The Use of Dexmedetomidine in the Emergency Department: A Cohort Study

Comparison of fentanyl and dexmedetomidine versus fentanyl and midazolam in procedural sedation for tube thoracostomy in emergency department - A randomized control study

OBJECTIVES

Effective sedation and analgesia during procedures not only provide relief of suffering but also frequently facilitate the successful and timely completion of the procedure. The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of fentanyl and dexmedetomidine compared to fentanyl and midazolam in procedural sedation for tube thoracostomy in the emergency department (ED) in terms of analgesia and patient satisfaction with sedation during the procedure using Pain Numerical Rating Scale and a 7-point Likert-like verbal rating scale for comfort rating of sedation.

METHODS

A randomized control study was conducted in 64 subjects admitted to the ED. Tube thoracostomy was performed in patients after the decision for Intercostal drain (ICD) placement taken on radiographic and clinical assessment depending on their condition warranting it and after optimally stabilizing the patient in the ED. Of the total study participants that met the inclusion criteria, 32 participants randomly received dexmedetomidine and the other 32 received midazolam.

RESULTS

Pain rating scale means were 2.3 ± 1.12 and 4.4 ± 1.72, respectively (P < 0.001), in dexmedetomidine and midazolam groups. With regard to adverse effects, a statistically significant difference was seen with dexmedetomidine causing hypotension (P = 0.04) and midazolam causing desaturation (P = 0.008). The results also suggested that midazolam achieved sedation levels quicker than dexmedetomidine and this finding was statistically significant (P < 0.001). A statistically significant difference was observed (P < 0.001) with regard to mean patient verbal ratings at recovery of sedation satisfaction between the two groups, 6 ± 0.77 (dexmedetomidine group) versus 4.7 ± 0.8 (midazolam group).

CONCLUSIONS

When observed in terms of analgesia, anxiolysis, and better sedation, dexmedetomidine proved to be superior. Our study shows that this drug could be a better alternative to traditional benzodiazepines for procedural sedation in ED.

Identification of potentially causative drugs associated with hypotension: A scoping review

Drug-induced hypotension can be harmful and may lead to hospital admissions. The occurrence of hypotension during drug therapy is preventable through increased awareness. This scoping review aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of antihypertensive and nonantihypertensive drugs associated with hypotension in adults. A systematic literature search was conducted using MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library, focusing on studies from January 2013 to May 2023. Search terms were developed to capture key concepts related to hypotension and adverse drug events in adults while excluding terms related to allergic reactions, phytotherapy and studies involving paediatric, pregnant or animal populations. The eligibility criteria included a wide range of study types evaluating hypotension as an adverse drug event across all healthcare settings. Relevant information was extracted from the included studies, while identified drugs associated with hypotension were categorised into drug classes. The review was reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews checklist. In 97 eligible studies, we identified 26 antihypertensive drugs grouped into nine different antihypertensive classes and 158 other drugs grouped into 22 other drug classes. Common antihypertensive classes were angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, beta blockers and diuretics. Frequently reported nonantihypertensive classes were neuroleptics, alpha-1 blockers for benign prostatic hyperplasia, benzodiazepines, opioids and antidepressants. The results highlight the importance of healthcare professionals being aware of nonantihypertensive drugs that can cause hypotension. This review provides a basis for future systematic reviews to explore dose-dependence, drug-drug interactions and confounding factors.

Management of analgosedation during noninvasive respiratory support: an expert Delphi consensus document developed by the Italian Society of Anesthesia, Analgesia, Resuscitation and Intensive Care (SIAARTI)

BACKGROUND

Discomfort can be the cause of noninvasive respiratory support (NRS) failure in up to 50% of treated patients. Several studies have shown how analgosedation during NRS can reduce the rate of delirium, endotracheal intubation, and hospital length of stay in patients with acute respiratory failure. The purpose of this project was to explore consensus on which medications are currently available as analgosedatives during NRS, which types of patients may benefit from analgosedation while on NRS, and which clinical settings might be appropriate for the implementation of analgosedation during NRS.

METHODS

The Italian Society of Anesthesia, Analgesia, Resuscitation and Intensive Care (SIAARTI) selected a panel of experts and asked them to define key aspects of the use of analgesics and sedatives during NRS treatment. The methodology applied is in line with the principles of the modified Delphi and RAND-UCLA methods. The experts developed statements and supportive rationales which were then subjected to blind votes for consensus.

RESULTS

The use of an analgosedation strategy in adult patients with acute respiratory failure of different origins may be useful where there is a need to manage discomfort. This strategy should be considered after careful assessment of other potential factors associated with respiratory failure or inappropriate noninvasive respiratory support settings, which may, in turn, be responsible for NRS failure. Several drugs can be used, each of them specifically targeted to the main component of discomfort to treat. In addition, analgosedation during NRS treatment should always be combined with close cardiorespiratory monitoring in an appropriate clinical setting.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of analgosedation during NRS has been studied in several clinical trials. However, its successful application relies on a thorough understanding of the pharmacological aspects of the sedative drugs used, the clinical conditions for which NRS is applied, and a careful selection of the appropriate clinical setting.

Major burns in adults: a practice review

There are approximately 180 000 deaths per year from thermal burn injury worldwide. Most burn injuries can be treated in local hospitals but 6.5% require specialist burn care. The initial ED assessment, resuscitation and critical care of the severely burned patient present significant challenges and require a multidisciplinary approach. The management of these patients in the resuscitation room impacts on the effectiveness of continuing care in the intensive care unit. The scope of the present practice review is the immediate management of the adult patient with severe burns, including inhalation injury and burn shock. The article uses an illustrative case to highlight recent developments including advanced airway management and the contemporary approach to assessment of fluid requirements and the type and volume of fluid resuscitation. There is discussion on new options for pain relief in the ED and the principles governing the early stages of burn intensive care. It does not discuss minor injuries, mass casualty events, chemical or radiation injuries, exfoliative or necrotising conditions or frost bite.

Dexmedetomidine in the emergency department: A prospective observational cohort study

BACKGROUND

Dexmedetomidine (DEX) is a centrally acting sympatholytic sedative. Abundant evidence from the intensive care unit and other settings demonstrates that the use of DEX is associated with improved sedation-related outcomes. There is a paucity of data on the use and efficacy of DEX in the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

We performed a prospective single-center observational cohort study of patients treated with intravenous DEX for any indication in the ED. We performed serial bedside evaluations of sedation depth and delirium and administered standardized questionnaires to ED physicians about their use of DEX. We assessed the incidence of hemodynamic adverse events (HAEs; bradycardia or hypotension), clinically significant HAEs (HAEs accompanied by clinical intervention or discontinuation of DEX), sedation-related ED outcomes, and clinician perception of DEX effectiveness.

RESULTS

We enrolled 75 patients treated with DEX in the ED during our study period. The most common indication for DEX was noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (32 patients, 43%). DEX was administered in the ED for a median of 2.6 h (interquartile range [IQR] 1.6-4.9 h), with a median infusion rate of 0.3 μg/kg/h (IQR 0.2-0.4 μg/kg/h). Clinically significant HAE occurred in nine patients (12%, 95% CI 6%-22%). Other sedative or analgesic infusions were administered in the ED to 21 patients (28%). Clinicians felt DEX was highly effective (median [IQR] effectiveness score of 5 [3-5] on a 5-point Likert scale). The median (IQR) ED Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale post-DEX was -1 (-4 to 0).

CONCLUSIONS

DEX is used in the ED for diverse indications. Additional data from larger cohorts and comparative studies are required to determine the precise incidence of clinically significant HAE associated with DEX use in the ED. ED clinicians have a positive perception of the effectiveness of DEX.

The use of dexmedetomidine in the emergency department: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Dexmedetomidine (DEX), a centrally acting alpha-2 agonist, is increasingly used for sedation in multiple clinical settings. Evidence from the intensive care unit and operative settings suggests DEX may have significant advantages over traditional GABAergic sedatives such as benzodiazepines. There has been limited research on the use of DEX in the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of the medical literature to identify all published evidence regarding the use of DEX in the ED. We included randomized and nonrandomized studies and studies reporting any use of DEX in the ED, even when it was not the primary focus of the study. Two authors reviewed studies for inclusion, and a single author assessed studies for quality and risk of bias and abstracted data.

RESULTS

We identified 35 studies meeting inclusion criteria, including 11 randomized controlled trials, 13 cohort and other nonrandomized studies, and 11 case reports and case series. Significant heterogeneity in interventions, comparators, indications, and outcomes precluded data pooling and meta-analysis. We found modest evidence that DEX was efficacious in facilitating medical imaging and mixed and limited evidence regarding its efficacy for procedural sedation and sedation of nonintubated medical and psychiatric patients. Our results suggested that DEX is associated with bradycardia and hypotension, which are generally transient and infrequently require medical intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

A limited body of generally poor- to moderate-quality evidence suggests that the use of DEX may be efficacious in certain clinical scenarios in the ED and that DEX use in the ED is likely safe. Further high-quality research into DEX use in the ED setting is needed, with a particular focus on clear and consistent selection of indications, identification of clear and clinically relevant primary outcomes, and careful assessment of the clinical implications of the hemodynamic effects of DEX therapy.