Introduction Emergency care providers routinely treat patients with acute presentations and sequelae of opioid use disorder. An emergency physician and pharmacist implemented a protocol using buprenorphine for the treatment of patients with opioid withdrawal at an academic, Level I trauma center. We describe our experience regarding buprenorphine implementation in the emergency department (ED), characteristics of patients who received buprenorphine, and rates of outpatient follow-up. Methods We conducted a retrospective chart review of all patients in the ED for whom buprenorphine was administered to treat opioid withdrawal during an 18-month period from January 30, 2017–July 31, 2018. Data extraction of a priori-defined variables was recorded. We used descriptive statistics to characterize the cohort of patients. Results A total of 77 patients were included for analysis. Thirty-three patients (43%) who received buprenorphine did not present with the chief complaint of opioid withdrawal. Most patients (74%) who received buprenorphine last used heroin, and presented in moderate opioid withdrawal. One case of precipitated withdrawal occurred after buprenorphine administration. Twenty-three (30%) patients received outpatient follow-up. Conclusions This study underscores the safety of ED-initiated buprenorphine and that buprenorphine administration in the ED is feasible and effective.

No abstract

No abstract

Disclaimer In an effort to expedite the publication of articles, AJHP is posting manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time. Purpose This article, the first in a 2-part review, aims to reinforce current literature on the pathophysiology of cardiac arrhythmias and various evidence-based treatment approaches and clinical considerations in the acute care setting. Part 1 of this series focuses on atrial arrhythmias. Summary Arrhythmias are prevalent throughout the world and a common presenting condition in the emergency department (ED) setting. Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia worldwide and expected to increase in prevalence. Treatment approaches have evolved over time with advances in catheter-directed ablation. Based on historic trials, heart rate control has been the long-standing accepted outpatient treatment modality for AF, but the use of antiarrhythmics is often still indicated for AF in the acute setting, and ED pharmacists should be prepared and poised to help manage. Other atrial arrhythmias include atrial flutter (AFL), atrioventricular nodal reentry tachycardia (AVNRT), and atrioventricular reentrant tachycardia (AVRT), which warrant distinction due to their unique pathophysiology and because each requires a different approach to utilization of antiarrhythmics. Atrial arrhythmias are typically associated with greater hemodynamic stability than ventricular arrhythmias but still require nuanced management according to patient subset and risk factors. Since antiarrhythmics can also be proarrhythmic, they may destabilize the patient due to adverse effects, many of which are the focus of black-box label warnings that can be overreaching and limit treatment options. Electrical cardioversion for atrial arrhythmias is generally successful and, depending on the setting and/or hemodynamics, often indicated. Conclusion Atrial arrhythmias arise from a variety of mechanisms, and appropriate treatment depends on various factors. A firm understanding of physiological and pharmacological concepts serves as a foundation for exploring evidence supporting agents, indications, and adverse effects in order to provide appropriate care for patients.

Introduction: Brugada syndrome may be unmasked by non-antiarrhythmic pharmaceuticals or drugs. Lacosamide is an antiepileptic agent with a novel mechanism of sodium channel inhibition and has the potential to cause cardiac sodium channel blockade. Patient concerns: In this report, we describe the case of patient with a history of a seizure disorder who presented with Brugada I electrocardiogram morphology in the setting of septicemia. Diagnosis: Brugada I electrocardiogram morphology was unmasked by lacosamide antiepileptic monotherapy. Interventions: Lacosamide therapy was discontinued. Outcomes: Normalization of the electrocardiogram and resolution of Brugada morphology occurred on hospital day 1. Conclusion: Caution should be exercised in the use of lacosamide in those at risk for conduction delay, or in combination therapy with medications that impair renal clearance, metabolism of lacosamide, or that display inherent sodium channel blocking properties.