Editor's note:CJEM has partnered with a small group of selected journals of international emergency medicine societies to share from each a highlighted research study, as selected monthly by their editors. Our goals are to increase awareness of our readership to research developments in the international emergency medicine literature, promote collaboration among the selected international emergency medicine journals, and support the improvement of emergency medicine world-wide, as described in the WAME statement at http://www.wame.org/about/policy-statements#Promoting%20Global%20Health. Abstracts are reproduced as published in the respective participating journals and are not peer reviewed or edited by CJEM.

Introduction: Although a variety of parenteral agents exist for the treatment of acute migraine, relapse after an emergency department (ED) visit is still a common occurrence. The objective of this systematic review was to update a previous review examining the effectiveness of parenteral agents for the treatment of acute migraine in the ED or equivalent acute care setting; our review focused on those studies aiming a reduction in relapse after an ED visit. Methods: A comprehensive search of 10 electronic databases and grey literature was conducted to identify comparative studies to supplement the previous systematic review. Two independent reviewers completed study selection, quality assessment, and data extraction. Any discrepancies were resolved by third party adjudication. Relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random effects model and heterogeneity (I2) was reported. Results: Titles and abstracts of 5039 unique studies were reviewed, of which, 51 studies were included. Sixty-four studies from the original review were included, resulting in a total of 115 included studies. Relapse was reported in 44 (38%) included studies and occurred commonly in patients receiving placebo or no interventions (median = 39%; IQR: 14%, 47%). Overall, no differences in headache relapse were found between patients receiving sumatriptan or placebo (RR = 1.09; 95% CI: 0.55, 2.17; I2 = 93%; n = 8). Conversely, patients receiving neuroleptic agents experienced fewer relapses compared to placebo (RR = 0.27; 95% CI: 0.12, 0.58; I2 = 0%; n = 3); however, patients receiving neuroleptics reported an increase in adverse events (RR = 1.87; 95% CI: 1.17, 3.00; I2 = 0%; n = 3). Compared to placebo, patients receiving dexamethasone were less likely to experience a headache recurrence (RR = 0.71; 95% CI: 0.53, 0.95; I2 = 60%, n = 9); however, no differences were found in reported adverse events (RR = 1.09; 95% CI: 0.81, 1.47; I2 = 0%; n = 3). Conclusion: Relapse is a common occurrence for patients with migraine headaches. This review found patients receiving neuroleptics or dexamethasone experienced fewer headache recurrences. Conversely, triptan agents appear to have minimal effect on reducing the risk for headache recurrence following discharge from an acute care setting. Limited available data on adverse events is an important limitation to inform decision-making. Guidelines should be revised to reflect these results.

Refractory ventricular fibrillation encountered during cardiac arrest has a mortality rate of 97%.1 As per the advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) guidelines, the management algorithm of ventricular fibrillation consists of chest compressions, epinephrine, defibrillation, and anti-arrhythmics.2 There have been reports describing the use of the fast-acting selective β-blocker, esmolol, and dual-sequential defibrillation in the management of ventricular fibrillation that is refractory to standard ACLS. We present a case of a 24-year-old male who had an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, with refractory ventricular fibrillation despite high-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and ACLS management. Along with standard ACLS, triple-sequential defibrillation was used to achieve return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) after 82 minutes of downtime. An electrocardiogram (ECG) after ROSC showed an ST-elevation myocardial infarction (MI), and the patient underwent angiography showing a 100% occlusion of his left anterior descending artery. Following management of his coronary artery disease, he was discharged from the hospital 16 days later and was neurologically intact.

Eye-tracking devices are able to capture eye movements, which are further characterized by fixations. The application of eye tracking in a trauma setting has not been explored. Visual fixation can be utilized as a surrogate measure of attention during the management of a trauma patient. We aimed to determine the feasibility of using eye tracking and to characterize eye tracking behaviours of pediatric emergency medicine physicians during management of a simulated pediatric trauma patient. Each participant was equipped with a head-mounted eye-tracking device during a standardized simulated pediatric trauma scenario. Each session was video recorded, with visual fixations defined as >0.2 seconds, and characterized by start time, duration, and the area of interest. Data from seven videos were analysed; 35% of eye fixations were directed towards the mannequin, 16% towards the monitor, and 13% towards the bedside doctor. Visual eye tracking in a trauma simulation is feasible. Frequency of fixations tends to be highest towards the patient. Eye tracking within trauma simulation may provide new insights into quality improvement and inform advancements in pediatric trauma.

Editor's note:CJEM has partnered with a small group of selected journals of international emergency medicine societies to share from each a highlighted research study, as selected monthly by their editors. Our goals are to increase awareness of our readership to research developments in the international emergency medicine literature, promote collaboration among the selected international emergency medicine journals, and support the improvement of emergency medicine world-wide, as described in the WAME statement at http://www.wame.org/about/policy-statements#Promoting%20Global%20Health. Abstracts are reproduced as published in the respective participating journals and are not peer reviewed or edited by CJEM.

Introduction: Acute migraine headaches are common causes of presentation to the emergency department (ED). There is great variability in the efficacy of the available parenteral agents to manage pain, though triptans are among the recommended treatments. The objective of this systematic review was to update a previous review examining the effectiveness of parenteral agents for the treatment of acute migraine in the ED or equivalent acute care setting; our review examined pain management in emergency settings and assessed the effectiveness of triptan agents. Methods: A comprehensive search of 10 electronic databases and grey literature was conducted to supplement the previous systematic review. Two independent reviewers completed study selection, quality assessment, and data extraction. Any discrepancies were resolved by third party adjudication. Pain scale scores were analyzed using standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) calculated using a random effects model; heterogeneity (I2) was reported. Results: Titles and abstracts of 5039 unique studies were reviewed, of which, 51 studies were included. Sixty-four studies from the original review were included, resulting in a total of 115 included studies. Pain was measured within the ED or equivalent acute care setting using a variety of pain scales, most commonly the 0-10 cm or 100 mm visual analog scale. Four studies compared pain scores between patients receiving sumatriptan vs. other agents, of which, patients receiving sumatriptan reported higher pain scale scores (SMD = 0.53; 95% CI: 0.04, 1.02; I2 = 80%). In particular, patients receiving sumatriptan reported higher pain scale scores than patients receiving metoclopramide (SMD = 0.68; 95% CI: 0.31, 1.04; n = 1) or ketorolac (SMD = 1.39; 95% CI: 0.56, 2.21; n = 1). Overall, studies comparing anti-inflammatory agents (i.e., ketorolac or dexketoprofen) to other agents reported improved pain scale scores among patients receiving anti-inflammatory agents (SMD = -0.38; 95% CI: -0.73, -0.03; I2 = 66%; n = 5). Conclusion: Limited evidence suggests that patients treated with metoclopramide or anti-inflammatory agents experience greater pain reduction compared to patients treated with sumatriptan. This review will conduct a network analysis of parenteral agents to examine the comparative effectiveness of parenteral agents to manage pain among patients with acute migraine. Further analysis will also consider the balance between efficacy and adverse events.

Introduction: Optimizing naloxone dosing in the context of increasing fentanyl and ultra-potent opioid (UPO) prevalence is an important consideration for emergency health care providers. The goal of this systematic review was to evaluate the association between initial and cumulative naloxone doses on effective reversal and adverse events in undifferentiated and fentanyl/UPO overdoses. Methods: We searched Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, DARE, CINAHL, Science Citation Index, reference lists, toxicology websites, and conference proceedings from July to October 2018 and back to 1972. Our search included pertinent indexing terms for UPOs. We included interventional and observational studies reporting on naloxone administration for opioid toxicity reversal in people ≥12 years old. Additionally, we accessed non-traditional evidence sources (case reports and series) given this rapidly changing field. We conducted inclusion screens, data extraction and quality assessments in duplicate. We summarized study characteristics and where reported, analyzed number of patients with clinical response. Response was defined as not receiving further naloxone doses and remaining alive. Results: We included 174 studies (108 case reports and series, 55 observational, 9 interventional) with 26,660 subjects (median age 35.1; 74.2% male). We observed lower response among patients exposed to fentanyl/UPO versus heroin for initial naloxone doses ≤0.4mg (56.8% versus 80.2%) and > 0.4mg (27.0% versus 82.1%). Mean cumulative doses were higher for fentanyl/UPO (2.10 mg, SD 1.80 mg) versus heroin (1.48 mg, SD 1.68 mg) overdoses. In North American studies the median cumulative dose used was higher for fentanyl/UPO versus heroin overdoses. A dose-response curve for fentanyl/UPO studies showed marked variability in doses among responders, indicating heterogeneity. Adverse events reporting was inconsistent; 10% of subjects experienced withdrawal based on studies in which they were reported. Conclusion: This is the first systematic review to summarize proportion of patients with clinical response by naloxone dose provided. While variable reporting, study quality, heterogeneity, and our outcome definitions limit the conclusions we can draw, it appears that higher initial doses and in some cases, higher cumulative naloxone doses were used and may be necessary to reverse toxicity due to fentanyl/UPO compared to other opioids. High-quality prospective studies assessing effectiveness and safety are needed.