Haefke, Brandon

Abstract Purpose Rapid sequence intubation (RSI) is a common emergency department (ED) procedure with an associated complication of postintubation hypotension (PIH). It has not been clearly established whether the selection and dose of induction agent affect risk of PIH. The objective of this study was to determine the incidence of PIH in patients receiving full-dose compared to reduced-dose induction agent for RSI in the ED. Methods This was a health system–wide, retrospective cohort study comparing incidence of PIH based on the induction medication and dose given for RSI in the ED. Patients were included if they underwent RSI from July 1, 2018, through December 31, 2020, were 18 years of age or older, and received etomidate or ketamine. A reduced dose was defined as a ketamine dose of 1.25 mg/kg or less and an etomidate dose of 0.2 mg/kg or less. Results A total of 909 patients were included in the final analysis, with most receiving etomidate (n = 764; 84%) and a smaller number receiving ketamine (n = 145; 16%). Patients who received ketamine had a higher mean pre-intubation shock index (full dose, 1.08; reduced dose, 1.04) than those who received etomidate (full dose, 0.89; reduced dose, 0.92) (P ≤ 0.001). Reduced doses of induction agent were observed for 107 patients receiving etomidate (14.0%) and 60 patients receiving ketamine (41.4%). Patients who received full-dose ketamine for induction had the highest rate of PIH (n = 31; 36.5%), and the difference was statistically significant compared to patients receiving reduced-dose ketamine (16.7%; P = 0.021) and full-dose etomidate (22.8%; P = 0.010). Conclusion We observed that full-dose ketamine was associated with the highest rate of PIH; however, this group had the poorest baseline hemodynamics, confounding interpretation. Our results do not support broad use of a reduced-dose induction agent.

AbstractIntroductionMany emergency medicine (EM) residency programs include clinical rotations in rural emergency departments (“rural rotations”) as part of their curriculum. These rotations are designed to expose residents to clinical scenarios that are less frequently encountered in tertiary centers. The objective of this study was to determine the rate at which residents were exposed to certain clinical and procedural experiences (CPEs) while on rural rotations compared to their usual academic training hospital.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective chart review of all patient encounters involving EM residents at a large academic hospital in Rochester, Minnesota, compared with two rural hospitals in Austin, Minnesota, and Albert Lea, Minnesota, from July 1, 2019, to June 30, 2020. The frequency of each CPE was calculated and expressed as the number of CPEs encountered per 100 clinical hours worked. These values were compared between the rural and academic sites.ResultsA total of 33,417 patient encounters over a total of 41,700 resident clinical hours were analyzed between the three study sites. The two settings (rural vs. academic) had significant differences in baseline patient demographics including age, acuity, and admission rates. Several CPEs were found to occur at a higher frequency in the rural hospitals versus the academic hospital: ambulance necessity documentation (9.3/100 h rural vs. 0.07/100 h academic, p ≤ 0.0001), laceration repair (3.39/100 h rural vs. 2.0/100 h academic, p = 0.0004), and splint/cast application (1.53/100 h rural vs. 0.07/100 h academic, p ≤ 0.0001).ConclusionsRural EM rotations provide residents exposure to a variety of valuable educational experiences. These rotations may provide residents with superior exposures to some clinical experiences compared to academic hospitals, particularly out‐of‐ED transfers and orthopedic procedures. Residency programs without a current rural rotation should consider creating this as an option for their trainees.