Dexmedetomidine or Propofol for Sedation in Mechanically Ventilated Adults with Sepsis.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines currently recommend targeting light sedation with dexmedetomidine or propofol for adults receiving mechanical ventilation. Differences exist between these sedatives in arousability, immunity, and inflammation. Whether they affect outcomes differentially in mechanically ventilated adults with sepsis undergoing light sedation is unknown. METHODS: In a multicenter, double-blind trial, we randomly assigned mechanically ventilated adults with sepsis to receive dexmedetomidine (0.2 to 1.5 µg per kilogram of body weight per hour) or propofol (5 to 50 µg per kilogram per minute), with doses adjusted by bedside nurses to achieve target sedation goals set by clinicians according to the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS, on which scores range from -5 [unresponsive] to +4 [combative]). The primary end point was days alive without delirium or coma during the 14-day intervention period. Secondary end points were ventilator-free days at 28 days, death at 90 days, and age-adjusted total score on the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status questionnaire (TICS-T; scores range from 0 to 100, with a mean of 50±10 and lower scores indicating worse cognition) at 6 months. RESULTS: Of 432 patients who underwent randomization, 422 were assigned to receive a trial drug and were included in the analyses - 214 patients received dexmedetomidine at a median dose of 0.27 µg per kilogram per hour, and 208 received propofol at a median dose of 10.21 µg per kilogram per minute. The median duration of receipt of the trial drugs was 3.0 days (interquartile range, 2.0 to 6.0), and the median RASS score was -2.0 (interquartile range, -3.0 to -1.0). We found no difference between dexmedetomidine and propofol in the number of days alive without delirium or coma (adjusted median, 10.7 vs. 10.8 days; odds ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74 to 1.26), ventilator-free days (adjusted median, 23.7 vs. 24.0 days; odds ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.51), death at 90 days (38% vs. 39%; hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.52), or TICS-T score at 6 months (adjusted median score, 40.9 vs. 41.4; odds ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.33). Safety end points were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among mechanically ventilated adults with sepsis who were being treated with recommended light-sedation approaches, outcomes in patients who received dexmedetomidine did not differ from outcomes in those who received propofol. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01739933.).

Impact of Chlorhexidine Bathing on Antimicrobial Utilization in Surgical Intensive Care Unit.

BACKGROUND: This secondary analysis compared antimicrobial utilization among surgical intensive care unit patients randomized to every other day chlorhexidine bathing (chlorhexidine) versus daily soap and water bathing (soap-and-water) using data from the CHlorhexidine Gluconate BATHing trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Antimicrobial utilization was quantified using defined daily dose (DDD)/100 patient-days and agent-days/100 patient-days for systemic antimicrobials. Antivirals (except oseltamivir), antiparasitics, and prophylaxis agents were excluded. The 2018 anatomic therapeutic chemical/DDD index was used to calculate DDD. Agent-days were calculated as the sum of calendar days where antimicrobials were administered. Patient-days were defined as time patients were at risk for health care-acquired infections plus up to 14 d. Primary analyses were conducted using linear regression adjusted for baseline Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores. RESULTS: Of 325 CHlorhexidine Gluconate BATHing trial patients, 312 (157 in soap-and-water and 155 in chlorhexidine) were included. The median (interquartile range) of total antimicrobial DDD/100 patient-days was 135.4 (75.2-231.8) for soap-and-water and 129.9 (49.2-215.3) for chlorhexidine. The median (interquartile range) of total antimicrobial agent-days/100 patient-days was 155.6 (83.3-243.2) for soap-and-water and 146.7 (66.7-217.4) for chlorhexidine. After adjusting for Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores, chlorhexidine bathing was associated with a nonsignificant reduction in total antimicrobial DDD/100 patient-days (-3.9; 95% confidence interval, -33.9 to 26.1; P = 0.80) and total antimicrobial agent-days/100 patient-days (-10.3; 95% confidence interval, -34.7 to 14.1; P = 0.41). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with daily soap and water bathing, every other day chlorhexidine bathing did not significantly reduce total antimicrobial utilization in surgical intensive care unit patients.

Chlorhexidine bathing and Clostridium difficile infection in a surgical intensive care unit.

BACKGROUND: Clostridium difficile is the most common causative pathogen for hospital-acquired infections in the intensive care unit. This study evaluated the effect of chlorhexidine bathing every other day in preventing hospital-acquired C. difficile infection (CDI) using data from the CHlorhexidine Gluconate BATHing (CHG-BATH) randomized trial. METHODS: The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients acquiring CDIs among patients at risk for incident CDIs. Infections detected >48 h after randomization were classified as incident CDIs. Infections detected before or within 48 h of randomization were classified as prevalent CDIs. RESULTS: Of 38 patients (11.7%) who met criteria for potential CDI and underwent adjudication, 24 (7.4%) received oral or enema vancomycin, 18 (5.5%) had a positive C. difficile molecular assay, 14 (4.3%) received an International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification code for CDI, and 2 (0.6%) had possible pseudomembranous colitis on histopathology reports. The prevalence of CDI was 3.7% (6 of 164) in the soap and water arm and 4.3% (7 of 161) in the chlorhexidine arm. Compared with daily soap and water bathing, 2% chlorhexidine bathing every other day was not associated with the prevention of hospital-acquired CDI (1.3% [2 of 152] soap and water versus 2.0% [3 of 148] chlorhexidine, P = 0.68). CONCLUSIONS: It is inconclusive if there was an association between chlorhexidine bathing and incidence of CDI among surgical intensive care unit patients in this study as statistical power was limited. There are limited published data evaluating the association between chlorhexidine bathing and CDI, and this study provides data for future systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Effect of delirium motoric subtypes on administrative documentation of delirium in the surgical intensive care unit.

This study compares the proportions of surgical intensive care unit (ICU) patients with delirium detected using the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU) who received administrative documentation for delirium using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes, stratified by delirium motoric subtypes. This retrospective cohort study was conducted at a surgical ICU from 06/2012 to 05/2013. Delirium was assessed twice daily and was defined as having ≥1 positive CAM-ICU rating. Delirious patients were categorized into hyperactive/mixed and hypoactive subtypes using corresponding Richmond Agitation Sedation Scales. Administrative documentation of delirium was defined as having ≥1 of 32 unique ICD-9-CM codes. Proportions were compared using Pearson's Chi-square test. Of included patients, 40 % (423/1055) were diagnosed with delirium, and 17 % (183/1055) had an ICD-9-CM code for delirium. The sensitivity and specificity of ICD-9-CM codes for delirium were 36 and 95 %. ICD-9-CM codes for delirium were available for 42 % (95 % CI 35-48 %; 105/253) of patients with hyperactive/mixed delirium and 27 % (95 % CI 20-34 %; 46/170) of patients with hypoactive delirium (relative risk = 1.5; 95 % CI 1.2-2.0; p = 0.002). ICD-9-CM codes yielded a low sensitivity for identifying patients with CAM-ICU positive delirium and were more likely to identify hyperactive/mixed delirium compared with hypoactive delirium.

Effect of Chlorhexidine Bathing Every Other Day on Prevention of Hospital-Acquired Infections in the Surgical ICU: A Single-Center, Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that compared with daily soap and water bathing, 2% chlorhexidine gluconate bathing every other day for up to 28 days decreases the risk of hospital-acquired catheter-associated urinary tract infection, ventilator-associated pneumonia, incisional surgical site infection, and primary bloodstream infection in surgical ICU patients. DESIGN: This was a single-center, pragmatic, randomized trial. Patients and clinicians were aware of treatment-group assignment; investigators who determined outcomes were blinded. SETTING: Twenty-four-bed surgical ICU at a quaternary academic medical center. PATIENTS: Adults admitted to the surgical ICU from July 2012 to May 2013 with an anticipated surgical ICU stay for 48 hours or more were included. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to bathing with 2% chlorhexidine every other day alternating with soap and water every other day (treatment arm) or to bathing with soap and water daily (control arm). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary endpoint was a composite outcome of catheter-associated urinary tract infection, ventilator-associated pneumonia, incisional surgical site infection, and primary bloodstream infection. Of 350 patients randomized, 24 were excluded due to prior enrollment in this trial and one withdrew consent. Therefore, 325 were analyzed (164 soap and water versus 161 chlorhexidine). Patients acquired 53 infections. Compared with soap and water bathing, chlorhexidine bathing every other day decreased the risk of acquiring infections (hazard ratio = 0.555; 95% CI, 0.309-0.997; p = 0.049). For patients bathed with soap and water versus chlorhexidine, counts of incident hospital-acquired infections were 14 versus 7 for catheter-associated urinary tract infection, 13 versus 8 for ventilator-associated pneumonia, 6 versus 3 for incisional surgical site infections, and 2 versus 0 for primary bloodstream infection; the effect was consistent across all infections. The absolute risk reduction for acquiring a hospital-acquired infection was 9.0% (95% CI, 1.5-16.4%; p = 0.019). Incidences of adverse skin occurrences were similar (18.9% soap and water vs 18.6% chlorhexidine; p = 0.95). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with soap and water, chlorhexidine bathing every other day decreased the risk of acquiring infections by 44.5% in surgical ICU patients.

Adherence to guideline recommendations for human rabies immune globulin patient selection, dosing, timing, and anatomical site of administration in rabies postexposure prophylaxis.

Rabies is a fatal disease that mandates proper prophylaxis after a rabies virus exposure to prevent death. This study evaluated adherence to Centers of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations for rabies immune globulin (IG) patient selection, dosing, timing of administration, and anatomical site of administration for rabies postexposure prophylaxis. This retrospective, cross-sectional study included patients who received at least one dose of rabies IG or rabies vaccine at a multi-hospital health system from January 2015 through June 2018. This study included 246 patients, and all of them received at least one dose of rabies vaccine. Two patients had a history of rabies vaccination, did not have an indication for rabies IG, and appropriately did not receive additional rabies IG. Rabies IG was administered to 91% (223 of 244) of patients with an indication. Of 223 patients who received rabies IG, 219 (98%) received doses within 10% of 20 IU/kg of body weight, and all 223 (100%) received rabies IG within 7 days of the first rabies vaccine administration. Only 56% (96 of 170) of patients with a wound that could be infiltrated with rabies IG actually received rabies IG via infiltration into and around the wound. This multi-hospital health system study demonstrated high adherence to guideline recommendations for rabies IG patient selection (91%), dosing (98%), and timing (100%). However, only 56% of eligible patients received rabies IG infiltration at wound sites as recommended by guidelines.

Quality indicators to measure the effect of opioid stewardship interventions in hospital and emergency department settings.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this project was to develop a set of valid and feasible quality indicators used to track opioid stewardship efforts in hospital and emergency department settings. METHODS: Candidate quality indicators were extracted from published literature. Feasibility screening excluded quality indicators that cannot be reliably extracted from the electronic health record or that are irrelevant to pain management in the hospital and emergency department settings. Validity screening used an electronic survey of key stakeholders including pharmacists, nurses, physicians, administrators, and researchers. Stakeholders used a 9-point Likert scale to rate the validity of each quality indicator based on predefined criteria. During expert panel discussions, stakeholders revised quality indicator wording, added new quality indicators, and voted to include or exclude each quality indicator. Priority ranking used a second electronic survey and a 9-point Likert scale to prioritize the included quality indicators. RESULTS: Literature search yielded 76 unique quality indicators. Feasibility screening excluded 9 quality indicators. The validity survey was completed by 46 (20%) of 228 stakeholders. Expert panel discussions yielded 19 valid and feasible quality indicators. The top 5 quality indicators by priority were: the proportion of patients with (1) naloxone administrations, (2) as needed opioids with duplicate indications, and (3) long acting or extended release opioids if opioid-naïve, (4) the average dose of morphine milligram equivalents administered per day, and (5) the proportion of opioid discharge prescriptions exceeding 7 days. CONCLUSION: Multi-professional stakeholders across a health system participated in this consensus process and developed a set of 19 valid and feasible quality indicators for opioid stewardship interventions in the hospital and emergency department settings.