Comparison of Fixed-Dose Inhaled Epoprostenol and Inhaled Nitric Oxide for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome in Critically Ill Adults.

PURPOSE: Several reports have demonstrated similar effects on oxygenation between inhaled epoprostenol (iEPO) compared to inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Previous studies directly comparing oxygenation and clinical outcomes between iEPO and iNO exclusively in an adult ARDS patient population utilized a weight-based dosing strategy. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and economic impact between iNO and fixed-dosed iEPO for ARDS in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was conducted at a major academic medical center between January 1, 2014, and October 31, 2018. Patients ≥18 years of age with moderate-to-severe ARDS were included. The primary end point was to compare the mean change in partial arterial oxygen pressure to fraction of inspired oxygen (Pao 2: Fio 2) at 4 hours from baseline between iEPO and iNO. Other secondary aims were total acquisition drug costs, in-hospital mortality, ICU and hospital length of stay, and duration of mechanical ventilation. RESULTS: A total of 239 patients were included with 139 (58.2%) and 100 (41.8%) in the iEPO and iNO groups, respectively. The mean change in Pao 2: Fio 2 at 4 hours from baseline in the iEPO and iNO groups were 31.4 ± 54.6 and 32.4 ± 42.7 mm Hg, respectively (P = .88). The responder rate at 4 hours was similar between iEPO and iNO groups (64.7% and 66.0%, respectively, P = .84). Clinical outcomes including mortality, overall hospital and ICU length of stay, and mechanical ventilation duration were similar between iEPO and iNO groups. Estimated annual cost-savings realized with iEPO was USD1 074 433. CONCLUSION: Fixed-dose iEPO was comparable to iNO in patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS for oxygenation and ventilation parameters as well as clinical outcomes. Significant cost-savings were realized with iEPO use.

Impact of a clinical pharmacist stress ulcer prophylaxis management program on inappropriate use in hospitalized patients.

PURPOSE: Appropriate utilization of stress ulcer prophylaxis should be limited to high-risk, intensive care unit (ICU) patients. However, inappropriate stress ulcer prophylaxis use among all hospitalized patients remains a concern. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical and economic impact of a novel pharmacist-managed stress ulcer prophylaxis program in ICU and general ward patients. METHODS: This retrospective, pre- and poststudy design was conducted in adult ICU and general ward patients at a large academic medical center between January 1, 2011 and January 31, 2012 to compare the rates of inappropriate stress ulcer prophylaxis before and after the implementation of a pharmacist-led stress ulcer prophylaxis management program. RESULTS: A total of 1134 unique patients consisting of 16,415 patient days were evaluated. The relative reduction in the rate of inappropriate stress ulcer prophylaxis days after program implementation in ICU and general ward patients was 58.3% and 83.5%, respectively (P < .001). The rates of ICU patients inappropriately continued on stress ulcer prophylaxis upon hospital discharge in the pre- and postimplementation groups were 29.9% and 3.6%, respectively (P < .001), whereas general ward patients significantly decreased from 36.2% to 5.4% in the pre- and postimplementation groups, respectively (P < .001). Total inpatient costs associated with all stress ulcer prophylaxis administered was $20,052.70 in the pre- and $3280.49 in the postimplementation group (P < .001), resulting in an estimated cost savings of > $200,000 annually. No differences in clinical outcomes were observed. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of a pharmacist-managed stress ulcer prophylaxis program was associated with a decrease in inappropriate acid suppression rates during hospitalization and upon discharge, as well as significant cost savings.

Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis: a potentially underrecognized association with systemic inflammatory response syndrome, severe sepsis, and septic shock in adults.

BACKGROUND: Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH) was originally described as a genetic disorder of immune regulation, presenting in neonates with protracted fever, hepatosplenomegaly, and cytopenia. A secondary form of HLH, triggered by serious infections, was subsequently described in adults. METHODS: We report three adult patients who presented with systemic inflammatory response syndrome and features consistent with severe sepsis and septic shock, who subsequently received a diagnosis of secondary HLH. We reviewed the relationship between infection-triggered HLH and septic shock from the perspective of the adult intensivist. RESULTS: The hyperinflammatory pathophysiologic characteristics of HLH and septic shock are closely intertwined. Clinical and laboratory features of HLH and septic shock overlap in some patients, making the syndromes difficult to distinguish. In our experience and review, progressive pancytopenia was the feature most likely to suggest secondary HLH in the adult patient with presumed (or definite) septic shock. Use of other HLH-2004 diagnostic criteria is hindered by the poor operating characteristics of these tests in critically ill adults. Bone marrow aspiration is the most useful diagnostic test, but may yield an initial false-negative result. CONCLUSION: The HLH-2004 treatment protocol is not of proven benefit in critically ill adults, but observational data suggest that aggressive immunosuppressive therapy should not be delayed. Further study of HLH in the critical care setting might provide important insights into the pathogenesis and clinical treatment of sepsis.