Transesophageal Echocardiography Performed by Intensivist and Emergency Physicians-A 5-Year, Single-Center Experience.

Purpose: Data on the use of transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) by intensivist physicians (IP) and emergency physicians (EP) are limited. This study aims to characterize the use of TEE by IPs and EPs in critically ill patients at a single center in the United States. Materials and Methods: Retrospective chart review of all critical care TEEs performed from January 1, 2016 to January 31, 2021. The personnel performing the exams, location of the exams, characteristics of exams, complications, and outcome of the patients were reviewed. Results: A total of 396 examinations was reviewed. TEE was performed by IPs (92%) and EPs (9%). The location of TEE included: intensive care unit (87%), emergency department (11%), and prehospital (2%) settings. The most common indications for TEE were: hemodynamic instability/shock (44%), cardiac arrest (23%), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) facilitation, adjustment, or weaning (21%). The most common diagnosis based on TEE were: normal TEE (25%), left ventricular dysfunction (19%), and vasodilatory shock (15%). A management change resulted from 89% of exams performed. Complications occurred in 2% of critical care TEEs. Conclusion: TEE can be successfully performed by IPs and EPs on critically ill patients in multiple clinical settings. TEE frequently informed management changes with few complications.

Safety of Transesophageal Echocardiography Performed by Intensivists and Emergency Physicians in Critically Ill Patients With Coagulopathy and Thrombocytopenia: A Single-Center Experience.

INTRODUCTION: The use of transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) by intensivist physicians (IPs) and emergency physicians (EPs) in critically ill patients is increasing in the intensive care unit, emergency department, and prehospital environments. Coagulopathy and thrombocytopenia are common in critically ill patients. The risk of performing TEE in these patients is unknown. The goal of this study was to assess whether TEE is safe when performed by IPs or EPs in critically ill patients with high bleeding risk (HBR). METHODS: All TEEs performed by an IP or EP between January 1, 2016, and July 31, 2019, were reviewed as part of a quality assurance database. A TEE performed on a patient was deemed HBR if the patient met at least one of the following criteria: undergoing therapeutic anticoagulation, had an INR > 2, activated partial thromboplastin time >40 seconds, fibrinogen <150 mg/dL, and/or platelet count <50 000/µL. The medical record was reviewed on each patient to determine whether upper esophageal bleeding, oropharyngeal bleeding, esophageal perforation, or dislodgement of an artificial airway occurred during or after the TEE. RESULTS: A total of 228 examinations were reviewed: 80 in the high-risk group and 148 in the low-risk group (LBR). There were complications potentially attributable to TEE in 8 (4%) of the 228 exams. Total complications were not different between groups: 4 (5%) in the HBR group versus 4 (3%) in the LBR group (odds ratio [OR] = 1.89 [0.34-10.44], P =.368). Upper esophageal bleeding occurred in 5 total examinations (2%), which was not different between groups: 3 (4%) in the HBR group and 2 (1%) in the LBR group (OR = 2.84 [0.31-34.55], P = .238). There were no deaths attributable to TEE in either group. CONCLUSION: Transesophageal echocardiography can be safely performed by IPs and EPs in critically ill patients at high risk of bleeding with minimal complications.

A Comparison of QTc Intervals in Alcohol Withdrawal Patients Versus Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with an alcohol use disorder experiencing acute intoxication or withdrawal may be at risk for electrocardiograph (ECG) abnormalities, including prolongation of repolarization (long QTc [corrected QT]) that may contribute to arrhythmias and may be associated with a threefold increase in the likelihood of sudden cardiac events. Patients with acute coronary syndrome may have prolonged QTc as well. To our knowledge, no previous studies have compared the QTc of ACS with acute ethanol (EtOH) withdrawal syndromes in the emergency department (ED). The purpose of our study was to compare the QTc of those with EtOH withdrawal emergencies with patients with ACS in our ED. Our hypothesis was that the QTc would be similarly prolonged in the two cohorts. METHODS: The study compared two cohort groups, those with ACS and those with EtOH withdrawal-related ED visits over a 1-year period. We compared ECG QTc, cardiac medication use, and electrolyte differences. We considered a QTc of >450 ms elevated for men and >470 ms elevated for women based on the literature. Fifty subjects in whom an ECG, serum osmolality, and EtOH level were recorded within 2 hours of one another and who were administered a Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment protocol were compared with 203 patients with ACS during the same period. We excluded patients with incomplete data. Medications compared included clopidogrel, acetylsalicylic acid, ß-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and statins. ECG QT and QTc, as well as electrolytes, were recorded and compared. Data were extracted by two investigators with a 20% sample re-evaluated by the other extractor as a reliability measure. Descriptive statistics including medians and interquartile ranges were measured for continuous variables. Comparisons were made using two-tailed t tests for parametric data and the Mann-Whitney U test for nonparametric data. RESULTS: Agreement in the 20% sampling between investigators was high (96%). The mean QTc in the ACS group was 457 ms and the mean QTc in the EtOH withdrawal-related group was 468 ms (diff 11, not significant). Significantly more patients had a prolonged QTc in the EtOH withdrawal group than in the ACS group 62% vs 46%; diff 16; 95% CI (0.1, 30). There was significantly more use of clopidogrel, acetylsalicylic acid, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and statins (P < 0.05 for all) in the ACS group compared with the EtOH withdrawal group; however, there was no difference in ß-blocker usage. There was a significantly higher admission rate: 100% of ACS compared with 76% of the EtOH withdrawal group (P < 0.01, diff 24, 95% confidence interval 18-29). Electrolytes were not significantly different in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: More patients with EtOH withdrawal-related ED visits had a long QTc than patients presenting with ACS. ED physicians should carefully monitor patients experiencing EtOH withdrawal for cardiac arrhythmias and obtain an ECG. If any medications that prolong the QTc are considered, then an ECG should be obtained before administering medications that may affect the myocardium to make medication safer for the patient.

Drugs of Abuse-Opioids, Sedatives, Hypnotics.

Over the last 2 decades, prescription and nonprescription substance use has significantly increased. In this article, 3 particular drug classes-opioids, sedatives, and hypnotics-are discussed. For each class, a brief history of the agent, a description of relevant pharmacology, the clinical presentation of overdose, the management of specific drug overdoses, and a summary of salient points are presented. The intent is to provide a clinically relevant and comprehensive approach to understanding these potential substance exposures in order to provide a framework for management of opioid, sedative, and hypnotic overdoses.