Klein Lauren R, Driver Brian E, Horton Gabriella, Scharber Sarah, Martel Marc L, Cole Jon B
Department of Emergency Medicine, Hennepin County Medical Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
J Emerg Med. 2019 May;56(5):484-490. doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2018.12.036. Epub 2019 Feb 10.
Rapid treatment of agitation in the emergency department (ED) is critical to avoid injury to patients and providers. Treatment with intramuscular antipsychotics is often utilized, but there is a paucity of comparative effectiveness evidence available.
The purpose of this investigation was to compare the effectiveness of droperidol, olanzapine, and haloperidol for treating agitation in the ED.
This was a retrospective observational study of adult patients who received intramuscular medication to treat agitation. Patients were classified based on the initial antipsychotic they received. The primary effectiveness outcome was the rate of additional sedation administered (rescue medication) within 1 h. Secondary outcomes included rescue sedation for the entire encounter and adverse events.
There were 15,918 patients included (median age 37 years, 75% male). Rescue rates at 1 h were: 547/4947 for droperidol (11%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 10-12%), 988/8825 olanzapine (11%, 95% CI 10-12%), and 390/2146 for haloperidol (18%, 95% CI 17-20%). Rescue rates for the entire ED encounter were: 832/4947 for droperidol (17%, 95% CI 16-18%), 1665/8825 for olanzapine (19%, 95% CI 18-20%), and 560/2146 for haloperidol (26%, 95% CI 24-28%). Adverse events were uncommon: intubation (49, 0.3%), akathisia (7, 0.04%), dystonia (5, 0.03%), respiratory arrest (1, 0.006%), and torsades de pointes (0), with no significant differences between drugs.
Olanzapine and droperidol lead to lower rates of rescue sedation at 1 h and overall, compared with haloperidol. There were no significant differences in major adverse events.
急诊科对躁动进行快速治疗对于避免患者及医护人员受伤至关重要。肌肉注射抗精神病药物是常用的治疗方法,但可获得的比较疗效证据较少。
本研究旨在比较氟哌利多、奥氮平和氟哌啶醇治疗急诊科躁动的效果。
这是一项针对接受肌肉注射药物治疗躁动的成年患者的回顾性观察研究。根据患者最初接受的抗精神病药物进行分类。主要疗效指标是1小时内追加镇静药物(抢救药物)的使用率。次要指标包括整个就诊期间的抢救性镇静和不良事件。
共纳入15918例患者(中位年龄37岁,75%为男性)。1小时时的抢救率分别为:氟哌利多组4947例中有547例(11%,95%置信区间[CI]10 - 12%),奥氮平组8825例中有988例(11%,95%CI 10 - 12%),氟哌啶醇组2146例中有390例(18%,95%CI 17 - 20%)。整个急诊科就诊期间的抢救率分别为:氟哌利多组4947例中有832例(17%,95%CI 16 - 18%),奥氮平组8825例中有1665例(19%,95%CI 18 - 20%),氟哌啶醇组2146例中有560例(26%,95%CI 24 - 28%)。不良事件不常见:插管(49例,0.3%)、静坐不能(7例,0.04%)、肌张力障碍(5例,0.03%)、呼吸骤停(1例,0.006%)和尖端扭转型室速(0例),各药物之间无显著差异。
与氟哌啶醇相比,奥氮平和氟哌利多在1小时及总体上导致的抢救性镇静率较低。主要不良事件无显著差异。