Search

Treatment of acute pain after emergency department (ED) discharge remains a challenge in the opioid crisis context. Our objective was to determine the proportion of patients using opioid vs non-opioid pain medication following discharge from the ED with acute pain, and the association of type of pain medication with average pain intensity before pain medication intake and report of pain relief.This was a prospective cohort study of ED patients aged ≥ 18 years with an acute pain (≤ 2 weeks) who were discharged with an opioid prescription. Patients completed a 14-day diary assessing daily pain intensity level before each pain medication intake (0-10 numeric rating scale), type of pain medication use (opioid vs non-opioid), and if pain was relieved by the medication used that day. Multilevel analyses were used to compare the effect of type of analgesic used on pain intensity and relief.A total of 381 participants completed the 14-day diary; 50% were women and median age was 54 years (IQR = 43-66). Average daily pain intensity before pain medication intake was significantly higher for patients who used opioids (5.9; 95% CI 5.7-6.2) as compared to non-opioid analgesics (4.2; 95% CI 4.0-4.5) or no pain medication (2.2; 95% CI 1.9-2.5). Controlling for pain intensity, patients using opioids were more likely to report a pain relief (OR = 1.3; 95% CI 1.1-1.8) as compared to those who used non-opioid analgesics.Overall, opioids appear to be effective and used as intended by the prescribing physician.RéSUMé: OBJECTIFS: Le traitement de la douleur aiguë après la sortie des départements d’urgence (DU) reste un défi dans le contexte de la crise des opioïdes. Notre objectif était de déterminer la proportion de patients utilisant des analgésiques opioïdes par rapport aux analgésiques non opioïdes après leur sortie des urgences avec une douleur aiguë, et l'association du type d'analgésique avec l'intensité moyenne de la douleur avant la prise d'analgésiques et le soulagement de la douleur rapporté. LES MéTHODES: Il s'agissait d'une étude de cohorte prospective de patients (DU) âgés de ≥18 ans souffrant de douleurs aiguës (≤ 2 semaines) et ayant reçu une ordonnance d'opioïdes à leur sortie de l'hôpital. Les patients ont rempli un journal de 14 jours évaluant le niveau d'intensité de la douleur quotidienne avant chaque prise de médicaments anti-douleur (échelle d'évaluation numérique de 0 à 10), le type d'utilisation des médicaments anti-douleur (opioïdes contre non opioïdes), et si la douleur était soulagée par les médicaments utilisés ce jour-là. Des analyses multiniveaux ont été utilisées pour comparer l'effet du type d'analgésique utilisé sur l'intensité et le soulagement de la douleur. RéSULTATS: Au total, 381 participants ont rempli le journal de 14 jours; 50% étaient des femmes et l'âge médian était de 54 ans (EI = 43–66). L'intensité moyenne de la douleur quotidienne avant la prise d'analgésiques était significativement plus élevée chez les patients qui prenaient des opioïdes (5.9; 95% IC: 5.7–6.2) par rapport aux analgésiques non opioïdes (4.2; 95% IC: 4.0–4.5) ou à l'absence d'analgésiques (2.2; 95% IC: 1.9–2.5). En contrôlant l'intensité de la douleur, les patients utilisant des opioïdes étaient plus susceptibles de déclarer un soulagement de la douleur (OR = 1.3; 95% CI: 1.1−1.8) par rapport à ceux qui utilisaient des analgésiques non opioïdes. CONCLUSION: Dans l'ensemble, les opioïdes semblent être efficaces et utilisés comme prévu par le médecin prescripteur.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To synthesize the evidence regarding the infection risk associated with different modalities of oxygen therapy used in treating patients with severe acute respiratory infection. Health care workers face significant risk of infection when treating patients with a viral severe acute respiratory infection. To ensure health care worker safety and limit nosocomial transmission of such infection, it is crucial to synthesize the evidence regarding the infection risk associated with different modalities of oxygen therapy used in treating patients with severe acute respiratory infection. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from January 1, 2000, to April 1, 2020, for studies describing the risk of infection associated with the modalities of oxygen therapy used for patients with severe acute respiratory infection. The study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed by independent reviewers. The primary outcome measure was the infection of health care workers with a severe acute respiratory infection. Random-effect models were used to synthesize the extracted data. RESULTS: Of 22,123 citations, 50 studies were eligible for qualitative synthesis and 16 for meta-analysis. Globally, the quality of the included studies provided a very low certainty of evidence. Being exposed or performing an intubation (odds ratio 6.48; 95% confidence interval 2.90 to 14.44), bag-valve-mask ventilation (odds ratio 2.70; 95% confidence interval 1.31 to 5.36), and noninvasive ventilation (odds ratio 3.96; 95% confidence interval 2.12 to 7.40) were associated with an increased risk of infection. All modalities of oxygen therapy generate air dispersion. CONCLUSION: Most modalities of oxygen therapy are associated with an increased risk of infection and none have been demonstrated as safe. The lowest flow of oxygen should be used to maintain an adequate oxygen saturation for patients with severe acute respiratory infection, and manipulation of oxygen delivery equipment should be minimized.

Studies evaluating the prognostic value of the pulseless electrical activity (PEA) heart rate in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients have reported conflicting results. The objective of this study was to evaluate the association between the initial PEA heart rate and favorable clinical outcomes for OHCA patients. The present post-hoc cohort study used the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium Cardiac Epidemiologic Registry Version 3, which included OHCA patients in seven US and three Canadian sites from April 2011 to June 2015. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge and the secondary outcome was survival with a good functional outcome. For the primary analysis, the patients were separated into eight groups according to their first rhythms and PEA heart rates: (1) initial PEA heart rate of 1-20 beats per minute (bpm); (2) 21-40 bpm; (3) 41-60 bpm; (4) 61-80 bpm; (5) 81-100 bpm; (6) 101-120 bpm; (7) over 120 bpm; (8) initial shockable rhythm (reference category). Multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess the associations of interest. We identified 17,675 patients (PEA: 7,089 [40.1%]; initial shockable rhythm: 10,797 [59.9%]). Patients with initial PEA electrical frequencies ≤100 bpm were less likely to survive to hospital discharge than patients with initial shockable rhythms (1-20 bpm: adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 0.15 [95%CI 0.11-0.21]; 21-40 bpm: AOR = 0.21 [0.18-0.25]; 41-60 bpm: AOR = 0.30 [0.25-0.36]; 61-80 bpm: AOR = 0.37 [0.28-0.49]; 81-100 bpm: AOR = 0.55 [0.41-0.65]). However, there were no statistical outcome differences between PEA patients with initial electrical frequencies of >100 bpm and patients with initial shockable rhythms (101-120 bpm: AOR = 0.65 [95%CI 0.42-1.01]; >120 bpm: AOR = 0.72 [95%CI 0.37-1.39]). Similar results were observed for survival with good functional outcomes (101-120 bpm: AOR = 0.60 [95%CI 0.31-1.15]; >120 bpm: AOR = 1.08 [95%CI 0.50-2.28]). We observed a good association between higher initial PEA electrical frequency and favorable clinical outcomes for OHCA patients. As there is no significant difference in outcomes between patients with initial PEA heart rates of more than 100 bpm and those with initial shockable rhythms, we can hypothesize that these patients could be considered in the same prognostic category.

Background Emergency departments (EDs) are operating at or above capacity, which has negative consequences on patients in terms of quality of care and morbi-mortality. Redirection strategies for low-acuity ED patients to primary care practices are usually based on subjective eligibility criteria that sometimes necessitate formal medical assessment. Literature investigating the effect of those interventions is equivocal. The aim of the present study was to assess the safety of a redirection process using an electronic clinical support system used by the triage nurse without physician assessment. Methods A single cohort observational study was performed in the ED of a level 1 academic trauma center. All low-acuity patients redirected to nearby clinics through a clinical decision support system (February–August 2017) were included. This system uses different sets of medical prerequisites to identify patients eligible to redirection. Data on safety and patient experience were collected through phone questionnaires on day 2 and 10 after ED visit. The primary endpoint was the rate of redirected patients returning to any ED for an unexpected visit within 48 h. Secondary endpoints were the incidence of 7-day return visit and satisfaction rates. Results A total of 980 redirected low-acuity patients were included over the period: 18 patients (2.8%) returned unexpectedly to an ED within 48 h and 31 patients (4.8%) within 7 days. No hospital admission or death were reported within 7 days following the first ED visit. Among redirected patients, 81% were satisfied with care provided by the clinic staff. Conclusion The implementation of a specific electronic-guided decision support redirection protocol appeared to provide safe deferral to nearby clinics for redirected low-acuity patients. EDs are pivotal elements of the healthcare system pathway and redirection process could represent an interesting tool to improve the care to low-acuity patients.

Introduction: Malgré les progrès au niveau des soins de réanimation lors des dernières années, le pronostic des patients souffrant d'un arrêt cardiorespiratoire (ACR) demeure abyssal et aucun médicament ne semble influencer leur devenir au long cours. Cependant, les résultats de quelques études évaluant l'impact des bêtabloqueurs chez cette population s'avèrent cependant très encourageants. L'objectif de cette revue systématique, est d’évaluer l’évidence disponible quant à l'impact des bêtabloqueurs sur le devenir des patients traités pour un ACR dont le rythme initial est défibrillable. Methods: La présente revue systématique a été préalablement enregistrée sur Prospero (CRD42018105453). Les moteurs de recherche Medline, Embase et CENTRAL ont été fouillés de leur création jusqu'au 17 octobre 2018. La recherche de littérature grise s'est faite via Web of Science et Google Scholar. Les références de tous les articles inclus ainsi que des méta-analyses existantes sur le sujet ont également été révisées. Tous les types de devis ont été considérés, sauf les études de cas et les séries de cas. Les études devaient inclure des adultes (16 ans et plus) en ACR dont le rythme initial était défibrillable, dont une partie avait reçu un médicament bêtabloquants par voie intraveineuse pendant leur ACR et l'autre un traitement standard, et présenter une mesure de résultat centrée sur le patient (retour de circulation spontanée [RCS], survie ou bon devenir neurologique). La qualité des articles a été évaluée à l'aide du ‘Newcastle Ottawa scale’. Results: Deux études observationnelles rétrospectives, menées auprès d'un total de 66 patients, ont été incluses. Il y avait une association positive entre l'administration de bêtabloquants et l'occurrence d'un RCS (rapport de cotes [RC] = 5.76 [intervalle de confiance {IC} à 95% = 1.79-18.52], p = 0.003), ainsi qu'avec la présence d'un bon devenir neurologique (RC = 4.42 [IC95% = 1.05 - 18.56], p = 0.04). Une telle association n'a cependant pas été observée par rapport à la survie au congé hospitalier. Conclusion: L'administration de bêtabloquants semble associé à un meilleur devenir chez les patients en ACR avec un rythme initial défibrillable. Étant donné la nature du devis de ces études et leur petite taille, une étude prospective de qualité serait nécessaire afin de déterminer l'efficacité de cette classe de médicament et de faire une recommandation forte à ce sujet.

ObjectivesInadequate acute pain management can reduce the quality of life, cause unnecessary suffering and can often lead to the development of chronic pain. Using group-based trajectory modelling, we previously identified six distinct pain intensity trajectories for the first 14-day postemergency department (ED) discharge; two linear ones with moderate or severe pain during follow-up (~40% of the patients) and four cubic polynomial order trajectories with mild or no pain at the end of the 14 days (low final pain trajectories). We assessed if previously described acute pain intensity trajectories over 14 days after ED discharge are predictive of chronic pain 3 months later.DesignProspective cohort study.SettingTertiary care trauma centre academic hospital.ParticipantsThis study included 18 years and older ED patients who consulted for acute (≤2 weeks) pain conditions that were discharged with an opioid prescription. Patients completed a 14-day diary in which they listed their daily pain intensity (0–10 numeric rating scale).OutcomesThree months after ED visit, participants were questioned by phone about their current pain intensity (0–10 numeric rating scale). Chronic pain was defined as patients with current pain intensity ≥4 at 3 months.ResultsA total of 305 participants remained in the study at 3 months, 49% were women and a mean age of 55±15 years. Twelve per cent (11.9; 95% CI 8.2 to 15.4) of patients had chronic pain at the 3-month follow-up. Controlling for age, sex and pain condition, patients with moderate or severe pain trajectories and those with only a severe pain trajectory were respectively 5.1 (95% CI 2.2 to 11.8) and 8.2 (95% CI 3.4 to 20.0) times more likely to develop chronic pain 3 months later compared with patients in the low final pain trajectories.ConclusionSpecific acute pain trajectories following an ED visit are closely related to the development of chronic pain 3 months later.Trial registration numberNCT02799004; Results.

Background Studies evaluating long-term prescription opioid use are retrospective and based on filled opioid prescriptions from governmental databases. These studies cannot evaluate if opioids were really consumed and are unable to differentiate if they were used for a new pain or chronic pain or were misused. The aim of this study was to assess opioid use rate and reasons for consuming 3 months after being discharged from the emergency department (ED) with an opioid prescription. Methods This is a prospective cohort study conducted in the ED of a tertiary care urban center with a convenience sample of discharged patients ≥ 18 years who consulted for an acute pain condition (≤2 weeks). Three months post-ED visit, participants were interviewed by phone on their past 2-week opioid consumption and their reasons for consuming: a) for pain related to the initial ED visit, b) for a new unrelated pain, or c) for another reason. Results Of the 524 participants questioned at 3 months (mean ± SD age = 51 ± 16 years, 47% women), 47 patients (9%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 7%-12%) reported consuming opioids in the previous 2 weeks. Among those, 34 (72%) reported using opioids for their initial pain, nine (19%) for a new unrelated pain and four (9%) for another reason (0.8%, 95% CI = 0.3%-2.0%, of the whole cohort). Patients who used opioids during the 2 weeks after the ED visit were 3.8 (95% CI = 1.2-12.7) times more likely to consume opioids at 3 months. Conclusion Opioid use at the 3-month follow-up in ED patients discharged with an opioid prescription for an acute pain condition is not necessarily associated with opioid misuse; 91% of those patients consumed opioids to treat pain. Of the whole cohort, less than 1% reported using opioids for reasons other than pain. The rate of long-term opioid use reported by prescription-filling database studies should not be viewed as a proxy for incidence of opioid misuse.

Introduction: The objective of the study was to evaluate the acute pain intensity evolution in ED discharged patients using Group-based trajectory modeling (GBTM). This method identified patient groups with similar profiles of change over time without assuming the existence of a particular pattern or number of groups. Methods: This was a prospective cohort study of ED patients aged ≥18 years with an acute pain condition (≤ 2 weeks) and discharged with an opioid prescription. Patients completed a 14-day diary assessing daily pain intensity level (0-10 numeric rating scale) and pain medication use. Results: Among the 372 included patients, six distinct post-ED pain intensity trajectories were identified: two started with severe levels of pain, one remained with severe pain intensity (12.6% of the sample) and the other ended with moderate pain intensity level (26.3%). Two other trajectories had severe initial pain, one decreased to mild pain (21.7%) and the other to no-pain (13.8%). Another trajectory had moderate initial pain which decreased to a mild level (15.9%) and the last one started with mild pain intensity and had no pain at the end of the 14-day (9.7%). The pain trajectory patterns were significantly associated with age, type of painful conditions, pain intensity at ED discharge, and with opioid consumption. Conclusion: Acute pain resolution following an ED visit seems to progress through six different trajectory patterns that are more informative than simple linear models and could be useful to adapt acute pain management in future research.

Introduction: Opioid side effects are common when treating chronic pain. However, the rate of opioid side effects for acute pain has rarely been examined, particularly in the post emergency department (ED) setting. The objective of this study was to evaluate the short-term incidence of opioid induced side effects (constipation, nausea/vomiting, dizziness, and drowsiness) in patients discharged from the ED with an opioid prescription. Methods: This was a prospective cohort study of patients aged ≥18 years that visited the ED for an acute pain condition (≤ 2 weeks) and were discharged with an opioid prescription. Patients completed a 14-day diary assessing daily pain medication use and side effects. Results: Mean age of the 386 patients included was 55 ± 16 years; 50% were women. During the 2-week follow-up, 80% of patients consumed at least one dose of opioids. Among the patients who used opioids, 38% (95%CI: 33-48) reported constipation, 27% (95%CI:22-32) nausea/vomiting, 30% (95%CI:25-35) dizziness, 51% (95%CI:45-57) drowsiness, and 77% (95%CI:72-82) reported any side effects. Adjusting for age, sex, and pain condition, patients who used opioids were more likely to report any side effect (OR 7.5, 95%CI:4.3-13.3) and constipation (OR 7.5, 95%CI:3.1-17.9). A significant dose response effect was observed for constipation but not for the other side effects. Nausea/vomiting (OR 2.0, 95%CI:1.1-3.6) and dizziness (OR 1.9, 95%CI:1.1-3.4) were associated with oxycodone compared to morphine. Conclusion: Similar to chronic pain, opioid side effects are highly prevalent during short-term treatment for acute pain. Physicians should be aware and inform patients about those side effects.

Introduction: Studies suggest that acute pain evolution after an emergency department (ED) visit has been associated with the development of chronic pain. Using group-based trajectory modeling (GBTM), we aimed to evaluate if ED discharged patients with similar pain intensity profiles of change over 14 days are associated with chronic pain at 3 months. Methods: This is a prospective cohort study of patients aged 18 years or older who visited the ED for an acute pain condition (≤2 weeks) and were discharged with an opioid prescription. Patients completed a 14-day diary in which they listed their daily pain intensity level (0-10 numeric rating scale). Three months post-ED visit, participants were interviewed by phone to report their pain intensity related to the initial pain. Results: A total of 305 patients were retained at 3 months (mean age ± SD: 55 ± 15 years, 49% women). Using GBTM, six distinct pain intensity trajectories were identified during the first 14 days of the acute pain period; two linear one with moderate or severe pain during the follow-up (representing almost 40% of the patients) and four cubic polynomial order trajectories, with mild or no-pain at the end of the 14 days (low final pain). Twelve percent (11.9; ±95%CI: 8.2-15.4) of the patients had chronic pain at 3 months. Controlling for age, sex and types of pain condition, patients with trajectories of moderate or severe pain and those with only severe pain were 5.1 (95%CI: 2.2-11.8) and 8.2 (95%CI: 3.4-20.0) times more likely to develop chronic pain at 3 months, respectively, compared to the low final pain group. Conclusion: Trajectories could be useful to early identification of patients at risk of chronic pain.

Introduction: Biphasic anaphylactic reactions are a concern in emergency medicine. Risk factors associated with this type of reaction remain ill-defined. The aim of this study was to investigate elements associated with biphasic anaphylactic reactions and to determine the impact of anaphylaxis treatments on biphasic reactions. Methods: From the multicenter Cross-Canada Anaphylaxis Registry prospective cohort, we selected adults (≥18 years) with a visit to the emergency department (ED) of Sacré-Cœur Hospital, an urban tertiary-care hospital. Then, a structured chart review was done to collect additional information on types and timing of treatments for the initial anaphylactic reaction, presence and treatment of biphasic reactions during the initial ED visit or upon patients’ return. Biphasic reactions were defined by the recurrence of any anaphylaxis symptoms within 72 hours of a resolved anaphylaxis episode. Potential factors associated with biphasic reactions were studied using Chi-Square and Mann-Whitney tests. Results: Patients with anaphylaxis were enrolled between April 2014 and February 2018. From the cohort, 401 adult patients were identified. We found 37 patients who developed a biphasic reaction. Amongst them, 33 received treatments and 9 required more than one dose of intramuscular epinephrine. None of the biphasic reaction patients required intravenous epinephrine, other vasopressors, ICU admission, or endotracheal intubation. Biphasic reactions appeared in a median time of 13.3h after the initial reaction ranging from 1.1h to 69.6h (IQR 30.2). There was no difference in age or gender of patients who developed a biphasic reaction compared those who did not. Pertinent past medical history, daily medications, mean of arrival to the ED, allergen type, ingestion route, or initial symptoms during the anaphylaxis episode were not significantly different in the two groups. Treatment with corticosteroids was similar in the two groups (9.0% vs. 8.1% p = 0.82). Treatment, dose and route of administration of epinephrine was not different in the two groups but longer delays before treatment with the first dose of epinephrine was more frequent in biphasic reaction patients (median delay of 64 minutes, p = 0.015). Conclusion: No patient characteristic, allergen, route of ingestion, symptom, nor treatment with corticosteroids has shown to be significantly different in patients with and without biphasic reactions. Delayed treatment with epinephrine is significantly associated with biphasic reactions.

Introduction: Most studies evaluating prescription opioid dependence or misuse are retrospective and are based on prescription filling rates from pharmaceutical databases. These studies cannot evaluate if opioids are really consumed nor differentiate if used for a new pain, chronic pain, or for misuse/dependence. The aim of this study was to assess the opioid consumption in emergency department (ED) patients three months after discharge with an opioid prescription. Methods: This prospective cohort study was conducted in the ED of a tertiary care centre with a convenience sample of patients aged 18 years and older, recruited 24/7, who consulted and were discharged for an acute pain condition ( 2 weeks). We excluded patients who: did not speak French or English, were using opioid medication prior to their ED visit, with an ED stay > 48 hours, or suffering from cancer or chronic pain. Three months post-ED visit, participants were contacted by phone for a structured interview on their past two-week opioid use, their reasons for consuming them, and also answered the Rapid Opioid Dependence Screen (RODS) questionnaire. Results: In the 524 participants interviewed at three months (mean age ± SD: 51±16 years, 47% women), 44 (8.4%) patients consumed opioids in the previous two weeks. Among those, 72% consumed opioids for their initial pain, 19% for a new unrelated pain, and 9% for another reason. In this entire cohort, only five patients (1%) tested positive to opioid dependence from the RODS test. The low dependence incidence could be affected by a social desirability bias. Conclusion: This study suggests that opioid use at 3-month, for patients initially treated for acute pain, is associated with opioid dependency in 1% or possible misuse in only 9%. Additional prospective studies using multiple methods to measure opioids consumption, misuse, and dependence are needed.