Intravenous Versus Oral Acetaminophen Use in Febrile Neurocritical Care Patients.

The use of intravenous (IV) acetaminophen (APAP) for fever has not been thoroughly studied in neurocritical care (NCC) patients, in whom a temperature of ≥38°C is associated with poor outcomes and treatment to normothermia is common practice. This retrospective study evaluated NCC patients admitted between May 1, 2012, and April 30, 2013, and received at least one dose of IV or oral (PO) APAP for a body temperature of ≥38°C. The primary aim of this study was to compare the reduction in body temperature (RIT) between IV and PO APAP, calculated as the change in temperature before and 0.5, 1, 2, 3, and 6 hours after administration. Descriptive statistics were used to assess use characteristics, and Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests were used for between-group differences. There were 142 NCC patients who received a total of 405 IV APAP and 253 PO APAP doses. Seventy percent of all APAP doses resulted in a temperature of <38°C within 6 hours. The median oral body temperature before APAP was 38.8°C and 38.6°C for IV and PO APAP, respectively (p < 0.01). The median RIT at 0.5 (IV 0.25°C vs. PO 0.2°C), 1 (IV 0.4°C vs. PO 0.2°C), 2 (IV 0.7°C vs. PO 0.5°C), 3 (IV 0.9°C vs. PO 0.6°C), and 6 (IV 1°C vs. PO 0.8°C) hours was significantly greater for IV APAP than for PO APAP at all time points (p < 0.05). Patients with an acute ischemic stroke and patients with an intracerebral hemorrhage had a statistically significantly greater RIT with IV APAP therapy. IV APAP administered to febrile NCC patients was associated with a significantly greater RIT than PO, but 70% of all APAP doses resulted in a body temperature of <38°C within 6 hours. Further prospective studies are needed to determine if IV APAP improves clinical outcomes.

Intravenous Versus Oral Acetaminophen for Pain Control in Neurocritical Care Patients.

BACKGROUND: Acetaminophen (APAP) is used in neurocritical care (NCC) patients for analgesia without sedation or antiplatelet activity. Research suggests that intravenous (IV) APAP produces earlier and higher serum levels compared to oral (PO) APAP. This retrospective study evaluates the associated analgesic effects of IV and PO APAP and use of adjunctive opioids in NCC patients with moderate-severe pain. METHODS: Patients admitted to the neuroscience intensive care unit (NSICU) between May 2012 and April 2013 who received ≥1 dose of IV APAP were included in the study. IV and PO APAP doses administered with a predose pain score ≥4 within 1 h of dosing were compared. Pain intensity difference (PID) was calculated as the change between the pain score prior to each dose and scores at 30 min, 1, 2, 3, and 6 h postdose. Pre- and postdose morphine milligram equivalents (MME) were also calculated. RESULTS: 309 NSICU patients received 459 doses of IV and 440 doses of PO APAP meeting our inclusion criteria. The PID at 30 min postdosing was significantly higher among those receiving IV APAP compared to those receiving PO APAP (p = 0.003). No significant difference in PID was seen at 1, 2, 3, and 6 h; and there was no significant difference in pre- or postdose MME between the two groups. CONCLUSION: IV APAP was more effective than PO APAP at relieving pain within 30 min of dosing, but this difference was not sustained over 6 h. Further studies are needed to assess the benefits of this rapid onset of action.