A Comparison of Injectable Diazepam and Lorazepam in the Goal-Directed Management of Severe Alcohol Withdrawal.

BACKGROUND: Benzodiazepines are the gold standard for treatment of alcohol withdrawal, yet the selection of a preferred benzodiazepine is limited due to a lack of comparative studies. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of injectable lorazepam (LZP) and diazepam (DZP) in the treatment of severe alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS). METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of adult patients admitted to an intensive care unit with a primary diagnosis of AWS. Subjects who received at least 12 LZP equivalent units (LEU) of injectable DZP or LZP within 24 hours of initiation of the severe AWS protocol were included. The primary outcome was time with Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment for Alcohol-Revised (CIWA-Ar) scores at goal over the first 24 hours of treatment. RESULTS: A total of 191 patients were included (DZP n = 89, LZP n = 102). Time with CIWA-Ar scores at goal during the first 24 hours was similar between groups (DZP 12 hours [interquartile range, IQR, = 9-15] vs LZP 14 hours [IQR = 10-17]), P = 0.06). At 24 hours, LEU requirement was similar (DZP 40 [IQR = 22-78] vs LZP 32 [IQR = 18-56], P = 0.05). Drug cost at 24 hours was higher in the DZP group ($204.6 [IQR = 112.53-398.97] vs $8 [IQR = 4.5-14], P < 0.01). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: DZP or LZP are equally efficacious for the treatment of severe AWS. LZP may be preferred due to cost but both medications can be used interchangeably based on availability.

Understanding Potentially Preventable 7-day Readmission Rates in Hospital Medicine Patients at a Comprehensive Cancer Center.

This study aimed to describe the potentially preventable 7-day unplanned readmission (PPR) rate in medical oncology patients. A retrospective analysis of all unplanned 7-day readmissions within Hospital Medicine at MD Anderson Cancer Center from September 1, 2020 to February 28, 2021, was performed. Readmissions were independently analyzed by 2 randomly selected individuals to determine preventability. Discordant reviews were resolved by a third reviewer to reach a consensus. Statistical analysis included 138 unplanned readmissions. The estimated PPR rate was 15.94%. The median age was 62.50 years; 52.90% were female. The most common type of cancer was noncolon GI malignancy (34.06%). Most patients had stage 4 cancer (69.57%) and were discharged home (64.93%). Premature discharge followed by missed opportunities for goals of care discussions were the most cited reasons for potential preventability. These findings highlight areas where care delivery can be improved to mitigate the risk of readmission within the medical oncology population.

Antithrombotic therapy for postinterventional management of peripheral arterial disease.

PURPOSE: Evidence on the use of antithrombotic pharmacotherapy in patients undergoing revascularization of lower extremities for symptomatic peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is reviewed. SUMMARY: Individuals with PAD can experience leg pain, intermittent claudication, critical limb ischemia, and acute limb ischemia. In such patients, revascularization may be indicated to improve the quality of life and to prevent amputations. Antithrombotic therapy is often intensified in the postrevascularization period to prevent restenosis of the index artery and to counteract the prothrombotic state induced by the intervention. Therapeutic modalities include dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), anticoagulation, a combination of antiplatelet and anticoagulation therapy, and addition of cilostazol to single antiplatelet therapy. Subgroup analyses of data from randomized clinical trials provided low-quality evidence for the use of DAPT in patients with a below-knee prosthetic bypass graft and anticoagulation for those with a venous bypass graft. Cilostazol, when added to aspirin therapy, has been shown to prevent index vessel reocclusion after an endovascular intervention in patients at low risk for thrombosis in several small randomized trials. CONCLUSION: There is a considerable paucity of high-quality evidence on the optimal antithrombotic regimen for patients undergoing lower extremity revascularization, with no particular therapy shown to consistently improve patient outcomes. The decision to initiate intensified antithrombotic therapy should include a close examination of its risk-benefit profile. The demonstrated benefit of such treatment is restricted to the prevention of index artery reocclusion, while an increased risk of bleeding may lead to significant morbidity and mortality.