Taming the Ketamine Tiger

January 27th, 2011

by reuben in PSA & analgesia
3 Comments

In this month’s Annals of Emergency Medicine, Sener et al report on their nicely blinded study where 182 adult subjects were randomized to one of four groups – IV or IM ketamine (at dissociative doses), with or without IV midazolam (.03 mg/kg). They conclude that midazolam reduces the incidence of recovery agitation based on their results:

Green and Krauss provide an accompanying editorial where they caution that the treatment effect as reported by Sener might be exaggerated and conclude:

“Given this compelling evidence from Sener et al, many clinicians will choose to ‘tame’ ketamine in adults by routinely coadministering midazolam. Others, according to the caveats above, will just as reasonably elect to individualize such prophylaxis, using a subjective assessment of a given patient’s risk. After all, should their prediction fail and an unpleasant reaction result, it can readily be quelled with midazolam. Regardless of these approaches, the ketamine ‘tiger’ may not be as ferocious as some fear.”

In my 2008 catalog of ketamine adverse events in adults, I describe three strategies for dosing midazolam–predissociation, preemergence, and PRN. I use the PRN strategy, and in hundreds of sedations of adults, I’ve needed to use it once. Here is my accumulated wisdom on how to use ketamine.

* Use ketamine. No other agent matches its safety, efficacy, and reliability. The only patients who should not receive ketamine are patients in whom an increase in heart rate or blood pressure would really concern you. All the other variously reported contraindications, including oral procedures and especially the concerns around ICP (this is more of an issue for RSI than PSA), can be ignored*. For very quick procedures like cardioversion, propofol is probably a better choice. Propofol also provides better muscle relaxation for ortho procedures, but these procedures often take a while, and propofol is hard to use for longer procedures. Ketofol is sexy but really offers no advantage over propofol alone for very brief procedures or ketamine alone for longer procedures.

* Be prepared to intubate. This goes for all PSA agents and procedures. Full intubation setup, paralytic in vial. In PSA, airway and breathing are everything; have all your tools ready. Laryngospasm is rare but it happens – if you’re ready for it, it’s no big deal, if not, it’s a big deal.

* Use it IM in pediatrics. Starting an IV for ketamine PSA in a child who is already suffering some other painful condition is unnecessary and therefore cruel. The best approach is to immediately treat the painful condition with atomized intranasal fentanyl, get your xrays or whatever, then give IM ketamine, 4 mg/kg. Once dissociated, you can start an IV easily and painlessly, or you can skip the IV completely and do your procedure.

* Make the patient comfortable before ketamine PSA. The response to ketamine is largely emotional. When the patient goes down agitated and in pain, she is more likely to have bad dreams and a scary emergence.

* Coach the patient pre-induction. Tell your patients that you are giving them a drug that will make them have vivid dreams, but that they can choose their dream and it can be very enjoyable, and that when they wake up, their wrist is going to feel a lot better. Offer some suggestions as you’re pushing the drug; I like describing a pleasant beach scene.

* Give them a dose of ondansetron before or during PSA. Ketamine causes post-procedure nausea and vomiting frequently. There is no literature evaluating this strategy, but in my opinion zofran works, and my opinion matters. To me.

* If giving ketamine IV, give it over 60 seconds. If you give IV ketamine in a quick bolus, you will often see apnea. This resolves by itself, but it’s really hard to watch a patient not breathing for 30 seconds. Slowing the infusion makes apnea much less likely. In order to give a slow infusion, you have to

* Either dilute the ketamine or draw it into a very small syringe. Most EDs stock 50 mg/ml and 100 mg/ml preparations (some EDs stock more than one concentration – be careful). You cannot slowly give 2 cc in a 10 cc syringe.

* Have the midazolam ready and don’t hesitate to use it if the patient appears to be experiencing psychological distress. You will rarely need it if you follow the steps above, but I’ve read some firsthand reports of bad ketamine emergence reactions and they sound truly terrifying. However, the fear of an emergence reaction is a silly reason to avoid using ketamine. Unlike the adverse reactions associated with most other PSA agents, emergence reactions are not dangerous, and are very easily treatable.

* You don’t always need to use a full dissociative dose. 1-2 mg/kg IV causes dissociation; once you’re dissociated you can’t be any further dissociated and larger doses just prolong duration of action (which can be a good thing, e.g. an intubated, hypotensive but still thrashing about patient). For a quick, only moderately painful procedure, 20 mg boluses work great. The ketamine continuum starts with analgesia (note the analgesic dose ketamine drip), to loopy (giggling, responding to questions and tolerating pain), to partly dissociated (sort of responsive to questions but indifferent to pain) to fully dissociated (awake but unresponsive to any external stimuli). That said, don’t hesitate to give a full dissociative dose if you’re not in the mood to get fancy. Dissociated is da bomb.


Sener S et al. Ketamine With and Without Midazolam for Emergency Department Sedation in Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Ann Emerg Med. 2011;57:109.

Green S and Krauss B. The Taming of Ketamine— 40 Years Later. Ann Emerg Med. 2011;57:115.

Strayer RJ and Nelson LS. Adverse events associated with ketamine for procedural sedation in adults. American Journal of Emergency Medicine, Volume 26 Issue 9, November 2008, pages 985-1028.

* Here are the contraindications as reported in the 2011 ACEP Clinical Policy.
Absolute: Age less than 3 months; schizophrenia.
Relative: “Major” procedures stimulating the posterior pharynx; history of airway instability, tracheal surgery, or tracheal stenosis; active pulmonary infection or disease including URI or asthma; known or suspected cardiovascular disease; CNS masses, abnormalities, or hydrocephalus; glaucoma or acute globe injury; porphyria, thyroid disorder, or thyroid medication.

Emergency Department Intubation Checklist v12

January 15th, 2011

by reuben in airway
2 Comments

This post has been superseded by this one

 

EDICTv12 [acrobat format]
Changes from version 11:

* Torso angle of 30 degrees recommended

* Nasal cannula for preoxygenation and apneic oxygenation recommended

* LMA moved from difficult to basic airway equipment

* Magill forceps moved from basic to difficult airway equipment

* Rocuronium dose changed from 1-1.2 to 1.2 mg/kg

* Reduced tidal volume wording clarified “if sepsis / prone to lung injury”

* DVT prophylaxis removed from post-intubation maneuvers

* “Verify that airway equipment is ready for next patient” added to post-intubation maneuvers

* “Consider effects of decreased preload as PEEP is augmented” warning added to PEEP chart

Dig Toxic + Critical HyperK = Calcium (and then digibind)

January 8th, 2011

by reuben in tox
leave a comment

Another myth we can put to rest.

Of 161 patients with digoxin toxicity in one hospital over 17.5 years, 23 received calcium, and no one developed stone heart, whatever the hell that is. Pretty easy study to do, but probably the best data we’ll have on this subject. So give your calcium while you’re getting your hands on and preparing digibind.

Levine M, Nikkanen H, Pallin D. The effects of intravenous calcium in patients with digoxin toxicity. Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2011; 40(1):41-46.

Background: Digoxin is an inhibitor of the sodium-potassium ATPase. In overdose, hyperkalemia is common. Although hyperkalemia is often treated with intravenous calcium, it is traditionally contraindicated in digoxin toxicity.
Objectives: To analyze records from patients treated with intravenous calcium while digoxin-toxic.
Methods: We reviewed the charts of all adult patients diagnosed with digoxin toxicity in a large teaching hospital over 17.5 years. The main outcome measures were frequency of life-threatening dysrhythmia within 1 h of calcium administration, and mortality rate in patients who did vs. patients who did not receive intravenous calcium. We use multivariate logistic regression to ensure that no relationship was overlooked due to negative confounders (controlling for age, creatinine, systolic blood pressure, peak serum potassium, time of development of digoxin toxicity, and digoxin concentration).
Results: We identified 161 patients diagnosed with digoxin toxicity, and were able to retrieve 159 records. Of these, 23 patients received calcium. No life-threatening dysrhythmias occurred within 1 h of calcium administration. Mortality was similar among those who did not receive calcium (27/136, 20%) compared to those who did (5/23, 22%). In the multivariate analysis, calcium was non-significantly associated with decreased odds of death (odds ratio 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.24–2.5). Each 1 mEq/L rise in serum potassium concentration was associated with an increased mortality odds ratio of 1.5 (95% CI 1.0–2.3).
Conclusion: Among digoxin-intoxicated humans, intravenous calcium does not seem to cause malignant dysrhythmias or increase mortality. We found no support for the historical belief that calcium administration is contraindicated in digoxin-toxic patients.
Photo credit: Georgia Reading

Optimize The Head During Laryngoscopy

December 25th, 2010

by reuben in airway
2 Comments

Aligning the external auditory meatus to the sternal notch goes a long way toward optimizing head position relative to the chest, however, this is only the best estimate. You cannot know the head position that will maximize glottic view until you get in there. The best approach is as follows:

Before even attempting insertion of the laryngoscope, put the patient’s entire occiput in the palm of your right hand. An assistant should be pulling the right corner of the mouth.

Then use your right hand to gently elevate the head toward the ceiling (augmenting sniffing position) and extend the neck. If the patient is adequately relaxed, this maneuver will open the mouth and open the angle between the neck and sternum (see pics below), facilitating easy insertion of the laryngoscope.

Insert the laryngoscope blade and control the tongue. As you gently advance toward the epiglottis, continue to maneuver the head by  (a) moving it toward or away from the ceiling and (b) extending or flexing the neck, as dictated by whatever maneuvers maximize your view of the glottis.

Once the patient’s head is in the position that maximizes glottic view, you need to mobilize your right hand to either take the endotracheal tube/bougie or, if the glottic view is still inadequate, externally optimize the larynx with bimanual laryngoscopy. Most operators can easily use the laryngoscope to suspend the head of most patients in the optimal position while they use their right hand for other tasks. If the patient’s head is too heavy to comfortably hold up, an assistant can either hold the head or place a roll of sheets under the head in that position. Or:

A Novel Positioning Technique to Assist Laryngoscopy in Patients with a Potentially Difficult Airway

Waldron S, Dobson A. European Journal of Anaesthesiology. 2010; 27:921.

Dr. Waldron here describes the use of a 1 liter fluid infusion pressure bag placed under the patient’s shoulders as an easily adjustable implement to raise the head and extend the neck. Very cool. Especially if you’re short on assistants.

If you stuff a lot of sheets under the head of the patient before you begin, so that the head starts off significantly elevated compared to the chest, you limit what you can do with bimanual head optimization. I therefore recommend that when inserting the sheets, you position the ear somewhat posterior to the sternal notch, expecting that you will need to elevate the head during laryngoscopy.

Allergy Myth: Iodine, Shellfish, and IV contrast

November 3rd, 2010

by reuben in radiology
leave a comment

Enough already with this nonsense.

Schabelman & Witting. The Relationship of Radiocontrast, Iodine, and Seafood Allergies: A Medical Myth Exposed. The Journal of Emergency Medicine, 2010 39:5 701-707.

 

The evidence suggests that asking if patients are allergic to shellfish or iodine has no relevance to radiocontrast allergies. This questioning perpetuates the myth of an association between shellfish, iodine, and contrast agents. Instead, ask if they have any allergies, have had a previous reaction to a contrast agent, or have evidence of atopy, such as asthma. Educate nurses and technicians to stop propagating this myth as well.

If your patient offers an allergy to iodine or shellfish, ask the patient if they mean to say that they have had a reaction to intravenous contrast in the past. Educate them that they do not have an “allergy” to iodine, and that an allergy to shellfish does not change the risk of reaction to intravenous contrast any more than any other allergy.

If your hospital does not routinely use a low osmolarity, non-ionic agent, request this type of medium for atopic patients, patients who had a reaction to an intravenous contrast agent in the past, and patients with systemic disease that increases their risk for contrast reaction.

Do not delay emergent studies for steroid premedication. Only lengthy 12h premedication protocols have shown any effect on reaction rates, and this small benefit was manifested primarily by decreasing minor reactions. No steroid protocol has shown a significant benefit in decreasing severe or fatal reactions.

Monitor all patients for at least 20 min after administration of radiocontrast.

Treat any severe reaction to radiocontrast the same way you would treat a severe anaphylactic reaction.

Picture credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bokchoi-snowpea/4325542571/

Also, while we’re on the topic of iodine, have you noticed that on the chlorhexidine packages it says don’t use for lumbar puncture? More nonsense.

Rectal Methohexital according to Carl Chudnofsky and Conscientious Sedation

October 5th, 2010

by reuben in PSA & analgesia
leave a comment

From his PaACEP resident lecture. For children who are undergoing painless imaging studies and would not otherwise require an IV.

Dose: 25 mg/kg

Typically comes in powder form for IV use, one vial = 500 mg.

Directions suggest that you reconstitute with 50 cc NaCl, which would = 10 mg/cc.

Chudnofsky method is to reconstitute with 5 cc NaCl, mix well to get all powder into solution, now you have 100 mg/cc.

Attach to syringe an 18g angiocath without needle.

Insert into rectum, not very far (1-2 cm in small child), inject slowly to keep fluid in rectum.

Close the buttocks together, hold with 3 inch cloth tape.

According to his study (PMID 10790471), average time to sedation = 7 minutes, average time to awake = 60 minutes. Note that of 100 patients, “Six had brief oxygen desaturations that responded to repositioning, although 3 of these also were given brief bag-valve- mask ventilation per institutional protocol. One developed a continuous cough. All had complete recovery and none required intubation.” So these patients have to be on a pulse oximeter and someone has to be ready to adjust airway, provide O2, and BMV as needed. I would round down the dose to closer to 20 mg/kg.

Conscientious Sedation

Patients who scream usually get my attention and things go something like this. Bypassing the protocol on a technicality (narcotics alone without sedatives are not “conscious sedation”), I administer rapid boluses of fentanyl (150 to 200 mcg usually suffice in total). Within a minute or two, the patient enters the most euphoric experience of her recent memory, closing her eyes and beginning to smile. I signal the surgeon who starts the procedure while the patient lazily registers the discomfort, but when offered more pain medication claims “it’s OK.” I hang out in the room during the procedure, adding fentanyl if needed and catching up on paperwork. Meanwhile, content surgeons, who despite their hard shells do prefer a nonsuffering patient, wrap it up in style. When all is done, the patient looks at me with immeasurable gratitude, and I recall all the reasons for which I became a physician. My term for it: “conscientious sedation.”

It uses up ED attending time, but for all the right reasons. I start with half the intended final dose for the rare hyperresponder. There is naloxone in my pocket and I’ve never had to use it. I am ready to intubate should the need arise, but I doubt it will. I memorized side effects of fentanyl and consider risk-benefit beforehand. And yes, I think it is an adequate approach to procedural pain for most ED interventions on typical adult patients, especially when local anesthetics are appropriately used.

from: Veysman, Boris D. Annals of Emergency MedicineVolume 56, Issue 4, October 2010, Page 430

Photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/fimbrethil/387068341

Discharge with topical corneal anaesthetic: Yes, you can

September 24th, 2010

by reuben in .red eye & change in vision
leave a comment

Topical proparacaine .05% (usual concentration is .5%) 2-4 drops to affected eye as often as needed for pain. Safe and effective in 15 patients.

God bless Dr. Ball et al, and god bless Canada, where medical decision-making is driven by concerns other than fear of litigation.

Now, we need a larger study. And how will I discharge a patient with dilute proparacaine?

CJEM 2010;12(5):389-94

Objective: Dogma discourages the provision of topical anesthetics to patients with corneal injuries discharged from the emergency department because of the toxicity of concentrated solutions. We compared the analgesic efficacy of dilute topical proparacaine with placebo in emergency department patients with acute corneal injuries.

Methods: We conducted a prospective randomized controlled trial of adults with corneal injuries presenting to one of 2 tertiary care emergency departments in London, Ont. Patients were randomly assigned to groups receiving either 0.05% proparacaine or placebo drops as outpatients and were followed up to heal- ing by a single ophthalmologist. Our primary outcome was pain reduction as measured on a 10-cm visual analog scale.

Results: Fifteen participants from the proparacaine group and 18 participants from the placebo group completed the study. The mean age of the patients was 38.7 (standard deviation 12.3) years and the majority were male (85%). Pain reduction was significantly better in the proparacaine group than in the placebo group, with a median improvement of 3.9 (interquar- tile range [IQR] 1.5-5.1) cm on the visual analog scale versus a median improvement of 0.6 (IQR 0.2-2.0) cm (p = 0.007). The proparacaine group was more satisfied (median level of satis- faction 8.0 [IQR 6.0-9.0] cm on a 10-cm visual analog scale v. 2.6 [IQR 1.0-8.0] cm, p = 0.027). There were no ocular compli- cations or signs of delayed wound healing in either group.

Conclusion: Dilute topical proparacaine is an efficacious analgesic for acute corneal injuries. Although no adverse events were observed in our study population, larger studies are required to evaluate safety.

Picture credit: Rakesh Rocky http://www.flickr.com/photos/22905496@N07/4259910413/

Traumatic LP for Meningitis

September 21st, 2010

by seth in .fever, meningitis/encephalitis
leave a comment

Special thanks to Reuben for inviting me to post this review from my teaching resident rotation.

Question:
Is a “corrected” CSF WBC count accurate for diagnosing meningitis for a traumatic LP?

Background:
Traumatic lumbar punctures may obscure accurate diagnoses. Many authors suggest correcting the WBC count by various methods — the most popular seem to be either 700 RBC = 1 WBC, or by using the actual patient’s RBC:WBC ratio in the blood. While this seems intuitive, does it work?
Answer:
Probably not.

Basically, no; the calculations are not helpful. But if the WBC count is MUCH higher than expected, it’s probably a positive tap.

Key points:

  • The sources I could find simply assert that correction is a viable method; I could not find any actual evidence that these corrections are valid.
  • Multiple small studies show that corrections are generally not accurate (including ref. 1), with ROC curves equivalent regardless of how — or if! — correction is applied
  • However, a few small studies also show that bacterial meningitis may be obvious despite a traumatic tap (refs 2 & 3):

If the “observed:predicted” ratio of CSF WBCs is >10, then some authors conclude that it indicates bacterial meningitis. Sensitivity & specificity are both around 80-90% with this method.

I think a higher threshold is probably better (ratio >100) — see images below.

Example:

CBC:
5 RBC (Hgb 15; Hct 45)
5 WBC

This is a predicted ratio of 1000:1 (RBCs are reported as 10^6/mcL and WBCs are 10^3/mcL)

A purely traumatic tap in this patient would be expected to look like this:

CSF
2000 RBC
2 WBC

If the CSF looked like this:
2000 RBC
20 WBC

than it is “likely” to be bacterial meningitis (Observed:Predicted = 10)

Looking at the data, I think we can all agree that this CSF is infected:
2000 RBC
200 WBC
(Observed:Predicted=100)

Here are the results from the Bonadio paper:

Bonadio data

Looking at their raw data, the ratio of 100 looks like a much better diagnostic cutoff, although it is probably best to still treat (i.e. antibiose & admit) pending more accurate tests (i.e. culture) if the picture is less clear.

Here is a ROC curve for their data, which looks pretty good altogether:

References:

  1. Greenberg RG, Smith PB, Cotten CM, Moody MA, Clark RH, Benjamin DK Jr. Traumatic lumbar punctures in neonates: test performance of the cerebrospinal fluid white blood cell count. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2008 Dec;27(12):1047-51.
    There a number of similar small studies that all agree that adjustments are not useful.
  2. Bonadio WA, Smith DS, Goddard S, Burroughs J and G Khaja. Distinguishing cerebrospinal fluid abnormalities in children with bacterial meningitis and traumatic lumbar puncture. The Journal of Infectious Diseases. July 1990: 162(1): 251-254.
  3. Mayefsky, JH. Determination of leukocytosis in traumatic spinal tap specimens. The American Journal of Medicine. June 1987: 82(6): 1175.

NB I didn’t put references for any of the textbooks or papers (most of which refer to the same 2-3 textbooks) that simply assert that calculations are helpful.