Acid Suppression to Prevent Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Patients With Ventricular Assist Devices.

BACKGROUND: The high incidence of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) in patients with ventricular assist devices (VAD) is well known, but there is limited evidence to support the use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or histamine receptor antagonists (H2RA) for preventing GIB in patients with VAD. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The surgical ICU and VAD databases within a large regional academic cardiac mechanical support and transplant center were queried for patients who underwent VAD implantation between 2010 and 2014. An observational cohort study was conducted to identify which acid suppressing drug regimen was associated with the fewest number of GIB events within 30 d after VAD implantation: PPI, H2RA, or neither. Secondary outcomes included timing, etiology, and location of GIB. Multivariable logistic regression was used to compare treatment cohorts to GIB. Odds ratios, 95% confidence intervals, and P-values were reported from the model. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-eight patients were included for final analysis, 19 of which had a GIB within 30 days of VAD implantation. Both H2RA and PPI use were associated with reduced GIB compared with the cohort with no acid suppressive therapy. In the multivariate analysis, the PPI cohort showed a statistically significant reduction in GIB (Odds ratio 0.18 [95% confidence interval 0.04-0.79] P = 0.026). CONCLUSIONS: Using PPI postoperatively in patients with new VAD was associated with a reduced incidence of GIB. Given that GIB is a known complication after VAD placement, clinicians should consider the use of acid suppressive therapy for primary prevention.

Propofol is associated with favorable outcomes compared with benzodiazepines in ventilated intensive care unit patients.

RATIONALE: Mechanically ventilated intensive care unit (ICU) patients are frequently managed using a continuous-infusion sedative. Although recent guidelines suggest avoiding benzodiazepines for sedation, this class of drugs is still widely used. There are limited data comparing sedative agents in terms of clinical outcomes in an ICU setting. OBJECTIVES: Comparison of propofol to midazolam and lorazepam in adult ICU patients. METHODS: Data were obtained from a multicenter ICU database (2003-2009). Patient selection criteria included age greater than or equal to 18 years, single ICU admission with single ventilation event (>48 h), and treatment with continuously infused sedation (propofol, midazolam, or lorazepam). Propensity score analysis (1:1) was used and mortality measured. Cumulative incidence and competing risk methodology were used to examine time to ICU discharge and ventilator removal. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: There were 2,250 propofol-midazolam and 1,054 propofol-lorazepam matched patients. Hospital mortality was statistically lower in propofol-treated patients as compared with midazolam- or lorazepam-treated patients (risk ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69-0.82 and risk ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.68-0.89, respectively). Competing risk analysis for 28-day ICU time period showed that propofol-treated patients had a statistically higher probability for ICU discharge (78.9% vs. 69.5%; 79.2% vs. 71.9%; P < 0.001) and earlier removal from the ventilator (84.4% vs. 75.1%; 84.3% vs. 78.8%; P < 0.001) when compared with midazolam- and lorazepam-treated patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this large, propensity-matched ICU population, patients treated with propofol had a reduced risk of mortality and had both an increased likelihood of earlier ICU discharge and earlier discontinuation of mechanical ventilation.

Outcomes When Using Adjunct Dexmedetomidine with Propofol Sedation in Mechanically Ventilated Surgical Intensive Care Patients.

Objective: Compare the duration of mechanical ventilation between patients receiving sedation with continuous infusions of propofol alone or combination with the use of dexmedetomidine and propofol. Design: Retrospective, propensity matched (1:1) cohort study, employing eight variables chosen a priori for matching. Timing of exposure to dexmedetomidine initiation was incorporated into a matching algorithm. Setting: Level 1, university-based, 32-bed, adult, mixed trauma and surgical intensive care unit (SICU). Continuous sedation was delivered according to a protocol methodology with daily sedation vacation and spontaneous breathing trials. Choice of sedation agent was physician directed. Patients: Between 2010 and 2014, 149 SICU patients receiving mechanical ventilation for >24 h received dexmedetomidine with propofol. Propensity matching resulted in 143 pair cohorts. Interventions: Dexmedetomidine with propofol or propofol alone. Measurements and Main Results: There was no statistical difference in SICU length of stay (LOS), with a median absolute difference of 5.3 h for propofol alone group (p = 0.43). The SICU mortality was not statistically different (RR = 1.002, p = 0.88). Examining a 14-day period post-treatment with dexmedetomidine, on any given day (excluding days 1 and 14), dexmedetomidine with propofol-treated patients had a 0.5% to 22.5% greater likelihood of being delirious (CAM-ICU positive). In addition, dexmedetomidine with propofol-treated patients had a 4.5% to 18.8% higher likelihood of being above the target sedation score (more agitated) compared to propofol-alone patients. Conclusions: In this propensity matched cohort study, adjunct use of dexmedetomidine to propofol did not show a statistically significant reduction with respect to mechanical ventilation (MV) duration, SICU LOS, or SICU mortality, despite a trend toward receiving fewer hours of propofol. There was no evidence that dexmedetomidine with propofol improved sedation scores or reduced delirium.

Ventricular tachycardia associated with high-dose chronic loperamide use.

Loperamide is an antidiarrheal medication deemed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as safe enough to be sold as an over-the-counter medicine. Unlike other µ-opioid receptor agonists, loperamide acts specifically in the myenteric plexus in the gastrointestinal tract, making the potential for abuse low and reports of toxicity extremely rare. We present a case of a patient previously in good health who developed episodes of cardiac pauses, nonsustained ventricular tachycardia, and eventually runs of sustained ventricular tachycardia with hemodynamic instability. She required cardiopulmonary resuscitation, multiple cardioversions, and placement of a pacemaker. Her medical history was remarkable only for type 2 diabetes and chronic postcholecystectomy diarrhea. Metformin was the only prescription medication she was taking at the time of presentation. However, she reported that she had been taking an entire bottle of Equate brand loperamide (144 mg) daily for ~2 years. Loperamide overdoses associated with ventricular arrhythmias have been reported, but this is the first case to describe a serious ventricular arrhythmia associated with long-term use of a high dose of loperamide. Chronic overtreatment with loperamide may induce life-threatening arrhythmias.