Objectives: The objective was to compare the occurrence of respiratory depression, adverse events, and recovery duration of propofol versus ketamine for use in procedural sedation in the emergency department (ED).Methods: This was a randomized nonblinded prospective clinical trial of adult patients undergoing procedural sedation for painful procedures in the ED. Patients with pain before the procedure were treated with intravenous (IV) morphine sulfate until their pain was adequately treated at least 20 minutes before starting the procedure. Patients were randomized to receive either propofol 1 mg ⁄ kg IV followed by 0.5 mg ⁄ kg every 3 minutes as needed or ketamine 1.0 mg ⁄ kg IV followed by 0.5 mg ⁄ kg every 3 minutes as needed. Doses, vital signs, nasal end-tidal CO 2 (ETCO 2 ), and pulse oximetry were recorded. Subclinical respiratory depression was defined as a change in ETCO 2 of >10 mm Hg, an oxygen saturation of <92% at any time, or an absent ETCO 2 waveform at any time. Clinical interventions related to respiratory depression were noted during the procedure, including the addition of or increase in the flow rate of supplemental oxygen, the use of a bag-valve mask apparatus, airway repositioning, or stimulation to induce breathing. After the procedure, patients were asked if they experienced pain during the procedure and had recall of the procedure. Physicians were asked to describe any adverse events or the occurrence of recovery agitation.Results: One-hundred patients were enrolled; 97 underwent sedation and were included in the analysis. Fifty patients received propofol and 47 received ketamine. Subclinical respiratory depression was seen in 20 of 50 patients in the propofol group and 30 of 47 patients in the ketamine group (p = 0.019, effect size 22.8%; 95% CI = 4.0% to 43.6%). Clinical interventions related to respiratory depression were used in 26 of 50 propofol patients and 19 of 47 ketamine patients (p = 0.253, effect size = )13.7%; 95% CI = )33.8% to 6.4%). The median times of the procedures were 11 minutes (range = 4 to 33 minutes) for the ketamine group versus 10 minutes (range = 5 to 33 minutes) for the propofol group (p = 0.256). The median time to return to baseline mental status after the procedure was completed was 14 minutes (range = 2 to 47 minutes) for the ketamine group and 5 minutes (range = 1 to 32 minutes) for the propofol group (p < 0.001). Pain during the procedure was reported by 3 of 50 patients in the propofol group and 1 of 47 patients in the ketamine group (effect size = )3.9%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = )11.9 to 4.1). Recall of some part of the procedure was reported by 4 of 50 patients in the propofol group and 6 of 47 patients in the ketamine group (effect size = 4.8%, 95% CI = )7.6% to 17.1%). Forty-eight of 50 procedures were successful in the propofol group and 43 of 47 in the ketamine group (p = 0.357, effect size = 0.3%; 95% CI = )7.8% to 8.4%). Recovery agitation was reported in 4 of 50 in the propofol group and 17 of 47 in the ketamine group (effect siz...

Pain is a leading public health problem in the United States, with an annual economic burden of more than $630 billion, and is one of the most common reasons that individuals seek emergency department (ED) care. There is a paucity of data regarding sex differences in the assessment and treatment of acute and chronic pain conditions in the ED. The Academic Emergency Medicine consensus conference convened in Dallas, Texas in May of 2014 to develop a research agenda to address this issue among others related to sex differences in the ED. Prior to the conference, experts and stakeholders from emergency medicine and the pain research field reviewed the current literature and identified eight candidate priority areas. At the conference, these eight areas were reviewed and all eight were ratified using a nominal group technique to build consensus. These priority areas were: 1) gender differences in the pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic interventions for pain, including differences in opioid tolerance, side effects, or misuse; 2) gender differences in pain severity perceptions, clinically meaningful differences in acute pain, and pain treatment preferences; 3) gender differences in pain outcomes of ED patients across the lifespan; 4) gender differences in the relationship between acute pain and acute psychological responses; 5) the influence of physician-patient gender differences and characteristics on the assessment and treatment of pain; 6) gender differences in the influence of acute stress and chronic stress on acute pain responses; 7) gender differences in biologic mechanisms and molecular pathways mediating acute pain in ED populations; and 8) gender differences in biologic mechanisms and molecular pathways mediating chronic pain development after trauma, stress, or acute illness exposure. These areas represent priority areas for future scientific inquiry, and gaining understanding in these will be essential to improving our understanding of sex and gender differences in the assessment and treatment of pain conditions in emergency care settings.

Objectives: The primary objective of this study was to determine whether patient-described pain correlates with patient-described stress, anxiety, and satisfaction with ongoing treatment and if that correlation differs by gender.Methods: This was a prospective observational study at an urban, Level I trauma center conducted between June 1, 2010, and January 1, 2013. Patients reporting pain rated greater than 3 of 10 were eligible. Patients who qualified and consented for participation completed demographic and pain, anxiety, stress, and satisfaction scales at baseline, every 30 minutes, and at discharge. Data were analyzed using analysis of variance, chi-square tests, t-tests, multiple regression, and the WilcoxonMann-Whitney rank test.Results: A total of 7,124 patients were screened for enrollment. Of those, 3,495 (49%) did not qualify at screening for various reasons, including insufficient pain levels (17.5%), elected not to participate (37.7%), did not qualify for other reasons (12.4%), and reason not captured (32.4%). A total of 3,629 (51%) screened patients were eligible and consented. Of those, 620 (16.8%) did not have any data collected past baseline, leaving 3,009 as the final sample size. The patients completing data collection had a median age of 39 years (range = 18 to 90 years), and 50% were male. The mean presenting pain visual analog scale (VAS) score was 71.5 mm. Presenting stress and anxiety VAS scores were significantly higher in females (0.61 and 0.53, respectively) than males (0.56 and 0.50, respectively), whereas presenting pain VAS (0.71 male and 0.72 female) and satisfaction VAS (0.34 male and 0.35 female) did not differ by sex. Ethnicity, education, and income were all statistically different when compared with baseline pain, stress, anxiety, and satisfaction. Male gender was associated with a significant change in pain over time from baseline (coefficient = 0.040, p = 0.037); however, when adjusting for age, ethnicity, education, and income, and for changes in stress, anxiety, and satisfaction VAS scores, changes in pain related to male gender was no longer significant (coefficient = 0.034, p = 0.11). When asked about their satisfaction with the results of the pain treatment that had been provided, patients reported a median of 2 (out of 6, 1 = satisfied, 6 = dissatisfied; interquartile range = 1 to 2). There was no significant difference between sexes (p > 0.90).Conclusions: Patient-reported stress and anxiety were higher among female patients than male patients, but there was no significant difference in reported pain and satisfaction between sexes. Sex alone was not a significant predictor of change in pain for patients presenting to the emergency department with pain-related complaints. Anxiety and stress may potentially influence the pain-gender relationship.

No abstract

Introduction: To determine the prevalence of hunger and food insecurity among patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) over 3 consecutive years.Methods: This was a cross-sectional study of patients presenting to the ED at Hennepin County Medical Center, and urban, Level I trauma center. We prospectively screened adult (age >18) patients presenting to the ED during randomized daily 8-hour periods between June 1 and August 31, 2007 and 2008, and randomized every-other-day periods between June 1 and August 31, 2009. We excluded patients with high acuity complaints, altered mental status, prisoners, those who did not speak Spanish or English, or those considered to be vulnerable. Consenting participants completed a brief demographic survey. The main outcome measures included age, gender, ethnicity, employment, housing status, insurance, access to food, and having to make choices between buying food and buying medicine. All responses were self reported.Results: 26,211 patients presented during the study; 15,732 (60%) were eligible, 8,044 (51%) were enrolled, and 7,852 (98%) were included in the analysis. The rate of patients reporting hunger significantly increased over the 3-year period [20.3% in 2007, 27.8% in 2008, and 38.3% in 2009 (p<0.001)]. The rate of patients reporting ever having to choose between food and medicine also increased [20.0% in 2007, 18.5% in 2008, and 22.6% in 2009 (p=0.006)].Conclusion: A significant proportion of our ED patients experience food insecurity and hunger. Hunger and food insecurity have become more prevalent among patients seen in this urban county ED over the past 3 years. Emergency physicians should be aware of the increasing number of patients who must choose between obtaining food and their prescribed medications, and should consider the contribution of hunger and food insecurity to the development of health conditions for which ED treatment is sought.