Intravenous metoprolol versus diltiazem for atrial fibrillation with concomitant heart failure.

PURPOSE: Atrial fibrillation (Afib) with rapid ventricular response (RVR) is acutely treated with intravenous push (IVP) metoprolol (MET) or diltiazem (DIL). In heart failure (HF) patients, diltiazem is not recommended due to negative inotropic effects. Studies comparing the treatment of atrial fibrillation often exclude HF. Hirschy et al. evaluated HF patients with concomitant Afib with RVR who received IVP metoprolol or diltiazem to determine their effectiveness and safety. They found similar safety and effectiveness outcomes between the two groups. METHODS: This retrospective, IRB-approved study evaluated patients presenting to the emergency center (EC) with Afib with RVR and HF from January 1, 2018 to July 31, 2021. Included patients were 18 years of age or older, received IVP metoprolol or diltiazem in the EC, and had a recorded baseline ejection fraction (EF). The primary effectiveness outcome was successful heart rate (HR) control 30 min after treatment with either IVP metoprolol or diltiazem, which was defined as HR <100 beats per minute (bpm). Secondary effectiveness outcomes included HR control 60 min post-IVP and at EC discharge or transfer and HR reduction >20% at 30 min after IVP, 60 min after IVP, and at time of discharge or transfer. Other secondary outcomes included the time to adequate HR control, the total dose of IVP metoprolol or diltiazem given, any additional rate-controlling agents given, and crossover between metoprolol and diltiazem. Safety outcomes included bradycardia, hypotension, shortness of breath, increased oxygen requirements, change in EF, acute kidney injury or renal replacement therapy. RESULTS: Of 2580 evaluated, 193 patients were included (134 DIL vs. 59 MET) with age 73.3 ± 12.2 years, 63% female. The average EF was 48.2 ± 14.2% and 30% of patients had heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) while 64% had heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Effective heart rate control 30 min post-IVP was not different between the two groups (55% DIL vs. 41% MET, p = 0.063). DIL effectively controlled HR quicker than MET (13 [9, 125] DIL vs. 27 [5, 50] MET, min, p = 0.009). DIL resulted in greater HR reductions at 30 min (33.2 ± 25.4 DIL vs. 19.7 ± 19.7 MET, bpm, p < 0.001) and at 60 min (31 ± 23.5 DIL vs. 19.6 ± 19.1 MET, bpm, p = 0.002). DIL also more frequently resulted in a HR reduction of 20% or greater at 30 min (63% DIL vs. 27% MET, p < 0.001), 60 min post-IVP (59% DIL vs. 41% MET, p = 0.019), and at time of patient discharge or transfer from the EC (70% DIL vs. 49% MET, p = 0.005). No differences in safety outcomes were identified. CONCLUSION: Acute management of patients with Afib with RVR and HF is challenging. While successful rate control at 30 min was not significantly different between diltiazem and metoprolol, IVP diltiazem reduced HR more quickly and reduced HR by 20% or greater more frequently than IVP metoprolol with no safety outcome differences. Further studies are needed to evaluate diltiazem's safety in patients with Afib and HF.

Treatment of Severe Alcohol Withdrawal.

OBJECTIVE: Approximately 50% of patients with alcohol dependence experience alcohol withdrawal. Severe alcohol withdrawal is characterized by seizures and/or delirium tremens, often refractory to standard doses of benzodiazepines, and requires aggressive treatment. This review aims to summarize the literature pertaining to the pharmacotherapy of severe alcohol withdrawal. DATA SOURCES: PubMed (January 1960 to October 2015) was searched using the search termsalcohol withdrawal, delirium tremens, intensive care, andrefractory Supplemental references were generated through review of identified literature citations. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Available English language articles assessing pharmacotherapy options for adult patients with severe alcohol withdrawal were included. DATA SYNTHESIS: A PubMed search yielded 739 articles for evaluation, of which 27 were included. The number of randomized controlled trials was limited, so many of these are retrospective analyses and case reports. Benzodiazepines remain the treatment of choice, with diazepam having the most favorable pharmacokinetic profile. Protocolized escalation of benzodiazepines as an alternative to a symptom-triggered approach may decrease the need for mechanical ventilation and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay. Propofol is appropriate for patients refractory to benzodiazepines; however, the roles of phenobarbital, dexmedetomidine, and ketamine remain unclear. CONCLUSIONS: Severe alcohol withdrawal is not clearly defined, and limited data regarding management are available. Protocolized administration of benzodiazepines, in combination with phenobarbital, may reduce the need for mechanical ventilation and lead to shorter ICU stays. Propofol is a viable alternative for patients refractory to benzodiazepines; however, the role of other agents remains unclear. Randomized, prospective studies are needed to clearly define effective treatment strategies.

International Survey of Thrombolytic Use for Treatment of Cardiac Arrest Due to Massive Pulmonary Embolism.

OBJECTIVES: This survey sought to characterize the national prescribing patterns and barriers to the use of thrombolytic agents in the treatment of pulmonary embolism, with a specific focus on treatment during actual or imminent cardiac arrest. DESIGN: A 19-question international, cross-sectional survey on thrombolytic use in pulmonary embolism was developed, validated, and administered. A multivariable logistic regression was conducted to determine factors predictive of utilization of thrombolytics in the setting of cardiac arrest secondary to pulmonary embolism. SETTING: International survey study. SUBJECTS: Physicians, pharmacists, nurses, and other healthcare professionals who were members of the Society of Critical Care Medicine. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Thrombolytic users were compared with nonusers. Respondents (n = 272) predominately were physicians (62.1%) or pharmacists (30.5%) practicing in an academic medical center (54.8%) or community teaching setting (24.6%). Thrombolytic users (n = 177; 66.8%) were compared with nonusers (n = 88; 33.2%) Thrombolytic users were more likely to work in pulmonary/critical care (80.2% thrombolytic use vs 59.8%; p < 0.01) and emergency medicine (6.8% vs 3.5%; p < 0.01). Users were more likely to have an institutional guideline or policy in place pertaining to the use of thrombolytics in cardiac arrest (27.8% vs 13.6%; p < 0.01) or have a pulmonary embolism response team (38.6% vs 19.3%; p < 0.01). Lack of evidence supporting use and the risk of adverse outcomes were barriers to thrombolytic use. Working in a pulmonary/critical care environment (odds ratio, 2.36; 95% CI, 1.24-4.52) and comfort level (odds ratio, 2.77; 95% CI, 1.7-4.53) were predictive of thrombolytic use in the multivariable analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Most survey respondents used thrombolytics in the setting of cardiac arrest secondary to known or suspected pulmonary embolism. This survey study adds important data to the literature surrounding thrombolytics for pulmonary embolism as it describes thrombolytic user characteristic, barriers to use, and common prescribing practices internationally.

Major publications in the critical care pharmacotherapy literature in 2015.

PURPOSE: Recently published practice guidelines and research reports on pharmacotherapy in critical care patient populations are summarized. SUMMARY: The Critical Care Pharmacotherapy Literature Update (CCPLU) Group is composed of over 50 experienced critical care pharmacists who evaluate 31 peer-reviewed journals monthly to identify literature pertaining to pharmacotherapy in critical care populations. Articles are chosen for summarization in a monthly CCPLU Group publication on the basis of applicability and relevance to clinical practice and strength of study design. From January to December 2015, a total of 121 articles were summarized; of these, 3 articles presenting clinical practice guidelines and 12 articles presenting original research findings were objectively selected for inclusion in this review based on their potential to change or reinforce current evidence-based practice. The reviewed guidelines address the management of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), adult advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) and post-cardiac arrest care, and the management of supraventricular tachycardia (SVT). The reviewed research reports address topics such as nutrition in critically ill adults, administration of ß-lactams for severe sepsis, anticoagulant selection in the context of continuous renal replacement therapy, early goal-directed therapy in septic shock, magnesium use for neuroprotection in acute stroke, and progesterone use in patients with traumatic brain injury. CONCLUSION: Important recent additions to the critical care pharmacy literature include updated joint clinical practice guidelines on the management of spontaneous ICH, ACLS, and SVT.

Limb-Threatening Acute Venous Thromboembolism in a Patient Undergoing Postarrest Therapeutic Hypothermia.

Postcardiac arrest patients are at high risk for developing venous thromboembolism (VTE). Current postarrest guidelines do not provide recommendations for prevention or surveillance of VTE and there is little guidance regarding the optimal prophylaxis or treatment of VTE during therapeutic hypothermia (TH). Many patients develop acute liver dysfunction resulting from severe global hypoperfusion during cardiac arrest, compounding concerns for bleeding with the initiation of TH. However, significant VTE may occur following arrest and can contribute to additional morbidity and mortality. The pharmacokinetics of anticoagulation, the routine treatment for VTE, have not been extensively researched or tested under hypothermic conditions. Standard approaches for prevention and treatment have been utilized, such as unfractionated heparin, but their efficacy remains uncertain. This case illustrates the significant imbalance of coagulation in a postcardiac arrest patient undergoing TH.

Major publications in the critical care pharmacotherapy literature: January-December 2014.

PURPOSE: Nine recently published articles and one guideline with important implications for critical care pharmacy practice are summarized. SUMMARY: The Critical Care Pharmacotherapy Literature Update (CCPLU) group includes more than 40 experienced critical care pharmacists across the United States. Group members monitor 29 peer-reviewed journals on an ongoing basis to identify literature relevant to pharmacy practice in the critical care setting. After evaluation by CCPLU group members, selected articles are chosen for summarization and distribution to group members nationwide based on applicability to practice, relevance, and study design and strength. Hundreds of relevant articles were evaluated by the group in 2014, of which 114 were summarized and disseminated to CCPLU group members. From among those 114 publications, 10 deemed to be of particularly high utility to the critical care practitioner were selected for inclusion in this review for their potential to change practice or reinforce current evidence-based practice. One of the selected articles presents updated recommendations on the management of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF); the other 9 address topics such as albumin replacement in patients with severe sepsis, use of enteral statins for acute respiratory distress syndrome, fibrinolysis for patients with intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism, the use of unfractionated heparin versus bivalirudin for primary percutaneous coronary intervention, and early protocol-based care for septic shock. CONCLUSION: There were many important additions to the critical care pharmacotherapy literature in 2014, including a joint guideline for the management of AF and reports of clinical trials.