Abbonarsi

Rapid tranquilization of the agitated patient in the emergency department: A systematic review and network meta-analysis - 09/12/21

Doi : 10.1016/j.ajem.2021.11.011 
Ian S. deSouza, MD a, , Henry C. Thode, PhD b , Pragati Shrestha, MPH b , Robert Allen, MD a , Jessica Koos, MLS, MSEd b , Adam J. Singer, MD b
a Department of Emergency Medicine, SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University and Kings County Hospital Center, Brooklyn, NY, USA 
b Department of Emergency Medicine, Stony Brook University, NY, USA 

Corresponding author at: Department of Emergency Medicine, Kings County Hospital Center, 451 Clarkson Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11203, USA.Department of Emergency MedicineKings County Hospital Center451 Clarkson AvenueBrooklynNY11203USA

Abstract

Background

Safe and effective tranquilization of the acutely agitated patient is challenging, and head-to-head comparisons of medications are limited. We aimed to identify the most optimal agent(s) for rapid tranquilization of the severely agitated patient in the emergency department (ED).

Methods

The protocol for systematic review was registered (PROSPERO; CRD42020212534). We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Database/CENTRAL from inception to June 2, 2021. We limited studies to randomized controlled trials that enrolled adult ED patients with severe agitation and compared drugs for rapid tranquilization. Predetermined outcomes were: 1) Adequate sedation within 30 min (effectiveness), 2) Immediate, serious adverse event – cardiac arrest, ventricular tachydysrhythmia, endotracheal intubation, laryngospasm, hypoxemia, hypotension (safety), and 3) Time to adequate sedation (effect onset). We extracted data according to PRISMA-NMA and appraised trials using Cochrane RoB 2 tool. We performed Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) using a Markov Chain Monte Carlo method with random-effects model and vague prior distribution to calculate odds ratios with 95% credible intervals for dichotomous outcomes and frequentist NMA to calculate mean differences with 95% confidence intervals for continuous outcomes. We assessed confidence in results using CINeMA. We used surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) curves to rank agent(s) for each outcome.

Results

Eleven studies provided data for effectiveness (1142 patients) and safety (1147 patients). Data was insufficient for effect onset. The NMA found that ketamine (SUCRA = 93.0%) is most likely to have superior effectiveness; droperidol-midazolam (SUCRA = 78.8%) is most likely to be safest. There are concerns with study quality and imprecision. Quality of the point estimates varied for effectiveness but mostly rated “very low” for safety.

Conclusions

Available evidence suggests that ketamine and droperidol have intermediate effectiveness for rapid tranquilization of the severely agitated patient in the ED. There is insufficient evidence to definitively determine which agent(s) may be safest or fastest-acting. Further, direct-comparison study of ketamine and droperidol is recommended.

Il testo completo di questo articolo è disponibile in PDF.

Highlights

Ketamine and droperidol have intermediate effectiveness for rapid tranquilization of the severely agitated patient in the ED.
There is inadequate or insufficient evidence to definitively determine which drug is safest or fastest in effect onset.
Further, direct-comparison study of ketamine and droperidol with predetermined, well-defined adverse events is recommended.

Il testo completo di questo articolo è disponibile in PDF.

Keywords : Agitation, Delirium, Sedation, Tranquilization, Network meta-analysis


Mappa


 PS, JK, AS, and Id conceived and designed the study. JK performed the initial searches. Id, RB, and RA completed the data extraction and quality assessment. Id, PS, and RA managed the data. HT provided statistical advice on study design and analyzed the data. Id drafted the manuscript, and all authors contributed substantially to its revision. Id takes responsibility for the paper as a whole.


© 2021  Elsevier Inc. Tutti i diritti riservati.
Aggiungere alla mia biblioteca Togliere dalla mia biblioteca Stampare
Esportazione

    Citazioni Export

  • File

  • Contenuto

Vol 51

P. 363-373 - Gennaio 2022 Ritorno al numero
Articolo precedente Articolo precedente
  • Beyond the bundle: Clinical controversies in the management of sepsis in emergency medicine patients
  • Kavita Krishnan, Travis B. Wassermann, Patrick Tednes, Veronica Bonderski, Megan A. Rech
| Articolo seguente Articolo seguente
  • Equal Incidence of COVID-19 among Homeless and Non-Homeless Emergency Department Patients
  • Massimo Ralli, Fabio De-Giorgio, Andrea Arcangeli, Lucia Ercoli

Benvenuto su EM|consulte, il riferimento dei professionisti della salute.
L'accesso al testo integrale di questo articolo richiede un abbonamento.

Già abbonato a @@106933@@ rivista ?

Il mio account


Dichiarazione CNIL

EM-CONSULTE.COM è registrato presso la CNIL, dichiarazione n. 1286925.

Ai sensi della legge n. 78-17 del 6 gennaio 1978 sull'informatica, sui file e sulle libertà, Lei puo' esercitare i diritti di opposizione (art.26 della legge), di accesso (art.34 a 38 Legge), e di rettifica (art.36 della legge) per i dati che La riguardano. Lei puo' cosi chiedere che siano rettificati, compeltati, chiariti, aggiornati o cancellati i suoi dati personali inesati, incompleti, equivoci, obsoleti o la cui raccolta o di uso o di conservazione sono vietati.
Le informazioni relative ai visitatori del nostro sito, compresa la loro identità, sono confidenziali.
Il responsabile del sito si impegna sull'onore a rispettare le condizioni legali di confidenzialità applicabili in Francia e a non divulgare tali informazioni a terzi.


Tutto il contenuto di questo sito: Copyright © 2024 Elsevier, i suoi licenziatari e contributori. Tutti i diritti sono riservati. Inclusi diritti per estrazione di testo e di dati, addestramento dell’intelligenza artificiale, e tecnologie simili. Per tutto il contenuto ‘open access’ sono applicati i termini della licenza Creative Commons.