A Symptom-Triggered Benzodiazepine Protocol Utilizing SAS and CIWA-Ar Scoring for the Treatment of Alcohol Withdrawal Syndrome in the Critically Ill.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data on the efficacy of symptom-triggered therapy for alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) in the intensive care unit (ICU). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of a symptom-triggered benzodiazepine protocol utilizing Riker Sedation Agitation Scale (SAS) scoring for the treatment of AWS in the ICU. METHODS: We performed a before-and-after study in a medical ICU. A protocol incorporating SAS scoring and symptom-triggered benzodiazepine dosing was implemented in place of a protocol that utilized the Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment for Alcohol (CIWA-Ar) scale and fixed benzodiazepine dosing. RESULTS: We enrolled 167 patients (135 in the preintervention and 32 in the postintervention group). The median duration of AWS was shorter in the postintervention (5, interquartile range [IQR] = 4-8 days) than in the preintervention group (8, IQR = 5-12 days; P < 0.01). Need for mechanical ventilation (31% vs 57%, P = 0.01), median ICU length of stay (LOS; 4, IQR = 2-7, vs 7, IQR = 4-11 days, P = 0.02), and hospital LOS (9, IQR = 6-13, vs 13, IQR = 9-18 days; P = 0.01) were less in the postintervention group. There was a reduction in mean total benzodiazepine exposure (74 ± 159 vs 450 ± 701 mg lorazepam; P < 0.01) in the postintervention group. CONCLUSION: A symptom-triggered benzodiazepine protocol utilizing SAS in critically ill patients is associated with a reduction in the duration of AWS treatment, benzodiazepine exposure, need for mechanical ventilation, and ICU and hospital LOS compared with a CIWA-Ar-based protocol using fixed benzodiazepine dosing.

Effect of race and health insurance on health disparities: results from the National Health Interview Survey 2010.

Significant race-related disparities persist in the U.S. regarding access to health services. Initiatives to reduce such disparities have often focused on expanding health insurance coverage for vulnerable populations. Based on our analysis of 2010 data from the National Health Interview Survey, we found that race is a much greater factor than insurance status in accounting for disparities in access to health services. Expanding health insurance through reform initiatives such as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act may have relatively little impact on reducing racial and ethnic disparities in the US.