No abstract

ObjectivesLow‐dose ketamine has been used perioperatively for pain control and may be a useful adjunct to intravenous (IV) opioids in the control of acute pain in the emergency department (ED). The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of low‐dose ketamine as an adjunct to morphine versus standard care with morphine alone for the treatment of acute moderate to severe pain among ED patients.MethodsA double‐blind, randomized, placebo‐controlled trial with three study groups was conducted at a large, urban academic ED over a 10‐month period. Eligible patients were 18 to 65 years old with acute moderate to severe pain (score of at least 5 out of 10 on the numerical pain rating scale [NRS] and pain duration < 7 days) who were deemed by their treating physician to require IV opioids. The three study groups were: 1) morphine and normal saline placebo (standard care group), 2) morphine and 0.15 mg/kg ketamine (group 1), or 3) morphine and 0.3 mg/kg ketamine (group 2). Participants were assessed at 30, 60, and 120 minutes after study medication administration and received rescue analgesia as needed to target a 50% reduction in pain. The primary outcome measure of pain relief, or pain intensity reduction, was derived using the NRS and calculated as the summed pain‐intensity (SPID) difference over 2 hours. The amount and timing of rescue opioid analgesia was evaluated as a secondary outcome. The occurrence of adverse events was also measured.ResultsSixty patients were enrolled (n = 20 in each group). There were no differences between study groups with respect to age, sex, race/ethnicity, preenrollment analgesia, or baseline NRS. Over the 2‐hour poststudy medication administration period, the SPIDs were higher (greater pain relief) for the ketamine study groups than the control group (standard care 4.0, interquartile range [IQR] = 1.8 to 6.5; group 1 7.0, IQR = 4.3 to 10.8; and group 2 7.8, IQR = 4.8 to 12.8; p < 0.02). The SPIDs for the ketamine groups were similar (p < 0.46). When compared to standard care, group 2 sustained the reduction in pain intensity up to 2 hours, whereas group 1 was similar to standard care by 2 hours. Similar numbers of patients received rescue analgesia: standard care group, seven of 20, 35%; group 1, four of 20, 20%; and group 2, four of 20, 20% (p = 0.48). Among those receiving rescue analgesia, those in the standard care group received analgesia sooner than either low‐dose ketamine group, on average. More participants in the low‐dose ketamine groups reported dysphoria and dizziness.ConclusionsLow‐dose ketamine is a viable analgesic adjunct to morphine for the treatment of moderate to severe acute pain. Dosing of 0.3 mg/kg is possibly more effective than 0.15 mg/kg, but may be associated with minor adverse events. Future studies should evaluate additional outcomes, optimum dosing, and use in specific populations.

Objective: It is unclear if a low or high-volume intravenous (IV) fluid resuscitation strategy is better for patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. Design: Prospective randomized controlled trial. Setting: Two adult acute care hospitals within a single academic system. Patients: Patients with severe sepsis and septic shock admitted from the emergency department to the intensive care unit (ICU) from November 2016 to February 2018. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to a restrictive IV fluid resuscitation strategy (≤ 60ml/kg of IV fluid) or usual care for the first 72 hours of care. Measurements and Main Results: We enrolled 109 patients, of whom 55 were assigned to the restrictive resuscitation group and 54 to the usual care group. The restrictive group received

SYNOPSISObjectives. We assessed emergency department (ED) patient acceptance of opt-in, rapid human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) screening and identified demographic characteristics and HIV testing-history factors associated with acceptance of screening.Methods. A random sample of 18-to 55-year-old ED patients was offered rapid HIV screening. Patient acceptance or decline of screening and the reasons for acceptance or decline were analyzed with multivariable regression models. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated for the logistic regression models.Results. Of the 2,099 participants, 39.3% accepted HIV screening. In a multinomial regression model, participants who were never married/not partnered, did not have private health insurance, and had 12 or fewer years of education were more likely to be screened due to concern about a possible HIV exposure. In a multivariable logistic regression model, the odds of accepting screening were greater among those who were younger than 40 years old (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.32, 2.00), nonwhite (OR 1.28, 95% CI 1.04, 1.58), not married (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.44, 2.28), lacking private health insurance (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.13, 1.74), and who had 12 or fewer years of education (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.16, 1.75). Despite use of a standardized protocol, patient acceptance of screening varied by which research assistant asked them to be screened. Patients not previously tested for HIV who were white, married, and 45 years or older and who had private health insurance were more likely to decline HIV screening.Conclusions. In an opt-in, universal, ED HIV screening program, patient acceptance of screening varied by demography, which indicates that the impact of such screening programs will not be universal. Future research will need to determine methods of increasing uptake of ED HIV screening that transcend patient demographic characteristics, HIV testing history, and motivation for testing.

No abstract

We aimed to determine in a randomized trial if young adult black, Hispanic, and white men-who-have-sex-with-men (YMSM) are more likely to complete home-based oral fluid rapid HIV self-testing than either mail-in blood sample collection or medical facility/community organization-based HIV testing. Stratified by race/ethnicity, participants were randomly assigned to use a free oral fluid rapid HIV self-test (n = 142), a free mail-in blood sample collection HIV test (n = 142), or be tested at a medical facility/community organization of their choice (n = 141). Of the 425 participants, completion of assigned test (66% oral fluid vs. 40% mail-in blood sample vs. 56% medical facility/community), willingness to refer (36% oral fluid vs. 20% mail-in blood sample vs. 26% medical facility/community), and legitimate referrals (58% oral fluid vs. 43% mail-in blood sample vs. 43% medical facility/community) were greater in the oral fluid rapid HIV self-test than the mail-in blood sample collection HIV test arm, but not the medical facility/community testing arm. There were no differences in assigned test completion by race/ethnicity. Although free home-based oral fluid rapid HIV self-testing showed moderate promise in facilitating HIV testing among black, Hispanic, and white YMSM, it did not lead to greater testing than directing these YMSM to medical facility/community HIV testing venues. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02369627.

No abstract

No abstract