Comparison of phenobarbital monotherapy to a benzodiazepine-based regimen for management of alcohol withdrawal syndrome in trauma patients.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) is associated with increased morbidity and mortality in the trauma population. Benzodiazepines (BZDs) are standard of care for AWS; however, given the risk of delirium with BZDs and reports of BZD-refractory withdrawal, phenobarbital (PHB) has emerged as an alternative therapy for AWS. Safety and efficacy studies of PHB for AWS in trauma patients are lacking. Our aim was to compare a BZD versus PHB protocol in the management of AWS in trauma patients. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study at a level 1 trauma center of patients at risk for AWS managed with either a BZD or a low-dose oral PHB regimen. Patients were excluded if they were taking BZDs or barbiturates before admission, received propofol or dexmedetomidine before initiation of the study drug, presented with delirium tremens or seizures, or died or discharged within 24 hours of presentation. The primary outcome was complicated AWS (seizures or alcohol withdrawal delirium/delirium tremens). Secondary outcomes included uncomplicated AWS; therapy escalation; oversedation; delirium-, intensive care unit-, and ventilator-free days; and length of stay. RESULTS: A total of 411 patients were identified; 118 received BZD, and 293 received PHB. The odds of developing complicated AWS with PHB versus BZD-based therapy were not statistically significant (odds ratio [OR], 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.21-1.39); however, patients receiving PHB were less likely to develop uncomplicated AWS (OR, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.04-0.14) and less likely to require escalation of therapy (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.24-0.84). The PHB group had a length of stay 3.1 days shorter than the BZD group ( p = 0.002). There was no difference in intensive care unit-, ventilator-, or delirium-free days. CONCLUSION: A PHB-based protocol for the management of AWS is a safe and effective alternative to BZD-based regimens in trauma patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV.

Desirability of Outcome Ranking and Response Adjusted for Antibiotic Risk (DOOR/RADAR) Post Hoc Analysis Supports Equipoise for Antibiotic Initiation Strategies in Intensive Care Unit-Acquired Pneumonia.

Background: Pneumonia is the most common intensive care unit (ICU)-acquired infection and source of potential sepsis in ICU populations but can be difficult to diagnose in real-time. Despite limited data, rapid initiation of antibiotic agents is endorsed by society guidelines. We hypothesized that a post hoc analysis of a recent randomized pilot study would show no difference between two antibiotic initiation strategies. Patients and Methods: The recent Trial of Antibiotic Restraint in Presumed Pneumonia (TARPP) was a pragmatic cluster-randomized pilot of antibiotic initiation strategies for patients with suspected ICU-acquired pneumonia. Participating ICUs were cluster-randomized to either an immediate initiation protocol or a specimen-initiated protocol where a gram stain was required for initiation of antibiotics. Patients in the study were divided into one of seven mutually exclusive outcome rankings (desirability of outcome ranking; DOOR): (1) Survival, No Pneumonia, No adverse events; (2) Survival, Pneumonia, No adverse events; (3) Survival, No Pneumonia, ventilator-free-alive days ≤14; (4) Survival, Pneumonia, ventilator-free-alive days ≤14; (5) Survival, No Pneumonia, Subsequent episode of suspected pneumonia; (6) Survival, Pneumonia, Subsequent episode of suspected pneumonia; and (7) Death. These rankings were further refined using the duration of antibiotics prescribed for pneumonia (response adjusted for antibiotic risk; RADAR). Results: There were 186 patients enrolled in the study. After applying the DOOR analysis, a randomly selected patient was equally likely to have a better outcome in specimen-initiated arm as in the immediate initiation arm (DOOR probability: 50.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 42.7%-58.9%). Outcome probabilities were similar after applying the RADAR analysis (52.5%; 95% CI, 44.2%-60.6%; p = 0.31). Conclusions: We found that patients for whom antibiotic agents were withheld until there was objective evidence (specimen-initiated group) had similar outcome rankings to patients for whom antibiotic agents were started immediately. This supports the findings of the TARPP pilot trial and provides further evidence for equipoise between these two treatment strategies.

Provider Perceptions of Antibiotic Initiation Strategies for Hospital-Acquired Pneumonia.

Background: The practice of rapidly initiating antibiotic therapy for patients with suspected infection has recently been criticized yet remains commonplace. Provider comfort level has been an understudied aspect of this practice. Hypothesis: We hypothesized that there would be no significant differences in provider comfort level between the two treatment groups. Methods: We prospectively surveyed critical care intensivists who provided care for patients enrolled in the Trial of Antibiotic Restraint in Presumed Pneumonia (TARPP), which was a multicenter cluster-randomized crossover trial that evaluated an immediate antibiotic initiation protocol compared with a protocol of specimen-initiated antibiotic initiation in ventilated patients with suspected new-onset pneumonia. At the end of each enrollment arm, physicians at each center were surveyed regarding their overall comfort level with the recently completed treatment arm, and perception of adherence. Both a paired and unpaired analysis was performed. Results: We collected 51 survey responses from 31 unique participants. Providers perceived a higher rate of adherence to the immediate initiation arm than the specimen-initiated arm (Always Adherent: 37.5% vs. 11.1%; p = 0.045). Providers were less comfortable waiting for objective evidence of infection in the specimen-initiated arm than with starting antibiotic agents immediately (Very Comfortable: 83.3% vs. 40.7%; p = 0.004). For the smaller paired analysis, there was no longer a difference in comfort level. Conclusions: There may be differences in provider comfort levels and perceptions of adherence when considering two different antibiotic initiation strategies for suspected pneumonia in ventilated patients. These findings should be considered when planning future studies.

Trial of antibiotic restraint in presumed pneumonia: A Surgical Infection Society multicenter pilot.

BACKGROUND: Pneumonia is the most common intensive care unit-acquired infection in the trauma and emergency general surgery population. Despite guidelines urging rapid antibiotic use, data supporting immediate antibiotic initiation in cases of suspected infection are limited. Our hypothesis was that a protocol of specimen-initiated antibiotic initiation would have similar compliance and outcomes to an immediate initiation protocol. METHODS: We devised a pragmatic cluster-randomized crossover pilot trial. Four surgical and trauma intensive care units were randomized to either an immediate initiation or specimen-initiated antibiotic protocol for intubated patients with suspected pneumonia and bronchoscopically obtained cultures who did not require vasopressors. In the immediate initiation arm, antibiotics were started immediately after the culture regardless of patient status. In the specimen-initiated arm, antibiotics were delayed until objective Gram stain or culture results suggested infection. Each site participated in both arms after a washout period and crossover. Outcomes were protocol compliance, all-cause 30-day mortality, and ventilator-free alive days at 30 days. Standard statistical techniques were applied. RESULTS: A total of 186 patients had 244 total cultures, of which only the first was analyzed. Ninety-three patients (50%) were enrolled in each arm, and 94.6% were trauma patients (84.4% blunt trauma). The median age was 50.5 years, and 21% of the cohort was female. There were no differences in demographics, comorbidities, sequential organ failure assessment, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II, or Injury Severity Scores. Antibiotics were started significantly later in the specimen-initiated arm (0 vs. 9.3 hours; p < 0.0001) with 19.4% avoiding antibiotics completely for that episode. There were no differences in the rate of protocol adherence, 30-day mortality, or ventilator-free alive days at 30 days. CONCLUSION: In this cluster-randomized crossover trial, we found similar compliance rates between immediate and specimen-initiated antibiotic strategies. Specimen-initiated antibiotic protocol in patients with a suspected hospital-acquired pneumonia did not result in worse clinical outcomes compared with immediate initiation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level II.

The Efficacy and Safety of Methylnaltrexone for the Treatment of Postoperative Ileus.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative ileus (POI) is a surgical complication resulting in increased morbidity and length of stay (LOS). Usual care for POI includes bowel rest and gastric decompression. It has been questioned if methylnaltrexone (MNTX), a peripheral opioid antagonist, could be used as treatment for POI. The purpose of this study was to determine if MNTX is effective and safe for POI treatment. METHODS: This single-center, retrospective cohort study included patients ⩾ 18 years with a POI. Patients with acute colonic pseudo-obstruction, small bowel obstruction, and gastrointestinal malignancy were excluded. The intervention was MNTX administration. The primary outcome was time to ileus resolution. Secondary outcomes included LOS, duration of nasogastric tube, total parenteral nutrition requirement, and incidence of gastrointestinal perforations. RESULTS: 110 patients were included in the analysis; 28 received MNTX. Time to ileus resolution was 9.9 days for the MNTX group and 11.4 days for the control group (P = .38). Duration of gastric decompression was 4.6 days for the MNTX group and 4.2 days for the control group (P = .71). Length of stay was 19.9 days for the MNTX group and 19.7 days for the control group (P = .96). The percentage of TPN requirement was 17.9% in the MNTX group and 22.0% in the control group (P = .65). No gastrointestinal perforations were observed in either group. CONCLUSION: For the treatment of POI, MNTX did not significantly reduce time to resolution of ileus, LOS, duration of gastric decompression, or TPN requirements. However, no gastrointestinal perforations were seen, indicating that MNTX may be safely used in these patients.

Saline versus balanced crystalloids for intravenous fluid therapy in the emergency department: study protocol for a cluster-randomized, multiple-crossover trial.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies in critically ill patients suggest the supra-physiologic chloride concentration of 0.9% ("normal") saline may be associated with higher risk of renal failure and death compared to physiologically balanced crystalloids. However, the comparative effects of 0.9% saline and balanced fluids are largely unexamined among patients outside the intensive care unit, who represent the vast majority of patients treated with intravenous fluids. METHODS/DESIGN: This study, entitled Saline Against Lactated Ringer's or Plasma-Lyte in the Emergency Department (SALT-ED), is a pragmatic, cluster, multiple-crossover trial at a single institution evaluating clinical outcomes of adults treated with 0.9% saline versus balanced crystalloids for intravenous fluid resuscitation in the emergency department. All adults treated in the study emergency department receiving at least 500 mL of isotonic crystalloid solution during usual clinical care and subsequently hospitalized outside the intensive care unit are included. Treatment allocation of 0.9% saline versus balanced crystalloids is assigned by calendar month, with study patients treated during the same month assigned to the same fluid type. The first month (January 2016) was randomly assigned to balanced crystalloids, with each subsequent month alternating between 0.9% saline and balanced crystalloids. For balanced crystalloid treatment, clinicians can choose either Lactated Ringer's or Plasma-Lyte A©. The study period is set at 16 months, which will result in an anticipated estimated sample size of 15,000 patients. The primary outcome is hospital-free days to day 28, defined as the number of days alive and out of the hospital from the index emergency department visit until 28 days later. Major secondary outcomes include proportion of patients who develop acute kidney injury by creatinine measurements; major adverse kidney events by hospital discharge or day 30 (MAKE30), which is a composite outcome of death, new renal replacement therapy, and persistent creatinine elevation >200% of baseline; and in-hospital mortality. DISCUSSION: This ongoing pragmatic trial will provide the most comprehensive evaluation to date of clinical outcomes associated with 0.9% saline compared to physiologically balanced fluids in patients outside the intensive care unit. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02614040 . Registered on 18 November 2015.