Balanced Fluids Versus Normal Saline for Initial Fluid Resuscitation in Adults With Diabetic Ketoacidosis.

Background: Normal saline (NS) has been the choice fluid for volume resuscitation in diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) for decades. Large volume resuscitation with NS can lead to hyperchloremic metabolic acidosis and is associated with a higher incidence of major adverse kidney events compared to balanced fluids (BF). Objective: Compare safety and effectiveness of fluid resuscitation with BF vs NS in adult patients with DKA. Methods: Single-center retrospective cohort study evaluated patients who received NS or BF for DKA treatment between July 2020 and August 2021. Primary endpoint was time to DKA resolution. Secondary endpoints included time to anion gap ≤12, HCO3 ≥15 and ≥18 mmol/L, acute kidney injury, and hospital and intensive care unit length of stay. Results: 110 patients were included (NS 55% (n = 60), BF 45% (n = 50)). Time to DKA resolution was faster in patients who received BF vs NS (13 (10 - 19) hours vs 17 (11 - 25) hours, P = 0.02). Treatment with NS was associated with a longer time to resolution of DKA when adjusted for initial bicarbonate and AKI at admission. Conclusion: BF was associated with a shorter time to DKA resolution compared to NS.

Fludrocortisone Plus Hydrocortisone Versus Hydrocortisone Alone as Adjunctive Therapy in Septic Shock: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Trials evaluating hydrocortisone (HC) for septic shock are conflicting with all finding decreased time to shock reversal but few with mortality difference. Those with improved mortality included fludrocortisone (FC), but it is unknown if FC affected the outcome or is coincidental as there are no comparative data. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the effectiveness and safety of FC + HC versus HC alone as adjunctive therapy in septic shock. METHODS: A single-center, retrospective cohort study was conducted of medical intensive care unit (ICU) patients with septic shock refractory to fluids and vasopressors. Patients receiving FC + HC were compared with those receiving HC. Primary outcome was time to shock reversal. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital, 28-, and 90-day mortality; ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS); and safety. RESULTS: There were 251 patients included (FC + HC, n = 114 vs HC, n = 137). There was no difference in time to shock reversal (65.2 vs 71 hours; P = 0.24). Cox proportional hazards model showed time to first corticosteroid dose, full-dose HC duration, and use of FC + HC were associated with shorter shock duration, while time to vasopressor therapy was not. However, in 2 multivariable models controlling for covariates, use of FC + HC was not an independent predictor of shock reversal at greater than 72 hours and in-hospital mortality. No differences were seen in hospital LOS or mortality. Hyperglycemia occurred more frequently with FC + HC (62.3% vs 45.6%; P = 0.01). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: FC + HC was not associated with shock reversal at greater than 72 hours or decreased in-hospital mortality. These data may be useful for determining corticosteroid regimen in patients with septic shock refractory to fluids and vasopressors. Future prospective, randomized studies are needed to further evaluate the role of FC in this patient population.

Risk of Coronavirus Disease 2019-Associated Pulmonary Aspergillosis Based on Corticosteroid Duration in Intensive Care Patients.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA) is a potential complication in critically ill COVID-19 patients. Corticosteroids are standard of care for hospitalized COVID-19 patients but carry an increased risk of secondary infections including CAPA. The objective of this study was to evaluate if duration of corticosteroid therapy ≤10 days versus >10 days affects the risk of developing CAPA. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of adult patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia requiring mechanical ventilation who received at least 3 days of corticosteroid treatment. Incidence of CAPA and secondary outcomes were compared using appropriate bivariable analyses. Steroid duration was evaluated as an independent predictor in a logistic regression model. Results: A total of 278 patients were included (n = 169 for ≤10 days' steroid duration; n = 109 for >10 days). CAPA developed in 20 of 278 (7.2%) patients. Patients treated with >10 days of corticosteroid therapy had significantly higher incidence of CAPA (11.9% vs 4.1%; P = .0156), and steroid duration >10 days was independently associated with CAPA (odds ratio, 3.17 [95% confidence interval, 1.02-9.83]). Secondary outcomes including inpatient mortality (77.1% vs 43.2%; P < .0001), mechanical ventilation-free days at 28 days (0 vs 1.5; P < .0001), and secondary infections (44.9% vs 28.4% P = .0220) were worse in the >10 days cohort. Conclusions: Corticosteroid treatment >10 days in critically ill COVID-19 patients is associated with an increased risk of CAPA. Patients may require corticosteroids for reasons beyond COVID-19 and clinicians should be cognizant of risk of CAPA with prolonged courses.

Safety and efficacy of methylprednisolone versus dexamethasone in critically ill patients with COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome: a retrospective study.

Background: Corticosteroids (CSs), specifically dexamethasone (DEX), are the treatment of choice for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to COVID-19 pneumonia (CARDS). However, data from both ARDS and relatively small CARDS clinical trials have suggested improved outcomes with methylprednisolone (MP) versus DEX. The objective of this retrospective cohort study was to compare the safety and effectiveness of MP and DEX in critically ill CARDS patients. Methods: The study cohort included CARDS patients admitted to a tertiary referral intensive care unit (ICU) between April and September 2020 who received at least 5 days of CSs for CARDS. Results: The cohort was notable for a high severity of illness (overall, 88.5% of patients required mechanical ventilation and 16% required vasopressors on admission). The DEX group (n = 62) was significantly older with a higher illness severity [Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) 6 (4.75-8) versus 4.5 (3-7), p = 0.008], while the MP group (n = 51) received significantly more loading doses [19 (37.3%) versus 4 (6.5%), p < 0.0001]. MP was associated with a shorter time to intubation and more rapid progression to mortality [days to death: 18 (15-23) versus 27 (15-34), p = 0.026]. After correction for baseline imbalances in age and SOFA score, DEX was associated with improved mortality at 90 days compared with MP [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.23-0.80, p = 0.008]. However, there were no differences between rates of secondary infections during hospitalization or insulin requirements at 7 and 14 days. Conclusion: In this cohort of critically ill CARDS, choice of CS was associated with mortality but not adverse event profile, and thus warrants further investigation.

Angiotensin II Use in Treatment of Refractory Shock Due to Benazepril and Amlodipine Toxic Ingestion.

INTRODUCTION: Calcium channel blockers (CCB) are a leading cause of ingestion-associated fatality. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi) overdose as part of co-ingestion is common and associated with refractory shock. Treatment options to manage this profound vasoplegia are limited. We describe the first case of use of newly formulated Angiotensin II for treatment of severe ACEi and CCB poisoning. CASE REPORT: A 57-year-old man presented after suicide attempt by ingesting 20 tablets each of amlodipine 10 mg and benazepril 20 mg. His hypotension was initially managed with 35 mL/kg of crystalloid, norepinephrine, and hyperinsulinemic euglycemic therapy (HIET). His hemodynamics further deteriorated, and he developed lactic acidosis, electrolyte derangements, and renal dysfunction. Further complications of his ingestion included cardiac arrest, subsequent requirement for emergency cricothyrotomy, and renal replacement therapy. Maximal hemodynamic support with HIET therapy insulin drip 4.4 units/kg/hour, norepinephrine 2 mcg/kg/min, epinephrine 1 mcg/kg/min, vasopressin .06 units/hour, and intravenous lipid emulsion was unsuccessful. Ang II was started and titrated to maximal doses with dramatic improvement in hemodynamics. Within hours of starting Ang II, epinephrine was stopped and norepinephrine decreased by 50%. He was downgraded from the intensive care unit without any ongoing end-organ dysfunction. DISCUSSION: Isolated CCB overdoses have high complication rates and well-established treatments. Therefore, management of CCB and ACEi co-ingestion is typically driven by CCB poisoning algorithm. There are multiple reports of CCB and ACEi co-ingestions causing treatment-refractory shock. Therapeutic options are limited by toxicities and availability of salvage therapies. Ang II is a safe and highly effective option to manage these patients.

Safety and Effectiveness of Sedation With Adjunctive Ketamine Versus Nonketamine Sedation in the Medical Intensive Care Unit.

BACKGROUND: Ketamine, an N-methyl-d-aspartate receptor antagonist with sedative and analgesic properties, is becoming more popular as an adjunctive sedative in the critically ill patients. METHODS: We conducted a single center, retrospective cohort study of patients admitted to the medical intensive care unit (MICU) between 2013 and 2018. Patients who received continuous infusion ketamine or nonketamine sedatives (NKS) including dexmedetomidine, fentanyl, midazolam, or propofol were identified. The primary outcome was percentage of Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) scores at goal in patients receiving ketamine as adjunct to NKS compared to those on NKS alone. RESULTS: A total of 172 patients were included (n = 86 ketamine, n = 86 NKS). Baseline characteristics were similar with the exception of antipsychotic use, which was higher in the ketamine group (P = .008). Percentage of RASS scores at goal was not different between groups (78.7% vs 81.4%, P = .29). Fewer patients in the ketamine group received continuous infusion fentanyl (76.7% vs 94.2%, P = .002). Patients on adjunctive ketamine required fewer days of intermittent benzodiazepines (0 [0-1] vs 1 [1-2], P < .0001). Patients receiving ketamine required less norepinephrine, receiving a median of 6.32 mg (2.4-20) versus 11.7 mg (5.2-45.2; P = .03). There was no difference in receipt of new antipsychotics or occurrence of arrhythmias. CONCLUSION: Addition of ketamine did not increase the percentage of RASS scores at goal versus NKS but was well tolerated. Ketamine was associated with reductions in norepinephrine requirements, days of intermittent benzodiazepine administration, and number of patients receiving continuous infusion fentanyl. Continuous infusion ketamine appears safe and effective for sedation in the MICU.

Safety and Efficacy of Intermittent Bolus and Continuous Infusion Neostigmine for Acute Colonic Pseudo-Obstruction.

PURPOSE: To compare clinical response of intermittent bolus versus continuous infusion neostigmine for acute colonic pseudo-obstruction (ACPO). Acute colonic pseudo-obstruction occurs due to reduced colonic parasympathetic activity. Neostigmine is an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor that increases frequency of smooth muscle contraction by increasing acetylcholine at autonomic nervous system synapses. Although these administration modalities have been studied separately, they have never been compared. METHODS: This retrospective study compared bolus versus continuous infusion neostigmine for ACPO. The primary outcome was initial clinical response, defined as bowel movement (BM) within 4 hours of bolus dose or 24 hours of initiation of continuous infusion. Secondary outcomes included time to BM, bowel diameter reduction at 24 hours, incidence of bradycardia, additional neostigmine requirements, and need for colonic decompression or surgical intervention. RESULTS: Seventy-five patients were included (bolus n = 37; infusion n = 38). Median total 24-hour neostigmine dose was 2.0 mg (interquartile range [IQR]: 2.0-2.6) with bolus and 9.6 mg (IQR: 6.3-9.6) with continuous infusion. Initial clinical response was similar (infusion 81.6% vs bolus 62.2%, P = .06), but continuous infusion was associated with greater bowel diameter reduction (73.7% vs 40.5%, P = .004). Bolus administration had shorter time to BM (1.4 vs 3.5 hours, P = .0478) and increased need for colonic decompression (67.6% vs 39.5%, P = .0148). Bolus dosing was associated with less bradycardia (13.5% vs 39.5%, P = 0.011), with no difference in atropine usage (10.8% vs 5.3%, P = .43). CONCLUSION: Initial clinical response was similar between groups; however, continuous infusion neostigmine was associated with greater bowel diameter reduction at 24 hours. Bolus administration resulted in less bradycardia; however, given the lack of difference in atropine use, clinical significance is unknown. This study is the first to compare bolus versus continuous infusion neostigmine for ACPO. Further studies are needed to confirm findings.