Thiemann Pauline, Roy David, Huecker Martin, Senn Joshua, Javed Jessica, Thomas Alyssa, Shreffler Jacob, Shaw Isaac
UofL Health-University of Louisville Hospital, Louisville, KY, USA.
UofL Health-University of Louisville Hospital, Louisville, KY, USA.
Am J Emerg Med. 2022 May;55:76-81. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2022.02.042. Epub 2022 Feb 25.
The objective of this study was to compare the combination of intramuscular (IM) droperidol/midazolam to haloperidol/lorazepam regarding time to sedation in patients with acute undifferentiated agitation in the emergency department (ED).
This was a prospective, unblinded observational study in the ED of a university teaching hospital. Subjects with acute undifferentiated agitation refractory to verbal de-escalation were assigned to receive a combination of either haloperidol 5 mg/lorazepam 2 mg or droperidol 5 mg/midazolam 5 mg IM. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients adequately sedated at 10 min defined as ED Sedation Assessment Tool (SAT) score of 0 or less. Secondary outcomes included change in ED SAT score at 5, 15, 30, and 60 min, the need for oxygen supplementation, and the need for airway intervention.
A total of 86 patients were enrolled in the study, with 43 patients receiving droperidol/midazolam and 43 patients receiving haloperidol/lorazepam. Ten minutes after receiving medication, 51.2% of patients in the droperidol/midazolam group were adequately sedated compared to 7% of patients in the haloperidol/lorazepam group (OR: 14; 95% CI: 3.7, 52.1). Median time to adequate sedation was 10 min for the droperidol/midazolam group and 30 min for the haloperidol/lorazepam group. Eleven patients (25.6%) in the droperidol/midazolam group received oxygen supplementation compared to four patients (9.3%) in the haloperidol/lorazepam group. No study patients experienced extrapyramidal symptoms or required endotracheal intubation.
Intramuscular droperidol/midazolam was superior to intramuscular haloperidol/lorazepam in achieving adequate sedation at 10 min. Patients in the droperidol/midazolam arm may be more likely to receive oxygen supplementation than those in the haloperidol/lorazepam arm.
本研究的目的是比较急诊科(ED)中急性未分化躁动患者使用肌肉注射(IM)氟哌利多/咪达唑仑与氟哌啶醇/劳拉西泮组合后的镇静起效时间。
这是一项在大学教学医院急诊科进行的前瞻性、非盲观察性研究。对言语安抚无效的急性未分化躁动患者被分配接受氟哌啶醇5毫克/劳拉西泮2毫克或氟哌利多5毫克/咪达唑仑5毫克的肌肉注射组合。主要结局是10分钟时达到充分镇静的患者比例,定义为急诊科镇静评估工具(SAT)评分为0或更低。次要结局包括5、15、30和60分钟时急诊科SAT评分的变化、补充氧气的需求以及气道干预的需求。
共有86例患者纳入研究,43例患者接受氟哌利多/咪达唑仑,43例患者接受氟哌啶醇/劳拉西泮。用药10分钟后,氟哌利多/咪达唑仑组51.2%的患者达到充分镇静,而氟哌啶醇/劳拉西泮组为7%(比值比:14;95%置信区间:3.7,52.1)。氟哌利多/咪达唑仑组达到充分镇静的中位时间为10分钟,氟哌啶醇/劳拉西泮组为30分钟。氟哌利多/咪达唑仑组有11例患者(25.6%)需要补充氧气,而氟哌啶醇/劳拉西泮组有4例患者(9.3%)需要。研究患者均未出现锥体外系症状或需要气管插管。
肌肉注射氟哌利多/咪达唑仑在10分钟内实现充分镇静方面优于肌肉注射氟哌啶醇/劳拉西泮。与氟哌啶醇/劳拉西泮组相比,氟哌利多/咪达唑仑组的患者更有可能需要补充氧气。