McDowell Marc, Nitti Kara, Kulstad Erik, Cirone Michael, Shah Riddhi, Rochford Daniel, Walsh Richard, Hesse Kathleen
Advocate Christ Medical Center, Oak Lawn, IL.
UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX.
Clin Neuropharmacol. 2019 Mar/Apr;42(2):23-26. doi: 10.1097/WNF.0000000000000325.
Our objective was to compare outcomes of discharge disposition, need for additional medications, and restraint use for patients who received inhaled loxapine compared with patients receiving traditional antipsychotic drugs in the emergency department (ED).
A retrospective chart review was conducted on all patients who presented to the ED with agitation and received antipsychotic therapy, including loxapine, ziprasidone, or haloperidol from December 1, 2014, through October 31, 2016.
The mean time from physician assignment to medical clearance was 7.9 hours for patients treated with inhaled loxapine versus 10.3 hours for controls (P < 0.01). Those who received inhaled loxapine were given significantly less benzodiazepines as additional rescue medications as compared with other antipsychotic medications (P < 0.01, 35.2% vs 65.1%). Additionally, restraints were utilized less frequently in the loxapine group (P < 0.01, 1.8% vs 19.8%).
Treating patients with agitation due to psychotic episodes in an ED setting with inhaled loxapine versus haloperidol or ziprasidone was associated with significantly improved treatment outcomes, suggesting that inhaled loxapine may be a more effective and rapid treatment option.
我们的目的是比较在急诊科(ED)接受吸入性洛沙平治疗的患者与接受传统抗精神病药物治疗的患者在出院处置结果、额外药物需求和约束使用方面的情况。
对2014年12月1日至2016年10月31日期间因躁动到急诊科就诊并接受抗精神病治疗(包括洛沙平、齐拉西酮或氟哌啶醇)的所有患者进行回顾性病历审查。
接受吸入性洛沙平治疗的患者从医生分配到医疗出院的平均时间为7.9小时,而对照组为10.3小时(P<0.01)。与其他抗精神病药物相比,接受吸入性洛沙平治疗的患者作为额外抢救药物使用的苯二氮䓬类药物明显更少(P<0.01,35.2%对65.1%)。此外,洛沙平组使用约束措施的频率更低(P<0.01,1.8%对19.8%)。
在急诊科环境中,用吸入性洛沙平而非氟哌啶醇或齐拉西酮治疗因精神病发作而躁动的患者,与显著改善的治疗结果相关,这表明吸入性洛沙平可能是一种更有效、更快速的治疗选择。