Autoregulation is dysfunctional in the injured brain. Increases in intracranial and arterial pressure may therefore result in extension of the primary injury. Rapid sequence intubation (RSI) is a well-known cause of surges in both arterial pressure and intracranial pressure. Neuroprotective agents, namely lidocaine and fentanyl, have the potential to minimize the pressure surges implicated in secondary brain injury. The purpose of this study was to determine the frequency with which neuroprotective agents were used for neuroprotective RSI in the emergency department.

We conducted a retrospective chart review of all 139 patients intubated in the emergency department of Vancouver General Hospital between March and October 2003. Patients were eligible if there was an indication for neuroprotective agents defined as presumed intracranial pathology and a mean arterial pressure (MAP) > 85 mm Hg. Contraindications to fentanyl included MAP < 85 mm Hg or allergy to fentanyl.

Seventy-seven patients were intubated for primary neurological indications. Indication for intubation included non-traumatic causes (n = 37) (including cerebrovascular accident or intracranial hemorrhage) and closed head injury (n = 40). The mean age (± standard deviation) was 52.3 ± 20.4 years, and 31.4% were female. Fifty-seven (74.0%) patients had indications for neuroprotective agents, without contraindications. When neuroprotective agents were indicated, lidocaine was used in 84.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 72.6%–91.5%) of patients while fentanyl was used in 33.3% (95%CI 22.4%–46.3%) of patients. Eleven percent of the intubations were performed with a fentanyl dose of Δ 2 mcg/kg, which is the lower limit considered effective.

Despite the potential benefit of using lidocaine and fentanyl in appropriate patients undergoing neuroprotective RSI in the emergency department, our study identified a significant underutilization of optimal premedication. The identification of barriers to use and the implementation of strategies to optimize use are necessary.

To examine the safety of emergency department (ED) procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) and the patterns of use of pharmacologic agents at a Canadian adult teaching hospital.

Retrospective analysis of the PSA records of 979 patients, treated between Aug. 1, 2004, and July 31, 2005, with descriptive statistical analysis. This represents an inclusive consecutive case series of all PSAs performed during the study period.

Hypotension (systolic blood pressure ≤ 85 mm Hg) was documented during PSA in 13 of 979 patients (1.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.3%–2.3%), and desaturation (Sao2 ≤ 90) in 14 of 979 (1.4%; CI 0.1%–2.7%). No cases of aspiration, endotracheal intubation or death were recorded. The most common medication used was fentanyl (94.0% of cases), followed by propofol (61.2%), midazolam (42.5%) and then ketamine (2.7%). The most frequently used 2-medication combinations were propofol and fentanyl (P/F) followed by midazolam and fentanyl (M/F), used with similar frequencies 58.1% (569/979) and 41.0% (401/979) respectively. There was no significant difference in the incidence of hypotension or desaturation between the P/F and M/F treated groups. In these patients, 9.1% (90/979) of patients received more than 2 different drugs.

Adverse events during ED PSA are rare and of doubtful clinical significance. Propofol/fentanyl and midazolam/fentanyl are used safely, and at similar frequencies for ED PSA in this tertiary hospital case series. The use of ketamine for adult PSA is unusual in our facility.

To determine the effectiveness and safety of procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) in a Canadian community emergency department (ED) staffed primarily by family physicians and to assess the role of capnometry monitoring in PSA.

One hundred and sixty (160) consecutive procedural sedation cases were reviewed from the ED of a rural hospital in Huntsville, Ont. The ED is mainly staffed by family physicians who have received in-house training in PSA. Safety and effectiveness measures were extrapolated from a standardized PSA form by a blinded research assistant.

The mean age of the patient population was 33.6 years (standard deviation = 23.6). Fifty-four percent of the patients were male, and 33% of the cases were pediatric. PSA medications included propofol (84%), fentanyl (51%) and midazolam (15%), and the procedural success rate was 95.6%. The adverse event (AE) rate was 18% and included apnea (10%), inadequate sedation (3%), bradycardia (2%), desaturation (1%), hypotension (1%) and bag-valve-mask use (1%). In those aged ≥65 years there was a greater incidence of apnea. There were no episodes of emesis and there were no intubations. A modified jaw thrust manoeuvre was used in 23% of the cases. In the 64% of cases where capnometry was used, there was no association between its use and any AE measures.

Procedural sedation was safe and effective in our environment. Capnometry recording did not appear to alter outcomes, although the data are incomplete.

Health promotion and disease prevention have been increasingly recognized as activities that may be within the scope of emergency medicine. The purpose of this feasibility study was to identify health risks and offer immediate interventions to adult patients who have drug and/or alcohol problems, incomplete immunization, are overdue for a Pap (Papanicolaou) smear, and/or are smokers.

The study took place in a busy tertiary Emergency Department (ED) serving an inner-city population with a significant proportion of patients who are homeless, substance abusers, working poor, and/or recent immigrants. A convenience sample of patients completed a computer-based health-risk survey. Trained health promotion nurses offered appropriate interventions to patients following review and discussion of their self-reported data. Interventions included counseling for problem drinking, substance abuse, and smoking cessation, screening for cervical cancer, and immunization.

From October 20, 2000 to June 30, 2003, we enrolled 2366 patients. One thousand and eleven subjects (43%) reported substance abuse and 1095 (46%) were smokers. Of the 158 smokers contacted in follow-up, 19 (12%) had quit, 63 (40%) had reduced the number of cigarettes/day and 76 (48%) reported no change. Of 1248 women surveyed, 307 (25%) were overdue for a Pap smear and 54 (18%) received this intervention. Forty-four percent of subjects were overdue for at least one immunization and of those, 414 (40%) were immunized in the ED.

At-risk patients can be identified using a computer-based screening tool, and appropriate interventions can be given to a proportion of these patients in a busy inner city ED without increasing wait time.

Priapism is a recognized complication of sickle cell anemia (SCA). When initial conventional treatments fail, simple or exchange blood transfusion has been advocated as a secondary intervention. However, recent literature suggests this may not be an effective therapy and may have significant neurologic sequelae. This paper reviews and summarizes the effectiveness and risks of blood transfusion compared with conventional priapism therapy.

All relevant papers identified from a MEDLINE search were systematically examined for data related to the use of blood transfusion in the setting of priapism due to SCA. The effectiveness of conventional therapy was compared with transfusion therapy using the outcome of “time to detumescence” (TTD). In addition, papers documenting adverse neurologic sequela were reviewed and summarized.

Forty-two case reports were identified containing complete information with regard to patient age and TTD. The mean TTD was 8.0 days with conventional therapy (n = 16) and 10.8 days with blood transfusion therapy (n = 26). Adverse neurologic sequelae from blood transfusion therapy was described in 9 cases, with long term outcomes ranging from complete resolution to severe residual deficits.

The current literature does not support the contention that blood transfusion is an effective therapy in the treatment of priapism due to SCA, as defined by an acceleration of TTD. In fact, numerous reports suggest that serious neurologic sequelae may result from this treatment. We feel the routine use of this therapy cannot be recommended.