The safety and efficacy of push dose vasopressors in critically ill adults.

PURPOSE: To evaluate practice patterns, efficacy, and safety of push dose pressors (PDP) in critically ill patients outside of the operating room (OR) at a large academic medical center. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a single-center, retrospective cohort study (June 2018 to July 2020) conducted at a 1273-bed academic medical center. The primary outcome was efficacy, defined as a 25% increase in systolic blood pressure, and the cohort was analyzed according to PDP response (i.e. responders versus non-responders). A logistic regression model was used to assess predictors of response to PDPs. Safety outcomes included the incidence of hypertension, bradycardia, and tachycardia. RESULTS: 1727 patients were included in the final analysis. The median doses of phenylephrine and epinephrine administered were 400 µg (IQR 200-888 µg) and 50 µg (IQR 20-100 µg). The primary outcome was achieved in 102 (71.8%) patients in the epinephrine group and 1140 (55.9%) of patients in the phenylephrine group. Adverse effects after PDP receipt were minimal, with the most common being hypertension in 6.6% and 13.4% of the phenylephrine and epinephrine groups respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that PDP phenylephrine and epinephrine are safe and efficacious in treating the acute hypotensive period.

Human Errors and Adverse Hemodynamic Events Related to "Push Dose Pressors" in the Emergency Department.

BACKGROUND: Though the use of small bolus doses of vasopressors, termed "push dose pressors," has become common in emergency medicine, data examining this practice are scant. Push dose pressors frequently involve bedside dilution, which may result in errors and adverse events. The objective of this study was to assess for instances of human error and adverse hemodynamic events during push dose pressor use in the emergency department. METHODS: This was a structured chart and video review of all patients age ≥ 16 years undergoing resuscitation and receiving push dose pressors from a single center from January 2010 to November 2017. Push dose pressors were defined as intended intravenous boluses of phenylephrine (any dose) or epinephrine (≤ 100 mcg). RESULTS: A total of 249 patients were analyzed. Median age was 60 years (range, 16-97), 58% were male, 49% survived to discharge. Median initial epinephrine dose was 20 mcg (n = 139, IQR 10-100, range 1-100); median phenylephrine dose was 100 mcg (n = 110, IQR 100-100, range 25-10,000). Adverse hemodynamic events occurred in 98 patients (39%); 30 in the phenylephrine group (27%; 95% CI, 19-36%), and 68 in the epinephrine group (50%; 95% CI, 41-58%). Human errors were observed in 47 patients (19%), including 7 patients (3%) experiencing dosing errors (all overdoses; range, 2.5- to 100-fold) and 43 patients (17%) with a documentation error. Only one dosing error occurred when a pharmacist was present. CONCLUSIONS: Human errors and adverse hemodynamic events were common with the use of push dose pressors in the emergency department. Adverse hemodynamic events were more common than in previous studies. Future research should determine if push dose pressors improve outcomes and if so, how to safely implement them into practice.

Push dose pressors: Experience in critically ill patients outside of the operating room.

PURPOSE: Evaluate push dose vasopressor (PDP) practice patterns, efficacy, and safety in critically ill patients. METHODS: Critically ill patients receiving phenylephrine or ephedrine PDP from November 2015-March 2017 were included. Patient demographics, medication administration details, vital signs pre- and post-administration, adverse effects, and medications errors were collected. Descriptive data are presented and comparisons were made with paired samples t-test, Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Chi-squared analysis or Fisher's Exact Test as appropriate. RESULTS: A total of 146 patients (155 PDP events) were included; mean age 64.5 ±â€¯13.3 years and 66.4% males, respiratory failure (39.8%) or sepsis (24.9%) admission diagnosis. The surgical intensive care unit (ICU) (44.5%) and medical ICU (33.6%) used PDPs most often, and during the peri-intubation period (57.3%) or for other transient hypotension (38.2%). Following PDP, mean systolic blood pressure (BP), diastolic BP, and heart rate (HR) increased 32.5% (80 to 106 mmHg), 27.2% (48 to 61 mmHg), and 6.4% (93 to 99 bpm), respectively. There were 17 (11.6%) adverse events; most often related to excessive increases in BP or HR and one incidence of dysrhythmia. Thirteen patients (11.2%) had a dose related medication error (phenylephrine dose >200 µg or ephedrine dose >25 mg), nine (6.2%) received PDP with normal/elevated hemodynamics (systolic BP > 100 mmHg or HR > 160 bpm) and 15% while on a continuous infusion vasopressor. CONCLUSION: PDPs were used in a variety of patient diagnoses and for select indications. Overall, they were efficacious but associated with adverse drug events and medication errors.