Pharmacologic Management of Agitation and Aggression in a Pediatric Emergency Department – A Retrospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Benzodiazepine and antipsychotic use for acute management of agitation and aggression in the pediatric emergency department (ED) setting has not been well described. OBJECTIVES: To describe medication utilization in the management of agitation and aggression in a pediatric ED and to assess the safety of their use. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational study. Patients less than 20 years of age who presented to our pediatric ED and had agitation or aggression as part of their chief complaint were included if they received at least 1 dose of benzodiazepine or antipsychotic. Outcomes included frequency of benzodiazepine and antipsychotic use, dosing of medications, and reported adverse events. RESULTS: During the 5-year study period, there were 128 visits of 120 patients who met the inclusion criteria. Lorazepam was most commonly given (70%), followed by chlorpromazine (20%). Most patients (82%) required a single dose of medication. Intoxication was associated with needing more than 1 dose of medication. Patients with autism or Asperger syndrome were more likely to receive an antipsychotic medication compared to not having these conditions (75% vs. 28%, respectively). Adverse events were documented in 6 visits: oxygen desaturation (n = 1), dizziness and nausea (n = 2), dizziness (n = 1), and paradoxical excitation (n = 2). The Naranjo Score indicated a probable adverse drug reaction for the cases of paradoxical excitation. CONCLUSIONS: Benzodiazepine and antipsychotic drug therapy for acute agitation and aggression in children appears to be safe and well tolerated when used as a single agent and at the recommended doses in this setting.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".