Naloxone: The Most Abused Drug in EMS
By Kelly Grayson
“How are his vitals?” I asked.
“Stable as can be,” my partner grunted. “BP 118/70, heart rate 60, respirations 14, saturation 97 percent on room air. Pupils are pinpoint. You smell the alcohol?”
“Yeah,” I answered with a grunt of my own. “Drunk, and high on opiates. Let’s give him some Narcan.”
“Whoa. You think he needs Narcan?”
“Needs Narcan? No, but it’s 3:30 a.m. and we should be in bed. He darned sure deserves Narcan — maybe an intubation, too.”
It pains me to admit it, but that was an actual conversation my partner and I had over the prone body of an overdose patient found passed out in a hotel parking lot. It happened nearly 15 years ago, shortly after I had become a paramedic.
I was tired, overworked and ready to get back to bed. I resented having to be there. I was going to punish the man responsible — the junkie, as I saw it — for rudely interrupting my sleep.
I was also doing exactly what I had been taught.
So we packaged the patient, taking care to assure that he was strapped down tightly, gave two milligrams of intravenous naloxone, and waited for the inevitable hissy-fit as the medication rudely yanked him out of his opiate-induced haze.
When the patient refused to freak out and go into withdrawals as expected, I compounded the sin by inserting an endotracheal tube, justifying my battery under the doctrine of “GCS less than 8, intubate.” I wasn’t doing unnecessary procedures to a patient just because he had inconvenienced me; I was protecting his airway.
Riiiiiiight.
Obviously, that was not my finest hour as a paramedic.
Luckily for me and the patient, the withdrawals never happened. That rodeo commenced after the patient’s transport to the local ER, where the staff decided to give him flumazenil, a drug only slightly less misused than naloxone.
We did indeed succeed in ruining his high. However, all of us were lucky that the reversal agents only resulted in an angry patient. It could have been much worse. He could have had intractable seizures, flash pulmonary edema, myocardial infarction or severe hypertension.
That’s what happens when you give medications because you can, rather than because you should. Aside from the injudicious use of antiarrhythmics, I can think of no other drug in our boxes more misused than good old naloxone.
At least when we give antiarrhythmics, we’re presumably trying to do the patient some good. Not so with naloxone. All too often, we give it for punitive reasons rather than therapeutic.
A recent thread on an internet EMS discussion list showcased a wide disparity in the way we use narcotic and benzodiazepine reversal agents, and by extension, the way we regard the patients to whom we’re administering the drugs.
A relative minority felt that it was acceptable to administer large doses of intravenous naloxone to somnolent opiate overdose patients to “wake them up.”
One poster, an experienced Boston EMS paramedic, pointed out that addicts take opiates and other sedatives specifically to induce a pleasant stupor. In his words, “If they’re lethargic and hard to arouse, but still breathing effectively, it’s not an overdose. It’s a dose.”
Encouragingly, the majority of posters advocated a more judicious use of naloxone: using small doses of 20-40 micrograms titrated to restoration of respiratory drive, while still acknowledging that a significant number of their colleagues still firmly subscribe to the “wake the junkie up” school of thought.
Some posters felt that treatment should first begin with endotracheal intubation and ventilatory assistance, followed by judicious administration of naloxone. They ignored the fact that endotracheal intubation itself poses its own set of risks and complications, and probably should be deferred if less invasive means of delivering adequate ventilations are available.
The wiser heads in the group pointed out that naloxone merely restores respiratory drive and does very little to blunt the hypotension associated with such overdoses. They advocated starting with BVM ventilation if necessary, followed by small doses of naloxone, in order to reach the end point of the restoration of respiratory drive — period. Some preferred IV naloxone, while others advocated intramuscular or nasal mucosal administration.
Don’t try to wake them up, they advised, even if it’s just to “sleepwalk” them to the rig. The risks — pulmonary edema, vomiting and potential aspiration, myocardial infarction, seizures, the list goes on — just aren’t worth it. Just because you can give a drug, doesn’t mean you should give a drug.
Sometimes, less is more.
“Stable as can be,” my partner grunted. “BP 118/70, heart rate 60, respirations 14, saturation 97 percent on room air. Pupils are pinpoint. You smell the alcohol?”
“Whoa. You think he needs Narcan?”
“Needs Narcan? No, but it’s 3:30 a.m. and we should be in bed. He darned sure deserves Narcan — maybe an intubation, too.”
It pains me to admit it, but that was an actual conversation my partner and I had over the prone body of an overdose patient found passed out in a hotel parking lot. It happened nearly 15 years ago, shortly after I had become a paramedic.
I was tired, overworked and ready to get back to bed. I resented having to be there. I was going to punish the man responsible — the junkie, as I saw it — for rudely interrupting my sleep.
I was also doing exactly what I had been taught.
So we packaged the patient, taking care to assure that he was strapped down tightly, gave two milligrams of intravenous naloxone, and waited for the inevitable hissy-fit as the medication rudely yanked him out of his opiate-induced haze.
When the patient refused to freak out and go into withdrawals as expected, I compounded the sin by inserting an endotracheal tube, justifying my battery under the doctrine of “GCS less than 8, intubate.” I wasn’t doing unnecessary procedures to a patient just because he had inconvenienced me; I was protecting his airway.
Riiiiiiight.
Obviously, that was not my finest hour as a paramedic.
Luckily for me and the patient, the withdrawals never happened. That rodeo commenced after the patient’s transport to the local ER, where the staff decided to give him flumazenil, a drug only slightly less misused than naloxone.
We did indeed succeed in ruining his high. However, all of us were lucky that the reversal agents only resulted in an angry patient. It could have been much worse. He could have had intractable seizures, flash pulmonary edema, myocardial infarction or severe hypertension.
That’s what happens when you give medications because you can, rather than because you should. Aside from the injudicious use of antiarrhythmics, I can think of no other drug in our boxes more misused than good old naloxone.
At least when we give antiarrhythmics, we’re presumably trying to do the patient some good. Not so with naloxone. All too often, we give it for punitive reasons rather than therapeutic.
A recent thread on an internet EMS discussion list showcased a wide disparity in the way we use narcotic and benzodiazepine reversal agents, and by extension, the way we regard the patients to whom we’re administering the drugs.
A relative minority felt that it was acceptable to administer large doses of intravenous naloxone to somnolent opiate overdose patients to “wake them up.”
One poster, an experienced Boston EMS paramedic, pointed out that addicts take opiates and other sedatives specifically to induce a pleasant stupor. In his words, “If they’re lethargic and hard to arouse, but still breathing effectively, it’s not an overdose. It’s a dose.”
Encouragingly, the majority of posters advocated a more judicious use of naloxone: using small doses of 20-40 micrograms titrated to restoration of respiratory drive, while still acknowledging that a significant number of their colleagues still firmly subscribe to the “wake the junkie up” school of thought.
Some posters felt that treatment should first begin with endotracheal intubation and ventilatory assistance, followed by judicious administration of naloxone. They ignored the fact that endotracheal intubation itself poses its own set of risks and complications, and probably should be deferred if less invasive means of delivering adequate ventilations are available.
The wiser heads in the group pointed out that naloxone merely restores respiratory drive and does very little to blunt the hypotension associated with such overdoses. They advocated starting with BVM ventilation if necessary, followed by small doses of naloxone, in order to reach the end point of the restoration of respiratory drive — period. Some preferred IV naloxone, while others advocated intramuscular or nasal mucosal administration.
Don’t try to wake them up, they advised, even if it’s just to “sleepwalk” them to the rig. The risks — pulmonary edema, vomiting and potential aspiration, myocardial infarction, seizures, the list goes on — just aren’t worth it. Just because you can give a drug, doesn’t mean you should give a drug.
Sometimes, less is more.
Comments
The comments below are member-generated and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of EMS1.com or its staff. If you cannot see comments, try disabling privacy and ad blocking plugins in your browser.
Saturday, January 07, 2012 10:35:37 PM I prefer Naloxone doses titrated to restore respiratory effort, whereas some of my colleagues give as much as they are allowed to wake them up completely, thereby negating the transport to hospital, as the patient almost always refuses transport. I think it is very easy to forget we are here for the benifit of the patients!
Thursday, April 26, 2012 6:19:46 PM I'm severely allergic to Narcan, which they gave to me when I accidentally overdosed on pain medicine back when the pain of a gunshot wound was daily and too intense to handle over long*ss periods of time.
Thursday, April 26, 2012 6:40:03 PM As opposed to the detrimental effects of injected street opiates, LOL? Hysterical ...
Thursday, April 26, 2012 6:48:16 PM You know what man, we worked together. I don't ever remember having a conversation with you where we did any damn thing because we were tired and they deserved it. Drives me nuts to see people publish poor medicine in the name of regret. Fuckin burnouts.
Thursday, April 26, 2012 10:17:13 PM Burnouts......seriously?....perhaps you should scroll back up an read again aloud this time. Perhaps that will help. Time an medicine have changed over the years but Kelly is right overdose an stupor is not indication for Narcan slam an his explanation gives food for thought as to why. Many drugs are seen as little to no side effect however with time an education we often realize the risk surpass the benefit ie. Narcan, Thiamin, Lidocaine ect.
Friday, June 22, 2012 4:40:08 AM What is the risk of thiamine? Just curious I haven't seen any listed complications?
Friday, June 22, 2012 4:52:37 AM One of the major risk is in chronic alcoholis who have advanced liver disease or poor liver function it puts stress on an already stressed organ an can cause complete shut down an failure causing the cascade effect of other organ failures as well. I wasnt taught there were any risk of complications with Thiamine either however our medical director pulled it last year sighting several articles an research you can read more if you google studies on Thiamine effects in chronic alcoholics. The old standard was an ETOH coctail Thiamine D50 an fluid bolus pt but it was an interesting read. Learn something new everyday in EMS sometimes I feel like with some new knowledges comes the feeling of dang how many did we kill with that theory.....
Friday, June 22, 2012 5:15:23 AM Well I can understand cautionary use but sweeping removal leaves the septic hypoglycemics in trouble, I have seen septic PTs that need repeated loads of D50 Q20min as they continue to drop into hypoglycemia until Thiamine is administered.
Friday, June 22, 2012 5:24:19 AM The transport time where I work is 20-30 min max th Drug Name Thiamine (Vitamin B-1) -- Used to treat thiamine deficiency,including Wernicke encephalopathy syndrome. Adult Dose 100 mg IV
Pediatric Dose 50 mg IV initially,followed by 10-25 mg/d IV/IM ContraindicationsDocumented hypersensitivity Interactions None reported Pregnancy A - Safe in pregnancy
Precautions
Sensitivity reactions can occur (intradermal test-dose recommended in suspected sensitivity);deaths have resulted from IV use;sudden onset or worsening of Wernicke encephalopathy,following glucose,may occur in thiamine-deficient patients;administer before or together with dextrose-containing fluids in suspected thiamine deficiency e risk out weighs the good here I suppose was his thought. This was the basic reason why he pulled it for us.
Friday, June 22, 2012 5:32:31 AM Great Article Kelly :) & so true. I have been battling this with our EMS Providers as well. Education is the Key ....all of the prospective complications need to be brought to light!
Friday, September 21, 2012 8:21:00 PM Astute and valuable advice from a true pro.
Saturday, September 22, 2012 11:04:01 AM The medic should also consider the environment. Transport via helicopter as an example. Do you really want a combative patient 600 feet in the air?
Saturday, December 15, 2012 11:35:59 PM I was administered nalaxone very recently by an emt when I was delirious, but responsive. I was ambulatory, but unaware (for an as yet unknown reason). According to my wife, my demeanor was mellow, and I got into the ambulance and laid down voluntarily. My vitals were high but not off the chart. Breathing was normal. No fever was apparent prior to the ride to the ER. I was 6 days post-op from cervical spine surgery and wearing a hard plastic neck brace. I am on depakote and gabapentin for seizure management. I am narcotic dependent with a daily dose of 90 mg morphine and 30 mg hydrocodone combination for chronic pain. All of this info was available to the emt crew.
When the naxalone was administered I became partially aware of my surroundings. I was immediately in the most vicious withdrawals. It was the most hellacious, excruciating experience in my entire life. I struggled violently against the restraints, and apparently got my hands loose because I was able to pull the hard plastic brace partially off my head. I was in extreme pain and couldn't see anything but shadows. I could hear someone screaming the most blood-curdling screaming, and realized it was me. I could not inhale enough air to support the screaming. Several times I heard the emt shout a me to "hold still or I would hurt myself". I could not voluntarily control anything I was doing. When we got to the ER, I was immediately given morphine to reverse the withdrawals. At that point I had a fever of 103.7 and was admitted to the hospital. I do not know as yet if the spinal surgery site was impacted by this incident. What I would like to know, is this the typical protocal for a situation such as this? I feel terribly vulnerable that I could be blind-sided by this again and I would like to know if there is any way to protect myself. Thanks for any input or opinion.
Tuesday, January 15, 2013 2:19:35 PM In my opinion (im just a lowly basic/IV) ther was NO REASON to even consider Naloxone. We use it to ONLY assit in restoring the respiratory drive.
Thursday, March 14, 2013 6:31:19 PM I just happened to come across this site. As a mother of a struggling opiate addict, I keep a bottle of narcan handy, and keep wondering if I will have the presence of mind to do this correctly if I find my son again not breathing. Will I remember the instructions and not give too much or too little? Will I remember CPR? I hope Kelly forgives himself, because regardless of how angry he was, at least he made sure the person was alive. I get furiously angry, too... but not so much at the addict as at the addiction and the terrible situation in which he daily finds himself. I wish I knew a little more about life saving measures, since we've already had to use them several times, and each time it was such a terrifying close call.






