Practices and Outcomes Associated With Sublingual Buprenorphine Use in a Critically Ill Population.

IMPORTANCE: Buprenorphine for opioid use disorder (OUD) is commonly used in the outpatient setting with increasing use in hospitalized patients. However, there is limited literature describing its use in critically ill populations. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to report the practices of buprenorphine prescribing among ICU teams. We also assessed the effect of a novel initiation strategy on opioid requirements in the ICU and the incidence of precipitated withdrawal. DESIGN SETTING PARTICIPANTS: Single-center, retrospective, descriptive study of patients receiving buprenorphine in the ICU. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The main outcome was to describe the use of buprenorphine in ICU patients through indication, initiation strategy, dosing information, and time from ICU admission to the first dose. We also detailed the incidence of precipitated withdrawal overall and the difference in opioid requirements before and after a low-dose induction strategy (buprenorphine initiated while receiving full agonist opioids [5-d titration from 150 µg to 4 mg four times daily]). RESULTS: A total of 153 patients were included. Most patients (86.3%) received buprenorphine for treatment of OUD. Of the 75 patients taking buprenorphine before admission, 46 (61%) had it restarted within 24 hours of ICU admission. Among 95 patients requiring buprenorphine induction, 57 (60%) underwent standard induction and 38 (40%) underwent low-dose induction, with only one instance of precipitated withdrawal. Median morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) of concomitant full agonist opioids in patients completing low-dose induction decreased from 1057.5 mg to 262.5 mg in the 24 hours before initiation compared with the 24 hours after target buprenorphine dose was reached (p < 0.005). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Use of sublingual buprenorphine was most often in patients with OUD. Timely continuation of home buprenorphine in the ICU was suboptimal. Both standard and low-dose induction strategies appear to be safe with a low risk of precipitating withdrawal. When implemented appropriately, low-dose buprenorphine induction may lead to significant reduction in full agonist opioids in critically ill patients.

Low-dose Initiation of Buprenorphine in Hospitalized Patients on Full Agonist Opioid Therapy: A Retrospective Observational Study.

OBJECTIVE: Buprenorphine can be challenging to initiate in hospitalized patients with opioid dependence because of difficulty tolerating an opioid-free period for buprenorphine induction. The objective of this study was to evaluate efficacy and safety of low-dose initiation of buprenorphine in hospitalized patients receiving full agonist opioids. METHODS: This is a retrospective observational study between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2020, at an academic tertiary care center and affiliated community hospital. Participants included adult patients at least 18 years old receiving scheduled full agonist opioids who were given sublingual buprenorphine 0.5 mg or less with the intent of increasing to at least 4 mg daily. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients reaching a target dose of at least 4 mg total per day. The secondary endpoints included the incidence of precipitated opioid withdrawal based on documentation of symptoms and change in morphine milligram equivalents before and after low-dose buprenorphine initiation. RESULTS: A total of 76 low-dose initiation attempts were performed in 71 predominantly male (68%) patients (some patients had multiple attempts). Most patients received low-dose initiation because of history of opioid use disorder (83%). Low-dose initiation was completed in 54 of 71 patients (76%) after 76 attempts. Precipitated withdrawal was identified in 2 patients (2.8%). Median morphine milligram equivalents excluding buprenorphine 24 hours before low-dose initiation was 1000 mg (interquartile range, 303.5-1720.5 mg) compared with 37.5 mg (interquartile range, 0-254 mg) after reaching target dose ( P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Buprenorphine was safely initiated using low-dose initiation in hospitalized patients. This was associated with significant reduction in full agonist opioids.

Use of four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (4F-PCC) for management of bleeding not associated with therapeutic anticoagulant use.

INTRODUCTION: Four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (4F-PCC) may be an option for patients with bleeding unrelated to therapeutic anticoagulation to help with bleeding cessation and reduce blood component requirements. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective, observational study of adult patients who received 4F-PCC for bleeding not associated with therapeutic anticoagulation between June 2019 and July 2021. Primary outcome was to describe off-label 4F-PCC use in patients not on therapeutic anticoagulation for bleeding management in surgical and non-surgical patients. Additional outcomes evaluated were blood product use, chest tube and drainage output, and coagulation studies before and after 4F-PCC administration as well as other hemostatic agent use and thromboembolic events. RESULTS: Seventy-six patients were included; median age 64 years (IQR 50-69), 66% of bleeding events were associated with surgery, and the majority of 4F-PCC doses ordered by cardiac surgery (68.4%). A total of 110 4F-PCC doses were administered; median 1 dose/patient (IQR 1-2), median total dose 1000 units (IQR 500-1484). Other hemostatic agents commonly administered were protamine (59%), desmopressin (43%), and tranexamic acid (42%). Packed red blood cells, fresh frozen plasma, platelet, and cell saver blood administration and prothrombin time (PT), international normalized ratio (INR), and partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) were significantly reduced following 4F-PCC administration. Eight patients (11%) experienced thromboembolic complications. CONCLUSION: Relatively low doses of 4F-PCC (median total dose 1000 units) were associated with decreased blood component requirements and improved PT, INR, and aPTT values in patients with bleeding unrelated to therapeutic anticoagulation. Other hemostatic agent use was common and thromboembolic complications occurred.