Ketamine Versus Haloperidol/Lorazepam/Diphenhydramine Combination Treatment for Management of Acute Agitation in the Emergency Department.

IF 1.5 Q3 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Open Access Emergency Medicine Pub Date : 2025-02-15 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.2147/OAEM.S486208
Nicole Sunshine, Jenny Martinez, Alexandra Bazan, William R Wolowich, Tony Zitek
{"title":"Ketamine Versus Haloperidol/Lorazepam/Diphenhydramine Combination Treatment for Management of Acute Agitation in the Emergency Department.","authors":"Nicole Sunshine, Jenny Martinez, Alexandra Bazan, William R Wolowich, Tony Zitek","doi":"10.2147/OAEM.S486208","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Appropriate use and timing of agents for chemical management of patient agitation is critical for the safety of patients and providers. Ketamine may have a preferable safety profile in acutely agitated patients, especially those with an unknown medication history given that it does not carry the same cardiovascular and respiratory risks as other sedative agents currently used in practice. This study aimed to evaluate subsequent chemical sedation requirements and the incidence of adverse events following the use of ketamine for agitation as compared to combination antipsychotic/sedative use in the ED.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a retrospective, single-center, observational cohort study of 102 adult patients who received chemical sedation for agitation/aggression/combative behavior from January 2018 to December 2023 at the Mount Sinai Medical Center Emergency Department. Patients who received at least one dose of ketamine (n = 51) were compared to patients who received at least one dose of the B52 combination (diphenhydramine (Benadryl) 25 mg, haloperidol (Haldol) 5 mg, and lorazepam (Ativan) 2 mg) (n = 51) for management of aggression. The primary endpoint was restricted mean survival time (RMST) to next sedative given. Secondary endpoints included the number of additional sedatives needed, adverse events, and length of stay.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The use of ketamine was associated with patients requiring additional sedation both more often and sooner than patients who received the B52 combination (RMST to next sedative: 2.1 hours ketamine vs 4 hours B52; <i>p</i> = 0.032, median additional doses: 3 doses ketamine group vs 0 doses B52 group; <i>p</i> < 0.00).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In agitated patients within the ED, the administration of ketamine demonstrated inadequate duration of sedation and increased need for supplemental sedative use compared to B52.</p>","PeriodicalId":45096,"journal":{"name":"Open Access Emergency Medicine","volume":"17 ","pages":"113-120"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11840334/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Access Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/OAEM.S486208","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Appropriate use and timing of agents for chemical management of patient agitation is critical for the safety of patients and providers. Ketamine may have a preferable safety profile in acutely agitated patients, especially those with an unknown medication history given that it does not carry the same cardiovascular and respiratory risks as other sedative agents currently used in practice. This study aimed to evaluate subsequent chemical sedation requirements and the incidence of adverse events following the use of ketamine for agitation as compared to combination antipsychotic/sedative use in the ED.

Methods: This was a retrospective, single-center, observational cohort study of 102 adult patients who received chemical sedation for agitation/aggression/combative behavior from January 2018 to December 2023 at the Mount Sinai Medical Center Emergency Department. Patients who received at least one dose of ketamine (n = 51) were compared to patients who received at least one dose of the B52 combination (diphenhydramine (Benadryl) 25 mg, haloperidol (Haldol) 5 mg, and lorazepam (Ativan) 2 mg) (n = 51) for management of aggression. The primary endpoint was restricted mean survival time (RMST) to next sedative given. Secondary endpoints included the number of additional sedatives needed, adverse events, and length of stay.

Results: The use of ketamine was associated with patients requiring additional sedation both more often and sooner than patients who received the B52 combination (RMST to next sedative: 2.1 hours ketamine vs 4 hours B52; p = 0.032, median additional doses: 3 doses ketamine group vs 0 doses B52 group; p < 0.00).

Conclusion: In agitated patients within the ED, the administration of ketamine demonstrated inadequate duration of sedation and increased need for supplemental sedative use compared to B52.

氯胺酮与氟哌啶醇/劳拉西泮/苯海拉明联合治疗急诊科急性躁动的比较
目的:适当的使用和时间的药剂的化学管理的患者躁动是至关重要的患者和提供者的安全。氯胺酮可能在急性激动患者中具有更好的安全性,特别是那些用药史未知的患者,因为它不像目前在实践中使用的其他镇静剂那样具有心血管和呼吸风险。本研究旨在评估在急诊科使用氯胺酮治疗躁动后,与使用抗精神病/镇静联合治疗相比,使用氯胺酮治疗躁动后的化学镇静需求和不良事件发生率。方法:本研究是一项回顾性、单中心、观察性队列研究,纳入了2018年1月至2023年12月在西奈山医疗中心急诊科接受化学镇静治疗的躁动/攻击/战斗行为的102例成年患者。接受至少一剂氯胺酮治疗的患者(n = 51)与接受至少一剂B52联合治疗(苯海拉明(苯海拉明)25mg,氟哌啶醇(氟哌啶醇)5mg,劳拉西泮(劳拉西泮)2mg)的患者(n = 51)进行比较。主要终点是限制平均生存时间(RMST)到下一次给予镇静剂。次要终点包括所需额外镇静剂的数量、不良事件和住院时间。结果:使用氯胺酮的患者比使用B52联合用药的患者更频繁、更早地需要额外镇静(从RMST到下一次镇静:2.1小时氯胺酮vs 4小时B52;p = 0.032,中位额外剂量:3剂量氯胺酮组vs 0剂量B52组;P < 0.00)。结论:在急诊科激动的患者中,与B52相比,氯胺酮的使用显示出镇静持续时间不足,并且需要增加补充镇静剂的使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Open Access Emergency Medicine
Open Access Emergency Medicine EMERGENCY MEDICINE-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
6.70%
发文量
85
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信