Dataset Information

Intensive Cryotherapy in the Emergency Department (ICED): A Randomized Controlled Trial

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Pain control is an essential component of musculoskeletal injury treatment in the emergency department (ED). We evaluated the most effective type of cryotherapy for analgesia of acute musculoskeletal injury and the impact on opioid utilization.

Methods

This was a prospective, randomized, single-blind controlled trial of adult ED patients who presented with acute musculoskeletal pain. Patients were randomized to either intensive targeted cryotherapy (crushed wetted ice in a plastic bag) or agitated chemical cold pack applied to the injury site for 20 minutes. All other diagnostic and therapeutic orders were at the discretion of the treating physician. Visual analog pain scores were measured at the time of cryotherapy application, at 20 minutes (time of cryotherapy removal), and at 60 minutes (40 minutes after removal).

Results

We enrolled 38 patients, 17 randomized to intensive targeted cryotherapy and 21 to chemical cold packs, with well-matched demographics. The intensive targeted cryotherapy group achieved significantly greater pain relief at 20 minutes (2.1 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.3 – 2.9] vs 0.9 [95% CI, 0.3 – 1.5], P < 0.05) and at 60 minutes (2.7 [95% CI, 1.6 – 3.7] vs 1.2 [95% CI, 0.6 – 1.7], P < 0.05), number need to trial (NNT) = 3.2. Opioid administration in the ED was significantly lower in the intensive targeted cryotherapy group (1 [6%] vs 7 [33%], P < 0.05), NNT = 3.6. Those who received a discharge opiate prescription had significantly higher 60-minute pain scores (7.3 ± 2.2 vs 4.1 ± 2.7, P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Intensive targeted cryotherapy provided more effective analgesia than chemical cold packs for acute musculoskeletal injuries in the ED and may contribute to lower opioid usage.

SUBMITTER: Leroux E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7972361 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The aim was to evaluate if the addition of video discharge instructions (VDIs) to usual verbal information improved the comprehension of information provided to caregivers of patients who consult for acute gastroenteritis (AGE). We conducted an open-label, parallel, randomized trial, enrolling patients who consulted for AGE at a tertiary hospital. First, caregivers answered a written test concerning AGE characteristics and management. They were randomly allocated to a control group, which received the usual verbal instructions, or to an intervention group, which additionally received VDI. After discharge, caregivers were contacted by telephone and answered the same test, satisfaction questions, and follow-up information. From September 2019 to March 2020, 139 patients were randomized, 118 completed follow-up. The mean score was 3.13 (SD 1.07) over 5 points in the initial test and 3.96 (SD 0.96) in the follow-up test. Patients in the intervention group had a greater improvement (1.17 points, SD 1.11) than those in the control group (0.47 points, SD 0.94, p?<?0.001). In the follow-up test, 49.1% in the intervention group and 18.6% in the control group answered all questions correctly (p?<?0.001). There were no significant differences in return visits. Caregivers gave high satisfaction scores regardless of the allocation group.Conclusion: Video instructions improve caregivers' understanding of discharge information.Trial registration: [NCT04463355, retrospectively registered July 9, 2020]. What is Known: • Poor comprehension of discharge instructions leads to incorrect treatment after discharge, increased readmissions and a reduction of caregivers' satisfaction. • Video discharge instructions are useful providing concise information independently of the patients' health literacy level or communication skills of the health care provider What is New: • The addition of video discharge instructions to verbal instructions improves caregivers' knowledge about AGE improved with respect to those who only receive verbal instructions • Video instructions do not add extra time to the emergency department visits.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Although this has not been fully studied, videos and pictorial brochures might be equivalent methods of delivering HIV/AIDS and HIV testing information to emergency departments (ED) patients. It also is not known how well or for how long such knowledge is retained, if this information should be tailored according to patient health literacy, and if retention of this knowledge impacts future HIV testing behavior. METHODS:We will conduct a multi-site, randomized, controlled, longitudinal trial among 600 English- and 600 Spanish-speaking 18-64-year-old ED patients to investigate these questions. We will stratify our sample within language (English vs. Spanish) by health literacy level (lower vs. higher) and randomly assign patients to receive HIV/AIDS and HIV testing information by video or pictorial brochure. All patients will be tested for HIV in the ED. At 12-months post-enrollment, we will invite participants to be tested again for HIV. As primary aims, we will compare the efficacy of pictorial brochures and videos in improving short-term (in ED) HIV/AIDS and HIV testing knowledge and retaining this knowledge over 12 months. We will determine if and how short-term improvement and longer-term retention of knowledge interacts with information delivery mode (pictorial brochure or video), patient health literacy level (lower or higher), and language (English or Spanish). As secondary aims, using the Information-Motivation-Behavioral Skills (IMB) model as a heuristic framework, we will measure constructs from the IMB model relevant to our study, and assess their impact on HIV re-testing behavior; we will also examine the moderating influences of information delivery mode, language, and health literacy level. In addition, we will explore simplified screening strategies to identify ED patients with lower health literacy as ways to implement a tailored approach to HIV/AIDS and HIV testing information delivery in EDs. DISCUSSION:Study findings will guide ED-based delivery of HIV/AIDS and HIV testing information; that is, whether delivery modes (video or pictorial brochure) should be selected for patients by language and/or health literacy level. The results also will inform EDs when, how, and for whom information needs to be provided for those undergoing testing again for HIV within a one-year period. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02284451 . Posted November 6, 2014.

Project description:Patients who use an emergency department (ED) for acute migraine headaches have higher migraine disability scores, lower socioeconomic status, and are unlikely to have used a migraine-specific medication prior to presentation to the ED. The objective was to determine if a comprehensive migraine intervention, delivered just prior to ED discharge, could improve migraine impact scores 1?month after the ED visit.? This was a randomized controlled trial of a comprehensive migraine intervention versus typical care among patients who presented to an ED for management of acute migraine. At the time of discharge, for patients randomized to comprehensive care, the research team reinforced their diagnosis, shared a migraine education presentation from the National Library of Medicine, provided them with six tablets of sumatriptan 100?mg and 14 tablets of naproxen 500?mg, and if they wished, provided them with an expedited free appointment to the institution's headache clinic. Patients randomized to typical care received the care their attending emergency physicians (EPs) felt was appropriate. The primary outcome was a between-group comparison of the Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) score, a validated headache assessment instrument, 1?month after ED discharge. Secondary outcomes included an assessment of satisfaction with headache care and use of migraine-specific medication within that 1-month period.? Over a 19-month period, 50 migraine patients were enrolled. One-month follow-up was successfully obtained in 92% of patients. Baseline characteristics were comparable. One-month HIT-6 scores in the two groups were nearly identical (59 vs. 56, 95% confidence interval [CI] for difference of 3?=?-5 to 11), as was dissatisfaction with overall headache care (17% vs. 18%, 95% CI for difference of 1%?=?-22% to 24%). Patients randomized to the comprehensive intervention were more likely to be using triptans or migraine-specific therapy (43% vs. 0%, 95% CI for difference of 43%?=?20 to 63%) 1?month later.A comprehensive migraine intervention, when compared to typical care, did not improve HIT-6 scores (a validated measure of the effect of migraine on one's daily life) 1?month after ED discharge. Future work is needed to define a migraine intervention that is practical and useful in an ED, where many underserved patients, of necessity, present for care.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Hip fracture causes moderate to severe pain and while fascia iliaca block has been reported to provide analgesic benefit, most previous trials were unblinded, with subsequent high risks of performance, selection and detection biases. In this randomized, control double-blind trial, we tested the hypothesis that a fascia iliaca block provides effective analgesia for patients suffering from hip fracture. METHODS:Thirty ASA I-III hip fracture patients over 70?years old, who received prehospital morphine, were randomized to receive either a fascia iliaca block using 30?ml of bupivacaine 0.5% with epinephrine 1:200,000 or a sham injection with normal saline. The fascia iliaca block was administered by emergency medicine physicians trained to perform an anatomic landmark-based technique. The primary outcome was the comparison between groups of the longitudinal pain score profiles at rest over the first 45?min following the procedure (numeric rating scale, 0-10). Secondary outcomes included the longitudinal pain score profiles on movement and the comparison over 4?h, 8?h, 12?h, and 24?h after the procedure, along with cumulative intravenous morphine consumption at 24?h. RESULTS:At baseline, the fascia iliaca group had a lower mean pain score than the sham injection group, both at rest (difference?=?-?0.9, 95%CI [-?2.4, 0.5]) and on movement (difference?=?-?0.9, 95%CI [-?2.7; 0.9]). These differences remained 45?min after the procedure and the two longitudinal pain score profiles were parallel both for patients at rest and on movement (test of parallelism for patients at rest p?=?0.53 and on movement p?=?0.45). The same parallel change in pain scores over time was observed over 24?h of follow-up (test of parallelism for patients at rest p?=?0.82 and on movement p?=?0.12). These results were confirmed after adjustment for gender, ASA score, and cumulative sums of intravenous morphine received pre-procedure and during-follow-up. In addition, there was no difference between the two groups in total cumulative intravenous morphine consumption at 24?h. CONCLUSION:Fascia iliaca block following anatomic landmarks may not provide supplementary analgesia for patients suffering from hip fracture, when low pain scores are reported after prehospital morphine. Additional larger trials will help reach definitive conclusion. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:Clinicaltrials.gov - NCT02433548 . The study was registered retrospectively.

Project description:BACKGROUND:For patients with advanced cancer, visits to the emergency department (ED) are common. Such patients present to the ED with a specific profile of palliative care needs, including burdensome symptoms such as pain, dyspnea, or vomiting that cannot be controlled in other settings and a lack of well-defined goals of care. The goals of this study are: i) to test the feasibility of recruiting, enrolling, and randomizing patients with serious illness in the ED; and ii) to evaluate the impact of ED-initiated palliative care on health care utilization, quality of life, and survival. METHODS/DESIGN:This is a protocol for a single center parallel, two-arm randomized controlled trial in ED patients with metastatic solid tumors comparing ED-initiated palliative care referral to a control group receiving usual care. We plan to enroll 125 to 150 ED-advanced cancer patients at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, USA, who meet the following criteria: i) pass a brief cognitive screen; ii) speak fluent English or Spanish; and iii) have never been seen by palliative care. We will use balanced block randomization in groups of 50 to assign patients to the intervention or control group after completion of a baseline questionnaire. All research staff performing assessment or analysis will be blinded to patient assignment. We will measure the impact of the palliative care intervention on the following outcomes: i) timing and rate of palliative care consultation; ii) quality of life and depression at 12 weeks, measured using the FACT-G and PHQ-9; iii) health care utilization; and iv) length of survival. The primary analysis will be based on intention-to-treat. DISCUSSION:This pilot randomized controlled trial will test the feasibility of recruiting, enrolling, and randomizing patients with advanced cancer in the ED, and provide a preliminary estimate of the impact of palliative care referral on health care utilization, quality of life, and survival. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Clinical Trials.gov identifier: NCT01358110 (Entered 5/19/2011).

Project description:BackgroundElectronic information exchange is believed to improve efficiency and reduce resource utilization. We developed a Web-based standardized communication system (SCS) that enables family physicians to receive detailed reports of their patients' care in the emergency department. We sought to determine the impact of the SCS on measures of resource utilization in the emergency department and family physician offices.MethodsWe used an open 4-period crossover cluster-randomized controlled design. During 2 separate 10-week intervention phases, family physicians received detailed reports of their patients' emergency department visits over the Internet, and in the alternating control phases they received a 1-page copy of the emergency department notes by mail. The primary outcome was the number of repeat visits to the emergency department within 14 days of the initial visit. Secondary outcomes included duplication of test and specialty consultation requests by the emergency and family physician. Outcomes were measured using the hospital database and questionnaires sent to the family physicians.ResultsA total of 2022 patient visits to the emergency department from 23 practices were used in the study. Use of the SCS failed to reduce the number of repeat visits to the emergency department within 14 days (odds ratio [OR] 1.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.8-1.51) and 28 days (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.8-1.27). There was no significant duplication of requests for diagnostic tests between the emergency and family physician during the intervention and control phases (24 v. 22, p = 0.93), but there was significantly greater duplication in specialty consultation requests in the intervention phase than in the control phase (20 v. 8, p = 0.049).InterpretationAn electronic link between emergency and family physicians did not result in a significant reduction in resource utilization at either service point. Investments in improved electronic information exchange between emergency departments and family physician offices may not be substantiated by a reduction in resource utilization.