Tuesday, February 10, 2015

Critical Illness Polyneuropathy- An Important Succinylcholine Contraindication

You are requested to your local short-term rehabilitation center for a 67 year old male with respiratory distress.  You arrive to find a patient in significant respiratory distress and altered mental status.  Per staff, the patient sustained an ischemic stroke ten days ago, which resulted in left-sided hemiparesis and some swallowing difficulties.  He has a past medical history of coronary artery disease and hypertension.  This morning, the patient developed acute respiratory distress and 911 was called.  You are concerned about pneumonia or pulmonary embolism in this bed-bound patient, and at this time it does not appear that he is protecting his airway.  Vitals are notable for BP 98/58, HR 128, sinus tachycardia on the monitor, respirations 40, and pulse oximetry 84% on RA.  You call medical control for delayed sequence intubation orders.  What regimen would you like to request?

After multiple clinical pearls on the topic summarizing the latest evidence, there should be little debate on the induction agent for this hypotensive patient.  Etomidate should be avoided in the hypotensive patient in extremis.  You request ketamine for induction sedation for this patient.

How many of you would choose succinylcholine for this patient?  Probably most of the readers would choose succinylcholine.  As you know, succinylcholine exerts its effects by depolarizing the neuromuscular junction by activating acetylcholine receptors.  The succinylcholine continues to activate the receptors, preventing repolarization, or a resetting, of the neuromuscular junction.  The effect continues until pseudocholinesterase, an enzyme in the body, metabolizes the succinylcholine.  The action of the depolarization does cause a potassium ion flux into the blood, typically no more than 1 mEq/L, even in instances of acute renal failure (e.g., dehydration, diabetic ketoacidosis).1

Most clinicians can rattle off the typical contraindications to succinylcholine administration, such as renal failure/hemodialysis, crush victims, burn victims, and prolonged immobilization/"found down."  Hopefully, if there is enough time to obtain a history, the question of, “Have you or anyone in your family had any problems with anesthesia in the past?” is being asked to ascertain the possibility of the very dangerous malignant hyperthermia.  If you’re really good, you may know that patients with myopathies, such as muscular dystrophy, may result in an acute rhabdomyolysis syndrome from the sudden muscle contractions of the depolarization process.  This may result in a sudden increase in serum potassium.  In fact, there is a black box warning on succinylcholine for this phenomenon, particularly in the pediatric population in which the myopathy may not yet be diagnosed in the patient.2

Much less known, though, is the critical illness polyneuropathy (CIP).  This clinical entity is seen primarily in ICU patients and patients with acute denervating injuries, such as a spinal cord injury or cerebrovascular accident.  In response to the sudden lack of nerve impulses coming from the upper motor neurons (i.e., the brain or spinal cord), the body starts to upregulate, or increase, the number of acetylcholine receptors at the neuromuscular junction in an attempt to make them more sensitive to any nerve signals coming their way.  While the body is unable to activate these neuromuscular junctions due to a functional blockade (e.g., severed spinal cord, ischemic area of brain), succinylcholine can still activate these junctions.  Since there are many more receptors, the activation of them will result in a greater flux of potassium out of the cells.  Potassium increases of 5-15 mEq/L have been seen in these instances, which can certainly cause cardiac arrest.  Because there is a delay in the production of additional receptors, the first 24 hours after an acute neurologic injury is typically safe for succinylcholine, so this should not change your practice with acute strokes.  The risk peaks 5 to 15 days after the denervating injury, and it is believed to last for 2-6 months afterwards.  However, some clinicians believe any patient with a history of denervating injury to be at risk for life-threatening hyperkalemia after succinylcholine.1,3–5

If you didn’t know this, you’re not alone.  After some clinicians in the UK had two hyperkalemic cardiac arrests in patients like this in their ICU after using succinylcholine, they surveyed other physicians who would be familiar with emergent intubations.  They found that 68.7% of survey respondents chose succinylcholine for intubation.6

To summarize, true contraindications to succinylcholine remain renal failure (particularly on hemodialysis), burns (cardiac arrests have occurred with as little as 8% body surface area involved), crush injuries, prolonged immobilization (e.g., found down at home and concern for rhabdomyolysis), myopathies, history of malignant hyperthermia, and, now, recent history of acute denervating injury, such as CVA or spinal cord injury.1

Case resolution:  You intubate the patient using ketamine and rocuronium, and you administer fentanyl and ketamine for post-intubation sedation.  The patient’s vital signs improve mildly.  At the emergency department, he is found to have a large saddle pulmonary embolus on CT angiography.  He goes to interventional radiology for thrombectomy (removal of the clot), as he cannot receive tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) due to the recent ischemic stroke.  His cardiodynamics improve significantly and he is extubated on hospital day #3.  He returns to rehab, albeit on a different regimen of anticoagulation.

References

1. Stollings JL, Diedrich DA, Oyen LJ, Brown DR. Rapid-sequence intubation: a review of the process and considerations when choosing medications. Ann. Pharmacother. 2014;48(1):62-76. doi:10.1177/1060028013510488.
2. Sandoz Inc. ANECTINE- succinylcholine chloride injection, solution (package insert). 2012. Available at: http://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/drugInfo.cfm?setid=579ff759-3099-45f5-befe-c4b79106c87e. Accessed September 21, 2014.
3. Biccard BM, Grant IS, Wright DJ, Nimmo SR, Hughes M. Suxamethonium and critical illness polyneuropathy. Anaesth. Intensive Care 1998;26(5):590-591.
4. Mallon WK, Keim SM, Shoenberger JM, Walls RM. Rocuronium vs. succinylcholine in the emergency department: a critical appraisal. J. Emerg. Med. 2009;37(2):183-8. doi:10.1016/j.jemermed.2008.07.021.
5. Booij LH. Is succinylcholine appropriate or obsolete in the intensive care unit? Crit. Care 2001;5(5):245-6.
6. Hughes M, Grant IS, Biccard B, Nimmo G. Suxamethonium and critical illness polyneuropathy. Anaesth. Intensive Care 1999;27(6):636-638.

Wednesday, February 4, 2015

Permissive Hypotension

You are dispatched to a scene where a 21 year old male has been shot in the chest by an unknown caliber handgun. On exam, you note a single GSW to the chest inferior to the left nipple. His VS are: BP 62/48, HR 138/min, RR 36 and labored. He is agitated and diaphoretic, but is AAOx4. You establish peripheral access and begin administering crystalloid fluid as a bolus. Your transport time to the trauma center is 20 minutes, due to road closures.
How much fluid should you administer en route to the trauma center?
            Captain Walter Cannon introduced the world to the concept of permissive hypotension in penetrating trauma back in 1918 during World War I. Cannon was an Army surgeon who witnessed the poor outcomes of patients who were “resuscitated” to “normal” blood pressures and developed the idea of the tenuous clot.  In 1994, Bickel and colleagues compared low volume resuscitation (300-340 ml) with standard ATLS volumes of 2400 ml.  In a randomized prospective trial, Bickel demonstrated a change in mortality of almost 7% in the low volume resuscitation group. This group also had less complications (ICU length of stay, development of acute respiratory distress syndrome, and abdominal compartment syndrome) compared with the standard resuscitation group.
            This practice of permissive hypotension in penetrating chest trauma is now widely accepted and practiced. The idea of the tenuous clot is real. Increased fluid volumes raise the blood pressure to levels higher than required, resulting in dilution of clotting factors and increased bleeding. The majority of these injuries are in non-compressible sites. Hence, patients end up bleeding more than they would have if we had never touched them in the first place.
            Therefore, consider resuscitating penetrating chest trauma patients to normal mental status.  This holds true for other trauma patients where bleeding is felt to be the cause of hypotension. The vast majority of people will retain normal mental status around 90 mmHg SBP. If the SBP is at least 90 mmHg, consider giving no fluids at all.

Boswell, K.  Menaker, J. Assessment and Treatment of the Trauma Patient in Shock, 2014-11-01Z, Volume 32, Issue 4, Pages 777-795, 

Saturday, January 31, 2015

Journal Club - February 2, 2015


  • What:  Weekly Journal Club
  • Where:  MONOC Education Building, 1415 Wyckoff Road, Ground Floor, Wall Township, NJ
  • When:  Monday, February 2, 2015 at 10:00 am

Live-tweeting of the journal club @CCareAnywhere.  #EMSJC

Friday, January 23, 2015

More Than Just Shock Value?

*Note - this discussion is only pertinent to modern biphasic defibrillators with self adhesive electrodes applied only anterior/posterior or anterior/lateral, with the compression provider wearing two pairs of gloves (double-gloving), with a maximum defibrillation energy of 360J.*
We have all heard the chant, “I’m clear, you’re clear, we’re all clear,” prior to a provider double, triple, sometimes quadruple checking him or herself before pushing that magic red button with the white lightning bolt - “shock”!  Recent literature has spurred quite the discussion on hands-on defibrillation (HOD) - CPR where compressions continue throughout the defibrillation - as it is widely known that interruptions in chest compressions lead to poor patient outcomes and are all too common, for example, during intubation, providing ventilations, AED analyzing, charging, and during defibrillation shocks.  This pearl is meant to provide a very brief explanation of what your risks might be, what protection devices you might use, anecdotal and published accounts on HOD, and suggestions for your clinical practice.
There are numerous factors in regards to energy and the effect it may have on the provider during HOD.  Energy is the product of voltage, current and time.  Neither factors, independently, are sufficient in inducing damaging effects.  For example, several thousand volts are experienced during static electricity, although the current is very low.  Current is determined by the resistance between the electrodes of the defibrillator, the electrode gel, the gel-skin contact, and the tissue resistance.  Glove integrity, skin moisture and the actual current pathway will determine the amount of escape current.  Biphasic defibrillators provide voltages up to approximately 2200 V over approximately 15-20 msec.  The maximum permissible leakage current, per the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection is 1mA; the threshold for perception is 2.5-4.0 mA; and pain is experienced at 6-10 mA.2  Sullivan and Chapman studied the voltage-current curves for gloves.  They note the international safety standard on 1mA and explain that at this level, it would take 1-3 seconds of current flow to induce VF in <5% of the population.  While defibrillation shocks are usually less than 20 msec, even if the pulse is timed appropriately in the rescuer’s cardiac cycle, as much as 500 mA would be required to induce VF.1 For reference, the current exposure from a home body fat monitoring scale is 500 uA.
In one of the most exciting studies, Lloyd et al measured current between “rescuers” and patients undergoing cardioversion at up to 360 J and found the highest current leak measured was 907 uA,4 with no “rescuers” experiencing a “shock.”  Neumann et al found HOD was safely performed on pigs by rescuers, HOD shortened pauses during CPR, and it more quickly restored coronary perfusion pressure.4  Kurz and Sawyer, in their letter to the editor of Resuscitation, advocate eliminating effects of no-flow time, perhaps by using HOD.7 Dr. Scott Weingart writes that in the 4 years that he and his colleagues have been performing HOD, there have been no rescuer complications, although occasional perceptions of tingling have been reported.  He himself reported arm soreness after 3 shocks, all at 360 J with the electrode pads notably in the anterior/anterior position.
In opposition, Lemkin et al derive an equation called the rescuer-received dose, to try to better qualify defibrillation risk.  Noting that energy values greater than 1 J reportedly can cause VF, they deem HOD unsafe as values above 1 J were calculated in their cadaver study, though effects of gloves were not accounted for.  Two studies from the UK found that medical examination gloves do not provide rescuer safety and even demonstrate further glove breakdown of the gloves worn by rescuers who perform compressions.  According to Sullivan and Chapman, HOD with medical examination gloves will produce no sensation at all unless the gloves completely break down.1  
Although there are no reported fatalities or serious consequences to rescuers performing HOD under ideal conditions - using a biphasic defibrillator with electrodes placed appropriately, with rescuers double gloved - we should take note that any change to a safety protocol should not be undertaken without ensuring rescuers' safety.  I have personally performed HOD, as have my colleagues in the emergency department.  While none of us have experienced any detrimental consequences or even the reported tingling, considering the literature, perhaps we should currently hold off on changing our protocols to mandate hands-on defibrillation.  Protocols that need to be changed or followed are as follows:

  • High quality CPR remains of utmost importance.  Set a metronome at 100 beats per minute and compress the chest to 1.8” (or as close to it as possible) every time.
  • Have no interruptions in chest compressions - not for intubation, not for starting an IV, not for inserting a central line, not for transporting, and not for charging the defibrillator!
                  
The use of HOD needs to reflect your clinical decision made in the best interest of you, your co-rescuers, and your patient.  If you chose to do so, please double-glove, please place the electrodes anterior/posterior, and communicate your practice to your colleagues.    

References

1.  Sullivan JL, Chapman FW. Will medical examination gloves protect rescuers from defibrillation voltages during hands-on defibrillation? Resuscitation. 2012 Dec;83(12):1467-72. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation 2012.07.031. Epub 2012 Aug 25. PubMed PMID: 22925991

2.  Petley GW, Cotton AM, Deakin CD. Hands-on defibrillation: theoretical and practical aspects of patient and rescuer safety. Resuscitation. 2012 May;83(5):551-6. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2011.11.005. Epub 2011 Nov 15. Review. PubMed PMID: 22094984.

3.  Sullivan JL. Letter by Sullivan regarding article, "Hands-on defibrillation: an analysis of electrical current flow through rescuers in direct contact with patients during biphasic external defibrillation". Circulation. 2008 Dec 2;118(23):e712; author reply e713. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATION AHA.108.803718. PubMed
PMID: 19047587.

4.  Lloyd MS, Heeke B, Walter PF, Langberg JJ. Hands-on defibrillation: an analysis of electrical current flow through rescuers in direct contact with patients during biphasic external defibrillation. Circulation. 2008 May 13;117(19):2510-4. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATION AHA.107.763011. Epub 2008 May 5. PubMed PMID: 18458166.

5.  A note of caution on the performance of hands-on biphasic defibrillation. Weingart SD. Resuscitation. 2013 Mar;84(3):e53. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2012.12.014. Epub 2012 Dec 22. PMID: 23266533

6. Lemkin DL, Witting MD, Allison MG, Farzad A, Bond MC, Lemkin MA. Electrical exposure risk associated with hands-on defibrillation. Resuscitation. 2014 Oct;85(10):1330-6. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2014.06.023. Epub 2014 Jun 30. PubMed PMID: 24992873.

7.  Petley GW, Deakin CD. Do clinical examination gloves provide adequate electrical insulation for safe hands-on defibrillation? II: Material integrity following exposure to defibrillation waveforms. Resuscitation. 2013 Jul;84(7):900-3. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2013.03.012. Epub 2013 Mar 16. PubMed PMID: 23507465.

8.  Deakin CD, Lee-Shrewsbury V, Hogg K, Petley GW. Do clinical examination gloves provide adequate electrical insulation for safe hands-on defibrillation? I: Resistive properties of nitrile gloves. Resuscitation. 2013 Jul;84(7):895-9. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2013.03.011. Epub 2013 Mar 16. PubMed PMID: 23507464.

Wednesday, January 7, 2015

Did you get the orthostatics yet?

A 70 y/o male presents from a nursing facility with symptoms of weakness after 2 days of diarrhea.  He states it has been watery and occurring 4-5 times per day.  His heart rate is 80 bpm and regular, BP 130/70, respirations of 16, skin warm and dry. He appears well but shows a little general weakness overall.  He knows he takes medications for his blood pressure; however, he is not sure of the name.

Q: Would you get orthostatic vital signs on this patient to assess for volume loss?

Orthostatic vital signs have been used to assess for volume loss by measuring the bodys response to positional change.  Upon standing from a supine position, vasoconstriction and changes in heart rate help to maintain perfusion.  It is thought that when a person is hypovolemic this system fails and blood pools in the lower extremities causing a drop in blood pressure and/or an increase in heart rate.   Symptoms of orthostatic hypotension are lightheadedness, dizziness, blurred vision, weakness, fatigue, cognitive impairment, nausea, palpitations, tremulousness, headache, and syncope.  Orthostatic vital signs are considered positive when there is a drop in systolic blood pressure of ≥ 20 mmHg, drop in diastolic blood pressure of ≥ 10 mmHg, or heart rate increase of ≥ 30 beats per minute within 3 minutes of standing from a supine position.1

The utility of orthostatic vital signs came into question over 20 years ago.  A study in 1990 looked at orthostatic vitals in 132 self-proclaimed euvolemic patients aged 18-80 years old (mean 34.1 +/- 13.6 years).  Of these patients 43% tested positive.  The study concluded that normal patients may present with orthostatic vitals given the current criteria.2

In 1997, a study examined orthostatics in 911 non-acutely ill patients aged greater than 60 from 45 different nursing homes.  To be included in the study, patients had to be able to stand for at least one minute.  The study found that over 50% of patients had orthostatic changes at baseline and it was most prevalent in the morning when patients first rise.3

Besides the elderly, orthostatic vitals were examined in adolescents as well.  307 healthy high school students aged 15-17 were checked for orthostatic vitals.  The study found pulse changes within the population to be 61% sensitive and 56% specific.  They also found orthostatic blood pressure changes to be within the adult range for 98% of adolescents, and a third of participants experienced orthostatic symptoms.  The study concluded the orthostatic heart rate criterion to be likely inappropriate for adolescents.4  Another study examining blood pressure changes in 23 healthy adolescents concluded transient orthostatic hypotension is common in their population.5

In addition to examining orthostatics in the non-acutely ill and adolescents, they were also studied in patients with known blood volume loss.  A study in 1992 examined 100 blood donors aged 19-83 years old and 100 senior center volunteers aged 55-94. The blood donors all gave 450 mL of blood.  Orthostatics had no clinical difference between ages.  Furthermore, a pulse rise >20 bpm or a diastolic BP drop > 10 mmHg had a specificity of 17%, sensitivity of 98%.  Systolic changes yielded no better.6 A similar study from 1994 looked at orthostatics in blood donation of 450 mL between two age groups, patients <65 and patients 65 or older.  These were healthy volunteers at baseline prior to blood donation.   A pulse change >20 bpm was found to have a sensitivity of 43% and a specificity of 94% in patients less than 65 years old.  In the age 65 and older group, pulse change was found to have a sensitivity of 25% and a sensitivity of 100%.  When they looked at blood pressure, they found it was worse than the flip of a coin.7

Besides blood volume loss, fluid volume loss and orthostatics were also studied. A study of 23 pregnant women with hyperemesis gravidarum studied the sensitivity of orthostatics in pre and post rehydration of 6 liters of lactated Ringers solution.  The study found that orthostatic changes lack sufficient sensitivity to be effectively used as quantitative screening tests for dehydration.8

In summary, the review above shows that using orthostatic vital signs alone to determine volume loss is highly unreliable.  Many patients can test positive for orthostatic signs even when asymptomatic.  We would never want to utilize a test that is so sensitive yet essentially with minimal specificity.  This would then cause the healthcare provider to act on all of the “positive” results by assuming the patient is hypovolemic. To make matters worse, the proportion of patients on beta blockers causing a blunting of the testing would make this even more unreliable than it already is.  When patients were known to have volume loss, orthostatic vitals still lacked a sufficient sensitivity to be deemed an effective test.  Looking for orthostatic clinical signs, not the numbers, is a far more reliable means to assess volume loss.  If the patient stands up and feels either lightheaded or passes out, this is sufficient enough to determine significant hypovolemia.  

References
1.         Naccarato M, Leviner S, Proehl J, et al. Emergency Nursing Resource: orthostatic vital signs. Journal of emergency nursing: JEN : official publication of the Emergency Department Nurses Association. Sep 2012;38(5):447-453.
2.         Koziol-McLain J, Lowenstein SR, Fuller B. Orthostatic vital signs in emergency department patients. Annals of emergency medicine. Jun 1991;20(6):606-610.
3.         Ooi WL, Barrett S, Hossain M, Kelley-Gagnon M, Lipsitz LA. Patterns of orthostatic blood pressure change and their clinical correlates in a frail, elderly population. Jama. Apr 23-30 1997;277(16):1299-1304.
4.         Skinner JE, Driscoll SW, Porter CB, et al. Orthostatic heart rate and blood pressure in adolescents: reference ranges. Journal of child neurology. Oct 2010;25(10):1210-1215.
5.         Stewart JM. Transient orthostatic hypotension is common in adolescents. The Journal of pediatrics. Apr 2002;140(4):418-424.
6.         Baraff LJ, Schriger DL. Orthostatic vital signs: variation with age, specificity, and sensitivity in detecting a 450-mL blood loss. The American journal of emergency medicine. Mar 1992;10(2):99-103.
7.         Witting MD, Wears RL, Li S. Defining the positive tilt test: a study of healthy adults with moderate acute blood loss. Annals of emergency medicine. Jun 1994;23(6):1320-1323.
8.         Johnson DR, Douglas D, Hauswald M, Tandberg D. Dehydration and orthostatic vital signs in women with hyperemesis gravidarum. Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine. Aug 1995;2(8):692-697.


Friday, January 2, 2015

Things We Can Do Better in 2015!

Here's my list of the top 20 things we can do better in 2015 based on what we learned in 2014 (or even before).

  1. High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC), at least 15 Lpm, on all patients undergoing intubation or who might need intubation.
  2. PEEP valve on every BVM.
  3. No longboards for ANY patient.  Continue to use spinal precautions as appropriate, but that doesn't mean you need a long spinal board.
  4. Ketamine, followed by ketamine, rounded out by MORE KETAMINE for RSI induction.
  5. No Versed (midazolam) for intubation or post-intubation.
  6. No interruptions in compressions for any reason.  Your survival decreases by 7% for every five seconds without compressions. We should be working on improved CPR and "see-through CPR" monitor technology, and don't you dare hold compressions while the monitor is charging!
  7. Tranexamic acid (TXA) for all hemodynamically unstable trauma patients.
  8. Let the fentanyl flow for intubations, especially after intubation. Pre-intubation benefits in head trauma.
  9. More intranasal medications.
  10. Use D25 instead of D50 when available.
  11. Treat septic nursing home patients like the real emergencies they are.  IV fluids with 30-40 cc/kg bolus.  IV access at a minimum to speed up the time to first antibiotics.
  12. Agitated/emotionally-disturbed patients should be recognized as real emergencies as well.  These may be excited delirium.  Treat with ketamine IM; doses as high as 4 mg/kg IM shown to be safe.
  13. No etomidate for sepsis or hypotensive patients.
  14. Push dose epinephrine for peri-intubation hypotension.
  15. Rotate people doing compressions at least every 3 minutes.
  16. Stop using BVMs on patients if RR is at least 4 or SPO2 is at least 94%. Instead, use high-flow nasal cannula with a nonrebreather on top.
  17. Every BLS should have a pulse oximeter.  They are very affordable these days.
  18. Use a metronome for every cardiac arrest!  If your monitor doesn't have one, download an app.
  19. No more nitroglycerin paste.
  20. Starting dosage of Zofran (ondansetron) for adults should be 8 mg.

Thursday, January 1, 2015

Journal Club - January 5, 2015


  • What:  Weekly Journal Club
  • Where:  MONOC Education Building, 1415 Wyckoff Road, Ground Floor, Wall Township, NJ
  • When:  Monday, January 5, 2015 at 10:00 am

  • Traumatic intra-abdominal hemorrhage control:  Has current technology tipped the balance toward a role for prehospital intervention?  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25539217.  Do we have the ability to control intra-abdominal hemorrhage in the prehospital environment?  Does it matter with the new use of TXA?
  • Apneic Oxygenation Was Associated With Decreased Desaturation Rates During Rapid Sequence Intubation by an Australian Helicopter Emergency Medicine Service.  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25536868.  More evidence that this should be done on every patient needing intubation.
  • EMS Patients and Walk-In Patients Presenting With Severe Sepsis:  Differences in Management and Outcome.  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25502152.  We reviewed an article earlier this year showing improved outcomes in septic patients when brought by ambulance.  Does this study show the same thing?  Come to journal club and find out!
  • AWARE - AWAreness during REsuscitation - A prospective study.  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25301715.  As we improve our high-quality CPR, we are hearing more anecdotal reports of patients having consciousness during compressions.  Is this real life?!
Live-tweeting of the journal club @CCareAnywhere.  #EMSJC