocaine and attention to the technique of infiltration are important. Although infection is the most common complication, the percentage of lacerations, which become infected in children, is low. Antibiotic prophylaxis is seldom needed. Human and animal bites raise special concerns in the assessment for primary repair and prophylactic antibiotic use.

A quality control program for acute pain management in out-of-hospital critical care medicine

STUDY OBJECTIVE

This study was conducted to evaluate a quality control program for improving pain treatment in the out-of-hospital setting.

METHODS

Pain was evaluated for all patients at the beginning (T(0)) and the end (T(end)) of out-of-hospital management. During the first part of the study (part 1, n=108), the administration and choice of analgesics was left to the physician's discretion. Pain protocols were then modified to encourage the use of opioids. The effectiveness of this new pain management was analyzed (part 2, n=105) using pain scales and quality of relief.

RESULTS

Seventy percent of patients who expressed meaningful pain did not request analgesia, and 36% did not receive any analgesia in part 1 in contrast to 7% in part 2 of the study. The verbal rating scale and visual analog scale scores were substantially improved at T(end) versus T(0) in both periods, but the improvement was greater in part 2 (mean visual analog scale score at T(end) was 29.3+/-23 mm [+/-SD]) than in part 1 (38.6+/-25 mm). The percentage of patients who expressed satisfactory relief increased in part 2 (67% versus 49% in part 1). The mean dose of intravenous morphine was 7.2+/-6 mg. Adverse effects were rare and minor.

CONCLUSION

This program focusing on pain treatment plus implementation of pain protocols (with intravenous morphine) improved pain management in the field.

Who gives pain relief to children?

OBJECTIVE

To compare pre-hospital parental administration of pain relief for children with that of the accident and emergency (A&E) department staff and to ascertain the reason why pre-hospital analgesia is not being given.

DESIGN/METHODS

An anonymous prospective questionnaire was given to parents/guardians of children < 17 years. The children were all self referred with head injuries or limb problems including burns. The first part asked for details of pain relief before attendance in the A&E department. The second part of the questionnaire contained a section for the examining doctor and triage nurse to fill in. The duration of the survey was 28 days.

RESULTS

Altogether 203 of 276 (74%) of children did not receive pain relief before attendance at the A&E department. Reasons for parents not giving pain relief included 57/203 (28%) who thought that giving painkillers would be harmful; 43/203 (21%) who did not give painkillers because the accident did not happen at home; and 15/203 (7%) who thought analgesia was the responsibility of the hospital. Eighty eight of the 276 (32%) did not have any painkillers, suitable for children, at home. A&E staff administered pain relief in 189/276 (68%).

CONCLUSIONS

Parents often do not give their children pain relief before attending the A&E department. Parents think that giving painkillers may be harmful and often do not have simple analgesics at home. Some parents do not perceive that their child is in pain. Parents require education about appropriate pre-hospital pain relief for their children.

A prospective study of ED pain management practices and the patient's perspective

OBJECTIVE

This study was conducted to describe the prevalence of pain in the emergency department and to identify factors that may contribute to its treatment.

METHODS

Interviews were conducted with 203 patients who entered the emergency department during the study period. Patients were interviewed regarding various aspects of their pain. Medical records were reviewed to determine what treatments were provided.

RESULTS

One hundred sixty of the 203 patients came to the emergency department with a chief complaint related to pain, indicating a prevalence rate of 78%. Approximately 58% of all patients received either medication or an intervention. An average of 74 minutes elapsed from the time of arrival in the emergency department to the time of treatment with pharmacologic agents. Various independent variables were examined to determine their ability to predict the treatment of pain. Chest pain was most often treated with medication, and abdominal pain was least often treated with medication. Despite high pain ratings, only 15% of the sample received an opioid.

DISCUSSION

This study revealed a very high prevalence of pain among patients in the emergency department and showed that, overall, pain was poorly treated. The findings suggest that chest pain is the only type of pain routinely relieved in the emergency department. An anecdotal finding was that 31 patients said they would refuse pain medications if such medications were offered. Twenty-five patients reported fear of addiction as their reason for this refusal.

Informed consent and general surgeons' attitudes toward the use of pain medication in the acute abdomen

To determine general surgeons' attitudes about the use of pain medications in the acute abdomen, a questionnaire was mailed to all practicing general surgeons in Iowa. The questionnaire sought to determine the frequency with which pain medications were administered either before informed consent was obtained or before the patient with an acute abdomen was examined, and, in cases when pain medications were withheld, the reasons for withholding. The response rate was 72% (131 of 182). Seven percent of patients with an acute abdomen received pain medications by a general surgeon before being seen and 22% received pain medication by another physician in the emergency department (ED). Fifty-three percent of general surgeons responded that they believe pain medications preclude a patient from signing a valid informed consent; 78% reported that concerns about informed consent enter into their decision to withhold pain medications. Sixty-seven percent agreed that pain medications interfere with diagnostic accuracy, and 82% consider diagnostic accuracy when deciding to withhold pain medication.

Practical issues in the care of pediatric trauma patients

Childhood injuries are a preventable problem that continue to occur with alarming frequency. The pediatrician has a broad role in the prevention and treatment of injuries. When primary prevention fails, trauma care providers must recognize that an injured child is a unique patient who requires special considerations. Use of an organized approach will assure that injuries are not missed. The care of an injured child presents pediatricians with a tremendous responsibility. Injury prevention presents the pediatrician with a formidable challenge.

Do patients receive adequate pain control after discharge from the ED?

Studies on the effectiveness of pain management have uniformly concluded that health care providers underestimate or undertreat pain. In the emergency department (ED) in which this study was conducted, physicians receive formal didactic and bedside teaching on pain recognition and management in order to heighten the awareness of patients' need for pain control. The purpose of this study was to determine if this outpatient pain management of patients with acute, painful conditions is better than that reported in the medical literature. In this prospective study, 110 adult patients who had an acute, painful diagnosis were telephoned 48 hours after discharge from the ED and asked if they felt their pain at home was well controlled. Patient satisfaction with pain control was higher (91%) than that reported in the medical literature. Also, pain medication was provided more frequently by this study's ED (95%). Education on pain awareness and treatment is a way to improve pain management.

Prehospital and emergency department analgesia for air-transported patients with fractures

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate prehospital and receiving emergency department (ED) analgesia administration in air-transported patients with isolated fractures.

METHODS

The study was a retrospective descriptive analysis of flight and hospital records. Study patients were consecutive adults (not pharmacologically paralyzed) with fractures undergoing scene or interfacility helicopter transport during 1994-1996. The study aeromedical program uses two helicopters staffed by a nurse/paramedic flight crew providing protocol-guided care. The receiving ED was in an urban academic Level I trauma center (annual census 65,000). Primary data collected were timing and amount of prehospital and ED analgesia. Analysis was mainly descriptive, with chi-square and nonparametric methods used to compare patients who did and did not receive intratransport fentanyl.

RESULTS

130 patients with isolated fractures underwent air transport during the study period 1994-1996. Of these, 98 (75.4%) received intratransport fentanyl; 20 of 98 (20.4%) received no analgesia in the receiving ED. Patients who did receive repeat analgesia in the receiving ED (n = 78, 79.6% of those receiving prehospital fentanyl) had a median interval of 42.5 minutes (interquartile range 25-100) between ED arrival and analgesia administration; only 62.8% of these patients received their ED analgesia within 60 minutes of arrival.

CONCLUSIONS

Some patients receiving intratransport fentanyl received no ED analgesia, and those who did receive ED analgesia often had administration delays surpassing the clinical half-life of intratransport-administered fentanyl. Further study should investigate whether setting-specific analgesia practice differences reflect true differences in analgesia needs, overmedication by prehospital providers, or undermedication by ED staff.

Comparison of fentanyl/midazolam with ketamine/midazolam for pediatric orthopedic emergencies

OBJECTIVE

Emergency management of pediatric fractures and dislocations requires effective analgesia, yet children's pain is often undertreated. We compared the safety and efficacy of fentanyl- versus ketamine- based protocols.

METHODOLOGY

Patients 5 to 15 years of age needing emergency fracture or joint reduction (FR) were randomized to receive intravenous midazolam plus either fentanyl (F/M) or ketamine (K/M). Measures of efficacy were observational distress scores and self- and parental-report. Measures of safety were frequency of abnormalities in and need for support of cardiopulmonary function and other adverse effects.

RESULTS

During FR, K/M subjects (n = 130) had lower distress scores and parental ratings of pain and anxiety than did F/M subjects (n = 130). Although both regimens equally facilitated reductions, deep sedation, and procedural amnesia, orthopedists favored K/M. Recovery was 14 minutes longer for K/M. Fewer K/M subjects had hypoxia (6% vs 25%), needed breathing cues (1% vs 12%), or required oxygen (10% vs 20%) than did F/M subjects. Two K/M subjects required assisted ventilation briefly. More K/M subjects vomited. Adverse emergence reactions were rare but equivalent between regimens.

CONCLUSIONS

During emergency pediatric orthopedic procedures, K/M is more effective than F/M for pain and anxiety relief. Respiratory complications occurred less frequently with K/M, but respiratory support may be needed with either regimen. Both regimens facilitate reduction, produce amnesia, and rarely cause emergence delirium. Vomiting is more frequent and recovery more prolonged with K/M.

[Evaluation of acute pain in prehospital medicine]

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate acute pain in prehospital setting.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective survey.

PATIENTS

All eligible patients during a 3-month-period, excepted children less than 10-year-old.

METHOD

Pain intensity was evaluated by verbal rating scale with 5 points (VRS), visual analog scale (VAS), demand for antalgics by the patient and the relief obtained. These data were collected at the beginning (T0) and the end (Tend) of medical management. Analgesic treatments were let at the physician's choice.

RESULTS

A series of 255 patients were included (mean age 58 +/- 1.5 SEM, sex-ratio 57M/43F). Among them, 42% experienced pain at VRS. VAS could be used in 60% of patients. VRS evaluated by the patient was correlated to the VAS (P < 0.001). Among those with significant pain (defined by a VAS > or = 30 mm), only 31% asked for analgesia and 64% received analgesics. Pain scales (VRS and VAS) were significantly improved (P < 0.001) at the end of the medical management, except for patients who did not receive any treatment. However, mean VAS was still above 30 mm, even in patients receiving analgesics. Only 49% of patients expressed a good relief at the end of the medical management.

CONCLUSION

Acute pain is frequently observed in prehospital emergency medicine. Pain scales such as VRS and VAS are used easily and convenient for the assessment of pain intensity in this context. However, even if pain is correctly evaluated, it is still inadequately treated. The reasons of these inadequacies must be assessed and corrected with pain treatment protocols including opioids.

Do quantitative changes in pain intensity correlate with pain relief and satisfaction?

OBJECTIVE

To correlate measured pain intensity (PI) changes with pain relief and satisfaction with pain management.

METHODS

A prospective single-group repeated-measures design study. A heterogeneous group of patients were asked to record their levels of PI at initial presentation and at ED release using a numerical descriptor scale (NDS) and a visual analog scale (VAS). At release, a 5-point pain relief scale and a pain management satisfaction survey were also completed.

RESULTS

A convenience sample of 81 patients were enrolled over the study period. The average reduction in PI for all patients was 33%. A 5%, 30%, and 57% reduction in PI correlated with "no," "some/partial," and "significant/complete" relief, respectively (p < 0.001). However, when patients were divided into 2 groups based on their initial PI scores, patients with moderate/severe pain (NDS > 5) required a reduction of 35% and 84% in PI to achieve "some/partial" and "significant/complete" relief, respectively. Patients in less pain (NDS < or = 5) needed 25% and 29% reductions in PI for the same categories (p=0.8). Patients were generally satisfied with their pain management. There was a positive association between pain relief and satisfaction with pain management.

CONCLUSION

There is a significant association between changes in PI and pain relief. Greater reductions in PI are required for patients presenting with more severe initial pain to achieve relief compared with those who have lesser initial PI. While there is a linear relationship between increasing pain relief and satisfaction, relief of pain appears to only partially contribute to overall satisfaction with pain management.

Analgesia in the accident and emergency department: do SHOs have the knowledge to provide optimal analgesia?

OBJECTIVE

To assess senior house officers' knowledge in prescribing emergency analgesia for acute presentations in the accident and emergency (A&E) department.

DESIGN

Prospective telephone survey of a defined population of SHOs, using a standardised structured questionnaire, in the months of October and November, 1995; 231 SHOs from 215 A&E departments were interviewed. The questionnaire required responses to hypothetical scenarios. A six member expert panel from the local region was consulted for suggestions for appropriate responses.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Comparisons between SHO responses and those of an expert panel.

RESULTS

For choice of analgesic agent, 83% of SHO responses were appropriate, for route of administration 57%, and for the dose of drug 34%. The scenario with the best overall response was a sprained ankle. The paediatric case with partial burns faired worse. Responses to a myocardial infarction scenario were the most consistent.

CONCLUSIONS

A&E SHOs lack knowledge and confidence when asked to prescribe emergency analgesia for acute conditions. Responses to certain scenarios were extremely varied, indicating a need for national analgesia guidelines and protocols. Recognised training in pain management should be more readily available.

Comparative study of methods of measuring acute pain intensity in an ED

The best one-dimensional method for routine self-assessment of acute pain intensity in a hospital emergency department is unknown. In this study, an 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS), a simple verbal rating scale describing five pain states (VRS), and a visual analogue scale (VAS) were presented successively on admission to 290 patients with acute pain (200 with and 90 without trauma). VAS and NRS were closely correlated for both traumatic (r = .795) and nontraumatic pain (r = .911). The VAS could not be used with 19.5% of patients with trauma and the VRS with 11% of patients without trauma, whereas the NRS could be used with 96% of all patients. The NRS proved more reliable for patients with trauma, giving equivalent results to those with the VAS for patients without trauma. These two scales showed better discriminant power for all patients. Thus, the NRS would appear to be the means for self-evaluation of acute pain intensity in an emergency department.

Pearls, pitfalls, and updates for pain management

Pain management is one of the most challenging areas we encounter as emergency physicians. However, many of us fail to adequately meet this challenge. This article discusses frequently encountered pain syndromes and pain management options.

Pain management in the emergency department: patterns of analgesic utilization

OBJECTIVE

To compare the use of analgesia in children to adults in 3 different emergency department (ED) settings.

METHODS

Forty adult and 40 pediatric ED charts were randomly selected for review at each of 3 institutions: an academic medical center with separate pediatric and adult EDs (SEP ED), a community academic medical center with a combined adult and pediatric ED (COMB ED), and a community hospital with a combined ED (COMTY ED). All patients presenting to the EDs from July 1993 to June 1994 within 12 hours of an isolated long bone fracture were eligible for inclusion. Data were collected on demographics, training of providers, analgesic use and dosing in the ED and on discharge, and time from triage to analgesic use.

RESULTS

The mean pediatric and adult ages were 8.7 and 38.3 years, respectively. Overall, 152/240 (63%) patients received some form of analgesia in the ED, with the COMTY ED (41/80; 51%) offering significantly less analgesia than the COMB ED (58/80; 73%), but not the SEP ED (53/80; 66%). Pediatric patients (64/120; 53%) received significantly less analgesia in the ED than adult patients (88/120; 73%). This difference was significant at the COMB ED (pediatric 23/40; 58% vs adult 35/40; 88%) and COMTY ED (pediatric 15/40; 38% vs adult 26/40; 65%), but not at the SEP ED (pediatric 26/40; 65% vs adult 27/40; 68%). 195/240 (81%) patients received discharge pain medication. There were no differences between pediatric (93/120; 78%) and adult (102/120; 85%) discharge analgesic prescribing practices. Although there was no difference in appropriateness of analgesic doses in the ED, pediatric patients (20/74; 27%) were more likely than adult patients (3/88; 3%) to receive inadequate doses of analgesics on discharge from the ED.

CONCLUSIONS

ED analgesia continues to be used less frequently in the pediatric compared with the adult population. Inadequate dosing of discharge analgesic medication in children is a significant problem. Patterns of analgesic utilization may differ in different types of ED settings.

Pre-operative analgesia after injury

Much has been written on postoperative analgesia in the surgical patient. However, no work has been published on pre-operative pain relief in acute injury. We have studied 100 consecutive admissions, reviewing the prescribing pattern and administration of analgesia following acute injury in the period prior to operation, or the first 24 h as an in-patient. We found an over-reliance on a narrow range of analgesics to the exclusion of others. The choice and variety of analgesic offered, their frequency and route of administration could all have been improved. Equally, little thought was given to adjuvant forms of analgesic therapy which are well suited to the injured patient. Analgesics were prescribed more often than they were given. No pharmacological analgesia was prescribed in 9 per cent of admissions, and a further 14 per cent were given no analgesia despite its being prescribed, i.e. 23 per cent of acutely injured patients received no analgesia during the pre-operative period, or first 24 h after admission. This audit revealed evidence of inadequate pre-operative analgesic prescribing and administration practices. We conclude that there is no place for complacency when managing the analgesic requirements of injured patients.

Age as a risk factor for inadequate emergency department analgesia

Inadequate treatment of pain, which has been termed as "oligoanalgesia", appears to be common in a number of practice settings, including the emergency department (ED). The purpose of this study was to determine whether elderly patients with isolated long-bone fractures are less likely to receive analgesics in the ED than a similar cohort of younger patients. Consecutive adult patients (aged 20 to 50 years or older than 70 years) presenting to the ED with isolated long-bone fractures were evaluated using a retrospective cohort study design. Patient demographics, ED treatment, and disposition were analyzed (t tests, chi2) to identify significant differences between the two age groups. Analgesic use was recorded as oral or parenteral, nonnarcotic or narcotic, and low or high dose (less than or at least the equivalent of 10 mg parenteral morphine sulfate, respectively). A total of 231 patients met the inclusion criteria, of whom 109 were elderly (mean age, 80.6 +/- 7.4 years) and 122 nonelderly (mean age 33.9 +/- 8.0 years). Nonelderly patients were more likely than the elderly to receive ED pain medication (80% vs 66%, P =.02) within a shorter period of time (mean 52 min vs 74 min, P = .02), and at a higher equivalent dose (44% vs 19%, P = .002). Younger patients also tended to receive more narcotic medications (98% vs 89%, P = .03). Inadequate use of analgesics in adult ED patients with acute fractures appears to be common. A chronologic basis for variability in analgesic practice needs to be further characterized.

The analgesic efficacy of ketorolac for acute pain

Ketorolac is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, available in both oral and parenteral forms, that possesses significant analgesic potency. Its analgesic efficacy has been studied extensively for the treatment of moderate-to-severe pain in many clinical settings. Although ketorolac possesses significant analgesic potency, it has limited utility as an analgesic for the acute treatment of moderate-to-severe pain in the emergency department. Oral ketorolac has been shown to provide analgesia that is the same or better than aspirin, acetaminophen, and dextropropoxyphene with acetaminophen, and equal analgesia to most other commonly available oral analgesics, including ibuprofen and acetaminophen with codeine. Intramuscular ketorolac provides analgesia equivalent to commonly used doses of meperidine and morphine. However, its utility in acute pain, when rapid relief is necessary, is limited due to a prolonged onset to analgesic action (30-60 min) and a significant number of patients who exhibit little or no response, more than 25% in most studies. The use of intravenous ketorolac has been less well studied. It has analgesic potency but its utility in patients with moderate-to-severe pain is also limited because there is a significant percentage of patients who fail to obtain adequate relief. Ketorolac may be most useful in supplementing parenteral opiates.

Procedural pain in a paediatric surgical emergency unit

Pain induced by various types of procedures was assessed in the Paediatric Surgical Emergency Department at St Göran's Children's Hospital in Stockholm. Assessments of pain were obtained from the nurse, the parent, and children over 10 years of age by means of a visual analogue scale. In children aged 3-9 years, the Smiley Five-Face Scale was used. The nurse and the parent also answered questionnaires about analgesic medication, the child's behaviour, and the parent's overall opinion of the pain management, etc. Irrigation of the glans penis because of balanitis, treatment of fractures and paronychia were considered to be the most painful procedures. Forty-four per cent of the children cried during the procedure and 16% fought against being restrained. In 24% of the cases, the child was judged to be in a state of "panic". In conclusion, we believe that the pain induced by procedures in the emergency rooms is unacceptably high. Children estimate higher pain scores than parents and nurses do. There was a poor correlation between the parent's and child's estimates of pain. Parents are not well informed about the possibilities for pain treatment. Infants and children attending emergency rooms must also benefit from recent advances in the treatment of pain.

Gender-associated differences in emergency department pain management

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To determine whether patient or provider gender is associated with the number, type, and strength of medications received by emergency department patients with headache, neck pain, or back pain.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Stanford University Hospital ED PARTICIPANTS: Patients 18 years and older who arrived at the ED with a chief complaint of headache, neck pain, or back pain between February 1, 1993, and September 30, 1993. Provider participants included medical students, interns, residents, nurse practitioners, and attending physicians.

RESULTS

ED administration of analgesic versus no analgesic, strength of analgesic administered, and administration of multiple medications. The study group consisted of 190 patients, 110 of them female. The patients were evaluated by 84 providers, 60 of them male. According to the providers surveyed, female patients described more pain than did male patients (P < .01) and were perceived by providers to experience more pain (P = .03). Female patients received more medications (P < .01) and were less likely to receive no medication (P = .01). Female patients also received more potent analgesics (P = .03). Linear and logistic regression analysis showed that patient perception of pain was the strongest predictor of the number and strength of medications given; patient gender was not a predictor.

CONCLUSION

Female patients with headache, neck pain, or back pain describe more pain and are perceived by providers to have more pain than male patients in the ED. Female patients also receive more medications and stronger analgesics. In this study, severity of patient pain rather than gender stereotyping appeared to correlate most with pain-management practices.

A prospective blinded study on emergency pain assessment and therapy

A prospective blinded observational study was carried out to document acute pain assessment and management in an academic emergency department. Over a 2-month period, 42 patients with a primary complaint of pain were studied. Physicians and nurses did not document levels of pain or changes in pain during patient stays. Eleven of 42 patients had severe pain upon arrival, 5 of whom received medications, only 1 obtaining good relief. No other patient received medication, although five others received some intervention for their pain. Eleven of 38 patients who were discharged home had severe pain on discharge. Despite minimal pain relief, patient satisfaction with pain management was relatively high. Pain assessment and treatment may be poorer than previous retrospective studies have indicated.

Ketorolac tromethamine use in a university-based emergency department

OBJECTIVE

To assess the use of parenteral ketorolac tromethamine (KT) in the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

During a six-month period, KT was administered in an uncontrolled, nonblinded fashion to a series of ED patients experiencing acute pain. The patients rated pain on a previously validated visual analog pain scale before receiving KT. They repeated this procedure one hour after KT administration, prior to additional analgesia, or preceding release, whichever came first. Analgesic response was assessed by comparing pretreatment and posttreatment pain scores for the entire study population by the Wilcoxon rank sum test. Possible effects of specific variables (patient age, gender, race, indication for KT, route, dose, previous use of NSAIDs, and concurrent administration of muscle relaxants) were assessed using the Kruskal-Wallis test.

RESULTS

Of the 445 patients enrolled, 375 (84%) reported pain relief with KT, only seven (2%) worsened, and the remainder (14%) reported no change. Overall pain reduction was 37.6 +/- 27.2 (SD) mm (100-mm scale) for the entire study population. The pain scores obtained after KT administration were significantly lower than those obtained prior to KT administration (p < 0.001). The only variable that significantly influenced pain score reduction was indication for KT (p = 0.001). Nephrolithiasis and toothache patients had the largest mean reductions in pain. No significant side effect was reported.

CONCLUSION

Parenteral KT is a useful and safe analgesic for ED patients. The agent generally provides analgesia and is particularly promising for patients with nephrolithiasis or toothache.

Sedative-analgesic agent administration in children: analysis of use and complications in the emergency department

The frequency of, indications for, and complications from non-acetaminophen sedative-analgesic agents (SAAs) administered to children less than 16 years of age in the emergency department (ED) were determined by a retrospective review. All 21,353 charts from a single university hospital ED over a 16-month period were included. Few children (N = 759; 3.5%) received SAAs. Of 919 total doses, 13% of children received a second and 4.5% received a third SAA. The group was 59% male. Most children were < or = 10 years of age. Sixty-two percent of SAAs were either sedatives or opioids. Sedatives given included chloral hydrate, diazepam, lorazepam, midazolam, and phenobarbital. Opioids given included morphine, codeine, and meperidine. Indications for SAAs included painful procedures, analgesia, radiographic imaging, and seizure activity. Complications (N = 51; 6.7%) included inadequate sedation, vomiting, and respiratory depression or oxygen desaturation. Respiratory depression or oxygen desaturation occurred only after intravenous administration of SAAs for seizures. In children, non-acetaminophen SAAs are used most commonly in younger patients requiring sedation for painful procedures or for radiologic imaging. Respiratory depression was observed only after intravenous administration of anticonvulsants.

Effectiveness of transnasal butorphanol for the treatment of musculoskeletal pain

A prospective, open-label study of the effectiveness of transnasal butorphanol in the treatment of pain resulting from musculoskeletal injuries. Twenty-eight patients with strains (n = 20), fractures (n = 6), contusions (n = 1), and stab wounds (n = 1) were included. All patients were examined by an attending level emergency medicine physician and deemed to have pain severe enough to warrant parenteral narcotic analgesia. All patients received an initial 1-mg dose of transnasal butorphanol. Subsequent dosing was flexible depending on response to the initial dose. All patients received pain relief from transnasal butorphanol, and only one requested alternative analgesic medication. Fifty-seven percent (n = 16) of patients noticed at least a little relief of pain within 5 minutes of administration and 93% (n = 26) received at least a little relief within 15 minutes. Seventy-one percent of the patients received a 50% reduction of pain within 60 minutes. No serious side effects were noted, but drowsiness occurred in 82% (n = 23) and dizziness in 54% (n = 15) of the patients. One patient discontinued participation in the study because of nausea. In this limited trial transnasal butorphanol proved to be a rapidly effective opioid analgesic. Further controlled studies comparing transnasal butorphanol with standard parenteral narcotics are needed.

Acute pain management

Analgesic regimens should be based on sound clinical data and tailored to the individual patient's needs. The combination of specific agents for selected syndromes and traditional analgesics allows safe pain relief to be achieved for most emergency patients.

Pediatric analgesia and sedation

Sedation and analgesia are essential components of the ED management of pediatric patients. Used appropriately, there are a number of medications and techniques that can be used safely in the emergency care of infants and children. Emergency physicians should be competent in the use of multiple sedatives and analgesics. Adequate equipment and monitoring, staff training, discharge instructions and continuous quality management should be an integral part of the ED use of these agents.

Emergency department analgesic use in pediatric trauma victims with fractures

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To investigate the frequency of emergency department analgesic use in children with presumably painful fractures who are also at risk for associated multiple injuries and to determine whether there are specific factors that distinguish those who are prescribed analgesics from those who are not.

DESIGN

Descriptive, retrospective review of a computerized trauma registry.

SETTING

Regional pediatric ED and trauma center.

PARTICIPANTS

Four hundred thirty-three injured children met trauma team activation criteria from January 1, 1991 through June 30, 1992. Of these 433, we selected the 121 children who had fractures of the pelvis, long bones, ankle, wrist, or clavicle. Of these 121, we excluded the 22 children who underwent endotracheal intubation. Trauma registry data from the prehospital and ED phases of care from the remaining 99 children were reviewed for this study.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MAIN RESULTS

Of the study group, 53% (52 of 99) received analgesics, all narcotics. Excluding the 46 children with multi-system injuries, only 62% (33 of 53) received analgesics. Patients in both the analgesic (52) and no-analgesic groups (47) were mildly to moderately injured based on initial ED trauma scores and vital signs. No statistical or clinical significant differences were found between the analgesic group and the no-analgesic group when comparing age, sex, race, mechanism of injury, vehicle speed, height of fall, time elapsed from injury until arrival at the ED, transport method, prehospital analgesic use, mortality, Injury Severity Score, and initial ED vital signs, Glasgow Coma Scale, Trauma Score, and Pediatric Trauma Score. Fifty-nine percent (ten of 17) of the children with associated internal injuries limited to the chest or abdomen received analgesics compared with 62% (33 of 53) in those with isolated fracture (P = .8). Those with an associated head injury (31%, nine of 29) received analgesics less frequently than those with isolated fracture (62%, 33 of 53) (P = .01).

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that ED analgesic use was low in these mildly to moderately injured children with presumably painful fractures who are also at risk for associated multiple injuries. Head injury was associated with especially low analgesic use. We did not identify other specific factors that distinguished those who received analgesics from those who did not. Further investigation is required to determine if after the initial evaluation, a larger proportion of mildly to moderately injured trauma victims with fractures are appropriate candidates for ED analgesic use.

Abuse potential of various opioid medications

The abuse potentials of various narcotic medications were assessed by surveying 130 hospital patients who admitted to having abused prescription narcotics within the preceding six months. 85% of the subjects surveyed reported having tried controlled-release narcotic preparations for abuse purposes and 60% reported that they were of little or no use. To obtain another index of abuse potential, the author asked the subjects to estimate the street prices of various medications. The street prices of controlled-release formulations were lower than those of other narcotic medications and those of some uncontrolled nonnarcotic medications. These results suggest that controlled-release narcotic formulations may have a lower potential for abuse than do other narcotic medications. In situations where there is concern about potential abuse or diversion of prescribed narcotics, controlled-release preparations may be an appropriate alternative to high-peaking, rapid-onset opioid formulations.

Safety assessment of high-dose narcotic analgesia for emergency department procedures

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety of high-dose IV narcotics in patients requiring analgesia for painful emergency department procedures.

DESIGN

Prospective multicenter clinical trial.

SETTING

Five adult urban EDs.

METHODS AND MEASUREMENTS

All patients received IV meperidine (1.5 to 3.0 mg/kg) titrated to analgesia followed by a painful procedure. Vital signs and alertness scale were recorded at regular intervals, and patients were observed for four hours. Adverse events were monitored and documented. Comparisons between baseline and postanalgesia intervals were made with a repeated measures ANOVA (Dunnett's test).

RESULTS

Although statistically significant changes in vital signs and alertness scale occurred, they were not clinically significant. Opiate reversal with naloxone was not needed in any patient, and no significant respiratory or circulatory compromise occurred.

CONCLUSION

This study of 72 patients demonstrates that high-dose narcotic analgesia is appropriate, well tolerated, and safe when used in selected patients before painful procedures in the ED. Narcotic antagonists and resuscitation equipment nonetheless should be available to maximize safety.

Intranasal midazolam as a sedative for children during laceration repair

We performed a retrospective chart review to determine the onset, duration, safety, and clinical sedative effects of 0.2 to 0.5 mg/kg intranasal midazolam in young children during laceration repair. Of 408 children treated for lacerations during an 8-month period, 42 (10%) received intranasal midazolam. Documentation was adequate for detailed analysis in 40 cases. Data are reported as mean +/- standard deviation and the frequency with 95% confidence limit (CL) estimates. The mean age of the study population was 32 +/- 9 months (range 12 months to 6 years), and the mean body mass was 14.5 +/- 3 kg. Topical or injected local anesthesia was used in 37 cases. Overall, 73% (CL 56% to 85%) of the children achieved adequate sedation. However, those receiving 0.2 to 0.29 mg/kg had adequate sedation in only 27% (CL 6% to 60%) of the cases compared with 80% (CL 52% to 95%) and 100% (CL 79% to 100%) when 0.3 to 0.39 and 0.4 to 0.5 mg/kg respectively were administered. When achieved, sedation occurred within 12 +/- 4 minutes, recovery occurred at 41 +/- 9 minutes, and discharge occurred at 56 +/- 11 minutes. No vomiting or clinically significant oxygen desaturation (defined as a drop of > 4% or to < 91%) was observed. We conclude that intranasal midazolam is a safe and effective sedative for laceration repair under local anesthesia in preschool-aged children. We recommend a dose of 0.3 to 0.5 mg/kg, with treatment failure less likely after 0.4 to 0.5 mg/kg compared with less than 0.3 mg/kg.