Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis in Mechanically Ventilated Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction.

Background: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and histamine type 2-receptor blockers (H2Bs) are commonly used for stress ulcer prophylaxis among patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). Recent studies suggest an increased mortality associated with PPIs compared to H2Bs, but these studies poorly represent patients with cardiovascular disease or acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare outcomes related to stress ulcer prophylaxis with PPIs compared to H2Bs in patients with AMI requiring IMV. Methods: We queried the Vizient Clinical Data Base for adults aged ≥18 years admitted between October 2015 and December 2019 with a primary diagnosis of AMI and requiring IMV. Using multivariable logistic regression, we assessed for the association between stress ulcer prophylaxis and in-hospital mortality. Results: Including 11,252 patients with AMI requiring IMV, 66.7% (n = 7,504) received PPIs and 33.3% (n = 3,748) received H2Bs. Age, sex, and the proportion of patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction or cardiogenic shock were similar between groups (all, P > 0.05). Compared to PPIs, patients receiving H2Bs had a lower mortality (41.5% vs 43.5%, P = 0.047), which was not statistically significant after multivariate adjustment (odds ratio 0.97; 95% confidence interval: 0.89-1.06, P = 0.49). In unadjusted and adjusted analyses, H2Bs use was associated with fewer ventilator days, less ventilator-associated pneumonia, and lower hospitalization cost but similar Clostridium difficile infections. Conclusions: Among patients with AMI requiring IMV in this observation cohort study, there was no difference in mortality among patients receiving H2Bs vs PPIs for stress ulcer prophylaxis despite fewer ventilator days and lower ventilator-associated pneumonia in those receiving H2Bs.

Tracheostomy in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction and Respiratory Failure.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by respiratory failure require antiplatelet regimens which often cannot be stopped and may increase bleeding from tracheostomy. However, there is limited available data on both the proportion of patients undergoing tracheostomy and the impact on antiplatelet regimens on outcomes. METHODS: Utilizing the Vizient® Clinical Data Base, we identified patients ≥18 years admitted from 2015 to 2019 with a primary diagnosis of AMI and requiring invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). We assessed for the incidence of patients undergoing tracheostomy, outcomes stratified by the timing of tracheostomy (≤10 vs >10 days), and the association between dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) use and in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: We identified 26 435 patients presenting with AMI requiring IMV. The mean (SD) age was 66.8 (12.3) years and 33.4% were women. The incidence of tracheostomy was 6.0% (n = 1573), and the median IMV time to tracheostomy was 12 days, 55.6% of which underwent percutaneous and 44.4% underwent open tracheostomy. Over 90% (n = 1424) underwent tracheostomy (>10 days) and had a similar mortality when compared to early (≤10 days) tracheostomy (22.5% vs 22.8%, P = 0.94). On the day of tracheostomy, only 24.7% were given DAPT, which was associated with a lower mortality than those not on DAPT (17.4% vs 23.7%, P = 0.01). After multivariable adjustment, DAPT use on the day of tracheostomy remained associated with lower in-hospital mortality (odds ratio 0.68; 95% confidence interval: 0.49-0.94, P = 0.02). Tracheostomy complications were not different between groups (P > 0.05), but more patients in the DAPT group required post-tracheostomy blood transfusions (5.6% vs 2.7%, P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Approximately 1 in 20 intubated AMI patients requires tracheostomy. The lack of DAPT interruption on the day of tracheostomy but not the timing of tracheostomy was associated with a lower in-hospital mortality. Our results suggest that DAPT should not be a barrier to tracheostomy for patients with AMI.

Propofol vs etomidate for induction prior to invasive mechanical ventilation in patients with acute myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: Patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) requiring invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) have a high mortality. However, little is known regarding the impact of induction agents, used prior to IMV, on clinical outcomes in this population. We assessed for the association between induction agent and mortality in patients with AMI requiring IMV. METHODS: We compared clinical outcomes between those receiving propofol compared to etomidate for induction among adults with AMI between October 2015 and December 2019 using the Vizient® Clinical Data Base, a multicenter, US national database. We used inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) to assess for the association between induction agent and in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: We identified 5,147 patients, 1,386 (26.9%) of received propofol and 3,761 (73.1%) received etomidate for IMV induction. The mean (SD) age was 66.1 (12.4) years, 33.0% were women, and 51.6% and 39.8% presented with STEMI and cardiogenic shock, respectively. Patients in the propofol group were more likely to require preintubation vasoactive medication and mechanical circulatory support (both, P < .05). Utilization of propofol was associated with lower mortality compared to etomidate (32.3% vs 36.1%, P = .01). After propensity weighting, propofol use remained associated with lower mortality (weighted mean difference -4.7%; 95% confidence interval: -7.6% to -1.8%, P = .002). Total cost, ventilator days, and length of stay were higher in the propofol group (all, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Induction with propofol, compared with etomidate, was associated with lower mortality for patients with AMI requiring IMV. Randomized trials are needed to determine the optimal induction agent for this critically ill patient population.