Adverse events associated with the use of intravenous epinephrine in emergency department patients presenting with severe asthma

[Cardiac arrest under special circumstances]

These guidelines of the European Resuscitation Council (ERC) Cardiac Arrest under Special Circumstances are based on the 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Science with Treatment Recommendations. This section provides guidelines on the modifications required for basic and advanced life support for the prevention and treatment of cardiac arrest under special circumstances; in particular, specific causes (hypoxia, trauma, anaphylaxis, sepsis, hypo-/hyperkalaemia and other electrolyte disorders, hypothermia, avalanche, hyperthermia and malignant hyperthermia, pulmonary embolism, coronary thrombosis, cardiac tamponade, tension pneumothorax, toxic agents), specific settings (operating room, cardiac surgery, cardiac catheterization laboratory, dialysis unit, dental clinics, transportation [in-flight, cruise ships], sport, drowning, mass casualty incidents), and specific patient groups (asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, neurological disease, morbid obesity, pregnancy).

Adverse events associated with administration of vasopressor medications through a peripheral intravenous catheter: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

It is unclear whether vasopressors can be safely administered through a peripheral intravenous (PIV). Systematic review and meta-analysis methodology was used to examine the incidence of local anatomic adverse events associated with PIV vasopressor administration in patients of any age cared for in any acute care environment.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Central Register of controlled trials, and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects were searched without restriction from inception to October 2019. References of included studies and related reviews, as well as relevant conference proceedings were also searched. Studies were included if they were: (1) cohort, quasi-experimental, or randomized controlled trial study design; (2) conducted in humans of any age or clinical setting; and (3) reported on local anatomic adverse events associated with PIV vasopressor administration. Risk of bias was assessed using the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials or the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist for prevalence studies where appropriate. Incidence estimates were pooled using random effects meta-analysis. Subgroup analyses were used to explore sources of heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies were included in the systematic review, of which 16 and 7 described adults and children, respectively. Meta-analysis from 11 adult studies including 16,055 patients demonstrated a pooled incidence proportion of adverse events associated with PIV vasopressor administration as 1.8% (95% CI 0.1-4.8%, I² = 93.7%). In children, meta-analysis from four studies and 388 patients demonstrated a pooled incidence proportion of adverse events as 3.3% (95% CI 0.0-10.1%, I² = 82.4%). Subgroup analyses did not detect any statistically significant effects associated with stratification based on differences in clinical location, risk of bias or design between studies, PIV location and size, or vasopressor type or duration. Most studies had high or some concern for risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

The incidence of adverse events associated with PIV vasopressor administration is low. Additional research is required to examine the effects of PIV location and size, vasopressor type and dose, and patient characteristics on the safety of PIV vasopressor administration.

Adrenaline to improve survival in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: the PARAMEDIC2 RCT

BACKGROUND

Adrenaline has been used as a treatment for cardiac arrest for many years, despite uncertainty about its effects on long-term outcomes and concerns that it may cause worse neurological outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives were to evaluate the effects of adrenaline on survival and neurological outcomes, and to assess the cost-effectiveness of adrenaline use.

DESIGN

This was a pragmatic, randomised, allocation-concealed, placebo-controlled, parallel-group superiority trial and economic evaluation. Costs are expressed in Great British pounds and reported in 2016/17 prices.

SETTING

This trial was set in five NHS ambulance services in England and Wales.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults treated for an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were included. Patients were ineligible if they were pregnant, if they were aged < 16 years, if the cardiac arrest had been caused by anaphylaxis or life-threatening asthma, or if adrenaline had already been given.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomised to either adrenaline (1 mg) or placebo in a 1 : 1 allocation ratio by the opening of allocation-concealed treatment packs.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was survival to 30 days. The secondary outcomes were survival to hospital admission, survival to hospital discharge, survival at 3, 6 and 12 months, neurological outcomes and health-related quality of life through to 6 months. The economic evaluation assessed the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained from the perspective of the NHS and Personal Social Services. Participants, clinical teams and those assessing patient outcomes were masked to the treatment allocation.

RESULTS

From December 2014 to October 2017, 8014 participants were assigned to the adrenaline (n = 4015) or to the placebo (n = 3999) arm. At 30 days, 130 out of 4012 participants (3.2%) in the adrenaline arm and 94 out of 3995 (2.4%) in the placebo arm were alive (adjusted odds ratio for survival 1.47, 95% confidence interval 1.09 to 1.97). For secondary outcomes, survival to hospital admission was higher for those receiving adrenaline than for those receiving placebo (23.6% vs. 8.0%; adjusted odds ratio 3.83, 95% confidence interval 3.30 to 4.43). The rate of favourable neurological outcome at hospital discharge was not significantly different between the arms (2.2% vs. 1.9%; adjusted odds ratio 1.19, 95% confidence interval 0.85 to 1.68). The pattern of improved survival but no significant improvement in neurological outcomes continued through to 6 months. By 12 months, survival in the adrenaline arm was 2.7%, compared with 2.0% in the placebo arm (adjusted odds ratio 1.38, 95% confidence interval 1.00 to 1.92). An adjusted subgroup analysis did not identify significant interactions. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for adrenaline was estimated at £1,693,003 per quality-adjusted life-year gained over the first 6 months after the cardiac arrest event and £81,070 per quality-adjusted life-year gained over the lifetime of survivors. Additional economic analyses estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for adrenaline at £982,880 per percentage point increase in overall survival and £377,232 per percentage point increase in neurological outcomes over the first 6 months after the cardiac arrest.

LIMITATIONS

The estimate for survival with a favourable neurological outcome is imprecise because of the small numbers of patients surviving with a good outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Adrenaline improved long-term survival, but there was no evidence that it significantly improved neurological outcomes. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life-year exceeds the threshold of £20,000-30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year usually supported by the NHS.

FUTURE WORK

Further research is required to better understand patients' preferences in relation to survival and neurological outcomes after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and to aid interpretation of the trial findings from a patient and public perspective.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN73485024 and EudraCT 2014-000792-11.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 25. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

European Resuscitation Council Guidelines 2021: Cardiac arrest in special circumstances

These European Resuscitation Council (ERC) Cardiac Arrest in Special Circumstances guidelines are based on the 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Science with Treatment Recommendations. This section provides guidelines on the modifications required to basic and advanced life support for the prevention and treatment of cardiac arrest in special circumstances; specifically special causes (hypoxia, trauma, anaphylaxis, sepsis, hypo/hyperkalaemia and other electrolyte disorders, hypothermia, avalanche, hyperthermia and malignant hyperthermia, pulmonary embolism, coronary thrombosis, cardiac tamponade, tension pneumothorax, toxic agents), special settings (operating room, cardiac surgery, catheter laboratory, dialysis unit, dental clinics, transportation (in-flight, cruise ships), sport, drowning, mass casualty incidents), and special patient groups (asthma and COPD, neurological disease, obesity, pregnancy).

A systematic review of extravasation and local tissue injury from administration of vasopressors through peripheral intravenous catheters and central venous catheters

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to collect and describe all published reports of local tissue injury or extravasation from vasopressor administration via either peripheral intravenous (IV) or central venous catheter.

METHODS

A systematic search of Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases was performed from inception through January 2014 for reports of adults who received vasopressor intravenously via peripheral IV or central venous catheter for a therapeutic purpose. We included primary studies or case reports of vasopressor administration that resulted in local tissue injury or extravasation of vasopressor solution.

RESULTS

Eighty-five articles with 270 patients met all inclusion criteria. A total of 325 separate local tissue injury and extravasation events were identified, with 318 events resulting from peripheral vasopressor administration and 7 events resulting from central administration. There were 204 local tissue injury events from peripheral administration of vasopressors, with an average duration of infusion of 55.9 hours (±68.1), median time of 24 hours, and range of 0.08 to 528 hours. In most of these events (174/204, 85.3%), the infusion site was located distal to the antecubital or popliteal fossae.

CONCLUSIONS

Published data on tissue injury or extravasation from vasopressor administration via peripheral IVs are derived mainly from case reports. Further study is warranted to clarify the safety of vasopressor administration via peripheral IVs.

Safety of epinephrine for anaphylaxis in the emergency setting

BACKGROUND

While epinephrine is the recommended first-line therapy for the reversal of anaphylaxis symptoms, inappropriate use persists because of misunderstandings about proper dosing and administration or misconceptions about its safety. The objective of this review was to evaluate the safety of epinephrine for patients with anaphylaxis, including other emergent conditions, treated in emergency care settings.

METHODS

A MEDLINE search using PubMed was conducted to identify articles that discuss the dosing, administration, and safety of epinephrine in the emergency setting for anaphylaxis and other conditions.

RESULTS

Epinephrine is safe for anaphylaxis when given at the correct dose by intramuscular injection. The majority of dosing errors and cardiovascular adverse reactions occur when epinephrine is given intravenously or incorrectly dosed.

CONCLUSION

Epinephrine by intramuscular injection is a safe therapy for anaphylaxis but training may still be necessary in emergency care settings to minimize drug dosing and administration errors and to allay concerns about its safety.

Medical emergencies: pulmonary embolism and acute severe asthma

In this, the second of two articles covering specific medical emergencies, we discuss the definitions, epidemiology, pathophysiology, acute and chronic management of pulmonary embolus and acute severe asthma.

Intravenous beta(2)-agonists versus intravenous aminophylline for acute asthma

BACKGROUND

Inhaled beta(2)-agonist therapy is central to the management of acute asthma. For rapid bronchodilation in severe cases, penetration of inhaled drug to the affected small conducting airway may be impeded, and the intravenous (IV) rather than inhaled administration of bronchodilators may provide an earlier response. IV beta(2)-agonist agents and IV aminophylline may also be considered as additional interventions in this setting and this review compares IV beta-agonist agents and IV aminophylline in the treatment of people with acute asthma.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefit of IV beta(2)-agonists versus IV aminophylline for acute asthma treated in the emergency department and in patients admitted to hospital with acute severe asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were identified using the Cochrane Airways Group Register, which is compiled from systematic searches of bibliographic databases as well as handsearching of respiratory journals and conference abstracts. The latest search was run in September 2012. We searched bibliographies from included studies and known reviews were also searched. Primary authors and content experts were contacted to identify eligible studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs of patients who presented to the emergency department with acute asthma, and patients admitted to hospital with acute severe asthma, and were treated with IV beta(2)-agonists versus IV aminophylline. Two review authors independently selected potentially relevant articles and selected articles for inclusion. Methodological quality was independently assessed using two scoring systems and two review authors.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted independently by two review authors. Missing data were obtained from authors or calculated from data present in the papers. Trials were combined using a random-effects model for odds ratios (OR) or mean differences (MD) and reported with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven studies met our inclusion criteria and in total they included 350 patients. However, opportunities to combine these studies in meta-analyses were limited by the variations in the range of outcomes reported in the trials.Length of stayTwo studies reported length of stay. They were both paediatric trials (with one in paediatric intensive care unit), and there was no significant difference between the two groups (MD 23.19 hours; 95% CI -2.40 to 48.77 hours; 2 studies; N = 73). Individual separate MD analyses for the two studies also indicated no significant difference between the aminophylline and beta(2)-agonist on this outcome. However, this finding should be interpreted with caution owing to the small number of trials and participants the analysis.Pulmonary functionThere were no significant differences in the sequential or summative pulmonary function demonstrated across the studies.Heart rateData for serial heart rates were reported in three studies at various points from 15 to 60 minutes and in each case there were no significant differences between people in the IV aminophylline or beta(2)-agonist groups. The difference between the two groups with respect to final heart rate was statistically significant (MD 10.00; 95% CI 0.99 to 19.01), although these data are from a single, small study and should be interpreted with caution.Adverse effectsThe analyses for giddiness (OR 59.22; 95% CI 2.80 to 1253.05; 1 study; N = 30), nausea/vomiting (where reported as a combined outcome) (OR 14.18; 95% CI 1.62 to 124.52; 2 studies; N = 96) and nausea (OR 6.53; 95% CI 1.60 to 26.72; 2 studies; N = 49) all significantly favoured beta(2)-agonists. In view of the very small number of studies and number of patients contributing to these analyses these results should be interpreted with caution. A closely related review considering the possible benefits of adding IV aminophylline to beta-agonists in adults with acute asthma also indicates a higher incidence of adverse effects associated with IV aminophylline.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In the included RCTs there was no consistent evidence favouring either IV beta(2)-agonists or IV aminophylline for patients with acute asthma. The opportunity to draw clear conclusions is limited by the heterogeneity of outcomes evaluated and the small sample sizes in the included studies. It is recommended that these data should be viewed carefully alongside the conclusions from separate Cochrane reviews comparing IV beta(2)-agonists plus inhaled beta(2)-agonists versus inhaled beta(2)-agonists alone and IV aminophylline plus inhaled beta(2)-agonists versus inhaled beta(2)-agonists alone.

[Asthma: treatment of exacerbations]

INTRODUCTION

Exacerbations remain, in both adults and children, a common reason for emergency consultation. The management of the asthmatic patient with an acute exacerbation is well defined.

BACKGROUND

The initial evaluation, based on the background risk factors and the clinical examination, will determine the choice of treatment and management. Treatment is based on bronchodilators and corticosteroids in the majority of cases.

VIEWPOINTS

An episode of exacerbation may be the opportunity to establish contact with the patient (an educational approach) to improve the adherence to long-term treatment with inhaled corticosteroids, which remain the best way of preventing future exacerbations.

CONCLUSION

Early and appropriate management of exacerbations of asthma should reduce asthma morbidity and mortality. It could also reduce the socioeconomic costs of these episodes and the number and duration of hospital admissions.

Review article: management of acute severe and near-fatal asthma

Despite a decline in the Australian overall asthma mortality, near-fatal/critical asthma continues to be a significant management issue for emergency physicians and intensivists. Near-fatal asthma is a unique subtype of asthma, with a variety of clinical presentations, requiring rapid and aggressive intervention. The pharmacological and non-pharmacological management of near-fatal asthma remains very complex. The present review discusses recent advances and evidence for current available strategies targeting this time critical emergency.

Update on epinephrine (adrenaline) for pediatric emergencies

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Epinephrine (adrenaline) is a medication widely used in the pediatric emergency department. This article reviews the most recent evidence and recommendations behind the many applications of epinephrine as they apply to the care of children in emergency departments.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent publications address epinephrine's role in the treatment of anaphylaxis, croup, asthma, bronchiolitis and as an adjunct to local anesthesia. Additionally, authors discuss epinephrine autoinjectors and the various routes of epinephrine administration.

SUMMARY

Epinephrine is the recommended first-line treatment for anaphylaxis and moderate-to-severe croup. Its role in asthma and bronchiolitis is less clear. Traditional beta2-agonists are seen as first-line therapies for moderate bronchiolitis and asthma exacerbations. Epinephrine may have a role for subsets of patients with both of these illnesses. The preferred route for parenteral treatment is intramuscular. Epinephrine is well tolerated as an adjunct to local anesthesia when used in digital blocks in digits with normal perfusion. Although autoinjectors allow faster access to epinephrine for anaphylaxis, there are many issues surrounding their use and indications.

Nebulized racemic epinephrine used in the treatment of severe asthmatic exacerbation: a case report and literature review

Acute asthma is a common emergency department (ED) problem that is typically treated with bronchodilators and anti-inflammatories. Nebulized selective, short-acting beta-agonists, such as salbutamol, are the bronchodilators of choice in most Canadian EDs. Other important treatments in moderate-to-severe cases include systemic corticosteroids and in severe cases may include the addition of ipratropium bromide and magnesium sulfate. Despite aggressive management, some patients do not respond adequately to nebulized salbutamol. Treatment options in these patients are limited to interventions such as parenteral epinephrine, and non-invasive and mechanical ventilation (or both). Both parenteral epinephrine and mechanical ventilation have associated risks, so alternative treatments with a lower risk profile would be useful for the treatment of life-threatening asthma. The following case report describes a patient in whom nebulized racemic epinephrine was used successfully to treat severe acute asthma following failure of standard first-line therapies.

Hypothyroidism Associated with Quetiapine Therapy; Paradoxical Bronchospasm Associated with Albuterol; Alcohol Cravings with Paroxetine Therapy?; Lamotrigine-Induced Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis – Three Cases; Acute Lung Injury with Vinorelbine; Adverse Events Related to Epinephrine Use in Asthma Patients Seen in the Emergency Department; Collecting Information from Patients Having Adverse Events; New Anticonvulsants – New Adverse Effects

The purpose of this feature is to heighten awareness of specific adverse drug reactions (ADRs), discuss methods of prevention, and promote reporting of ADRs to the FDA's medWatch program (800-FDA-1088). If you have reported an interesting preventable ADR to medWatch, please consider sharing the account with our readers.