Evaluation of Response to High-Dose Intravenous Vitamin K Administration.

BACKGROUND: Essential to the coagulation pathway, vitamin K (phytonadione) is used to correct clotting factor deficiencies and for reversal of warfarin-induced bleeding. In practice, high-dose intravenous (IV) vitamin K is often used, despite limited evidence supporting repeated dosing. OBJECTIVE: This study sought to characterize differences in responders and nonresponders to high-dose vitamin K to guide dosing strategies. METHODS: This was a case-control study of hospitalized adults who received vitamin K 10 mg IV daily for 3 days. Cases were represented by patients who responded to the first dose of IV vitamin K and controls were nonresponders. The primary outcome was change in international normalized ratio (INR) over time with subsequent vitamin K doses. Secondary outcomes included factors associated with response to vitamin K and incidence of safety events. The Cleveland Clinic Institutional Review Board approved this study. RESULTS: There were 497 patients included, and 182 were responders. Most patients had underlying cirrhosis (91.5%). In responders, the INR decreased from 1.89 at baseline (95% CI = [1.74-2.04]) to 1.40 on day 3 (95% CI = [1.30-1.50]). In nonresponders, the INR decreased from 1.97 (95% CI = [1.83-2.13]) to 1.85 ([1.72-1.99]). Factors associated with response included lower body weight, absence of cirrhosis, and lower bilirubin. There was a low incidence of safety events observed. CONCLUSIONS: In this study of mainly patients with cirrhosis, the overall adjusted decrease in INR over 3 days was 0.3, which may have minimal clinical impact. Additional studies are needed to identify populations who may benefit from repeated daily doses of high-dose IV vitamin K.

Peripheral Administration of Norepinephrine: A Prospective Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Historically, norepinephrine has been administered through a central venous catheter (CVC) because of concerns about the risk of ischemic tissue injury if extravasation from a peripheral IV catheter (PIVC) occurs. Recently, several reports have suggested that peripheral administration of norepinephrine may be safe. RESEARCH QUESTION: Can a protocol for peripheral norepinephrine administration safely reduce the number of days a CVC is in use and frequency of CVC placement? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a prospective observational cohort study conducted in the medical ICU at a quaternary care academic medical center. A protocol for peripheral norepinephrine administration was developed and implemented in the medical ICU at the study site. The protocol was recommended for use in patients who met prespecified criteria, but was used at the treating clinician's discretion. All adult patients admitted to the medical ICU receiving norepinephrine through a PIVC from February 2019 through June 2021 were included. RESULTS: The primary outcome was the number of days of CVC use that were avoided per patient, and the secondary safety outcomes included the incidence of extravasation events. Six hundred thirty-five patients received peripherally administered norepinephrine. The median number of CVC days avoided per patient was 1 (interquartile range, 0-2 days per patient). Of the 603 patients who received norepinephrine peripherally as the first norepinephrine exposure, 311 patients (51.6%) never required CVC insertion. Extravasation of norepinephrine occurred in 35 patients (75.8 events/1,000 d of PIVC infusion [95% CI, 52.8-105.4 events/1,000 d of PIVC infusion]). Most extravasations caused no or minimal tissue injury. No patient required surgical intervention. INTERPRETATION: This study suggests that implementing a protocol for peripheral administration of norepinephrine safely can avoid 1 CVC day in the average patient, with 51.6% of patients not requiring CVC insertion. No patient experienced significant ischemic tissue injury with the protocol used. These data support performance of a randomized, prospective, multicenter study to characterize the net benefits of peripheral norepinephrine administration compared with norepinephrine administration through a CVC.

Vasopressin Plasma Concentrations Are Not Associated with Hemodynamic Response to Exogenous Vasopressin for Septic Shock.

INTRODUCTION: Positive hemodynamic response to vasopressin after 6 hours of infusion was independently associated with lower mortality in a previous retrospective study of patients with septic shock. However, factors previously associated with higher plasma vasopressin concentration were not associated with response, and the relationship between plasma vasopressin concentration and hemodynamic response has not been evaluated. OBJECTIVES: This cross-sectional study compared plasma vasopressin concentrations in hemodynamic responders and nonresponders to vasopressin in patients with septic shock to evaluate plasma vasopressin concentration as a therapeutic target for hemodynamic response to vasopressin. METHODS: Adult patients with septic shock were included if they were treated with fixed-dose vasopressin as an adjunct to catecholamines for at least 3 hours. Patients were assigned to groups based on vasopressin response. RESULTS: Ten hemodynamic responders to vasopressin and eight nonresponders were included. Blood samples for plasma vasopressin concentration were collected 3-6 hours after vasopressin initiation. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. No difference was detected in plasma vasopressin concentrations between hemodynamic responders and nonresponders (median 88.6 pg/ml [interquartile range (IQR) 84.4-107.5 pg/ml] vs 89.9 pg/ml [IQR 67.5-157.4 pg/ml], p=0.79, respectively). We also did not detect a difference between groups after correcting for vasopressin dose; median vasopressin plasma concentration per 0.01 units/minute of vasopressin infusion for responders was 25.9 pg/ml (IQR 21.8-31.8 pg/ml) versus 29.5 pg/ml (IQR 23.0-57.5 pg/ml, p=0.48) for nonresponders. No difference in clinical outcomes was detected between groups. The findings were robust to multiple sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: This study does not support the use of plasma vasopressin concentrations as a therapeutic target to predict hemodynamic response to exogenous vasopressin in septic shock.