Vancomycin Dosing Practices among Critical Care Pharmacists: A Survey of Society of Critical Care Medicine Pharmacists.

INTRODUCTION: Critically ill patients and their pharmacokinetics present complexities often not considered by consensus guidelines from the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, and the Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists. Prior surveys have suggested discordance between certain guideline recommendations and reported infectious disease pharmacist practice. Vancomycin dosing practices, including institutional considerations, have not previously been well described in the critically ill patient population. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate critical care pharmacists' self-reported vancomycin practices in comparison to the 2009 guideline recommendations and other best practices identified by the study investigators. METHODS: An online survey developed by the Research and Scholarship Committee of the Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology (CPP) Section of the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) was sent to pharmacist members of the SCCM CPP Section practicing in adult intensive care units in the spring of 2017. This survey queried pharmacists' self-reported practices regarding vancomycin dosing and monitoring in critically ill adults. RESULTS: Three-hundred and sixty-four responses were received for an estimated response rate of 26%. Critical care pharmacists self-reported largely following the 2009 vancomycin dosing and monitoring guidelines. The largest deviations in guideline recommendation compliance involve consistent use of a loading dose, dosing weight in obese patients, and quality improvement efforts related to systematically monitoring vancomycin-associated nephrotoxicity. Variation exists regarding pharmacist protocols and other practices of vancomycin use in critically ill patients. CONCLUSION: Among critical care pharmacists, reported vancomycin practices are largely consistent with the 2009 guideline recommendations. Variations in vancomycin dosing and monitoring protocols are identified, and rationale for guideline non-adherence with loading doses elucidated.

Pharmacist Presence Decreases Time to Prothrombin Complex Concentrate in Emergency Department Patients with Life-Threatening Bleeding and Urgent Procedures.

BACKGROUND: Reversal of anticoagulation with four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (4F-PCC) is critical, yet the optimal timing to 4F-PCC administration and whether quicker administration improves hemostasis remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine if pharmacist presence is predictive of faster time to 4F-PCC. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients receiving 4F-PCC for life-threatening bleeding or urgent procedure in the emergency department (ED) from 2014 to 2018. Patients with pharmacists at bedside (PharmD group) were compared with physician teams alone (control group). The primary outcome was time from ED presentation to 4F-PCC administration. RESULTS: Of 252 patients evaluated, 116 patients (46%) were included (n = 50 PharmD group; n = 66 control group). Most patients presented on warfarin (68.1%), and of the life-threatening bleeds (94%), intracranial hemorrhage was most common (67.2%). The median time to 4F-PCC administration was significantly shorter in the PharmD group (66.5 vs. 206.5 min, p < 0.001). Pharmacist at bedside was the only factor independently associated with reduction in time to 4F-PCC (ß coefficient -163.5 min, 95% confidence interval -249.4 to -77.7). Although there was no difference in hemostasis or mortality, patients in the PharmD group had a shorter intensive care unit length of stay (LOS) (2 vs. 5 days, p < 0.01) and hospital LOS (5.5 vs. 8 days, p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: A pharmacist at the bedside of patients who present to the ED with life-threatening bleeding or need for emergent procedure decreased time to 4F-PCC administration by 140 min, even after accounting for confounders. Faster time to 4F-PCC was associated with significantly shorter intensive care unit and hospital LOS.

Impact and treatment success of new-onset atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular rate development in the surgical intensive care unit.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) with rapid ventricular rate (RVR; heart rate >100) in noncardiac postoperative surgical patients is associated with poor outcomes. The objective of this study was to evaluate the practice patterns of AF management in a surgical intensive care unit to determine practices associated with rate and rhythm control and additional outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adult patients (≥18 y) admitted to the surgical intensive care unit (SICU) from June 2014 to June 2015 were retrospectively screened for the development of new-onset AF with RVR. Demographics, hospital course, evaluation and treatment of AF with RVR, and outcome were evaluated and analyzed. RESULTS: Thousand seventy patients were admitted to the SICU during the study period; 33 met inclusion criteria (3.1%). Twenty-six patients (79%) had rate and rhythm control within 48 h of AF with RVR onset. ß-Blockers were the most commonly used initial medication (67%) but were successful at rate and rhythm control in only 27% of patients (6/22). Amiodarone had the highest rate of success if used initially (5/6, 83%) and secondarily (11/13, 85%). Failure to control rate and rhythm was associated with a greater likelihood of comorbidities (100% versus 57%; P = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: New-onset AF with RVR in the noncardiac postoperative patient is associated with a high mortality (21%). Amiodarone is the most effective treatment for rate and rhythm control. Failure to establish rate and rhythm control was associated with cardiac comorbidities. These results will help to form future algorithms for the treatment of AF with RVR in the SICU.

When to Pick the Nose: Out-of-Hospital and Emergency Department Intranasal Administration of Medications.

The intranasal route for medication administration is increasingly popular in the emergency department and out-of-hospital setting because such administration is simple and fast, and can be used for patients without intravenous access and in situations in which obtaining an intravenous line is difficult or time intensive (eg, for patients who are seizing or combative). Several small studies (mostly pediatric) have shown midazolam to be effective for procedural sedation, anxiolysis, and seizures. Intranasal fentanyl demonstrates both safety and efficacy for the management of acute pain. The intranasal route appears to be an effective alternative for naloxone in opioid overdose. The literature is less clear on roles for intranasal ketamine and dexmedetomidine.

Risk factors for mortality in septic patients who received etomidate.

PURPOSE: To characterize risk factors for mortality in septic patients who received etomidate for rapid sequence intubation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was a retrospective cohort conducted at a large, tertiary, urban, academic medical center that included patients with severe sepsis or septic shock who received etomidate between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2012. RESULTS: A total of 169 patients were included with similar baseline characteristics. There were more men in the nonsurvivor group than in the survivor group (67.1% vs 50.6%, P=.03). Septic shock occurred in 91.5% of nonsurvivors and 69% of survivors (P<.01). Nonsurvivors also had a higher initial lactate of (5.1±4.3 mmol/L vs 3.6±3.4 mmol/L, P=.02) and more vasopressor therapy (91.5% vs 69%, P<.01), required a higher number of vasopressors (2.2±1.1 vs 1.3±1, P<.01), and were administered hydrocortisone (53.7% vs 34.5%, P=.01). Abdominal source of sepsis (P=.048) and number of vasopressors (P=.01) were predictive of 30-day mortality. CONCLUSION: An alternative sedative induction agent may be considered for use in rapid sequence intubation in patients on multiple vasopressors or with abdominal source of infection.