Antimicrobial exposure and the risk of delirium in critically ill patients.

BACKGROUND: Prior retrospective cross-sectional work has associated antimicrobials with a non-specific phrase: encephalopathy without seizures. The purpose of this study is to determine whether different classes of antimicrobials have differential associations with the daily risk of delirium after critical illness is adjusted for. METHODS: Our study was a nested cohort that enrolled non-neurological critically ill adults from a medical or surgical intensive care unit (ICU) with daily follow-up to 30 days. Our independent variable was exposure to previous-day antimicrobial class: beta-lactams (subclasses: penicillins, first- to third-generation cephalosporins, fourth-generation cephalosporins, and carbapenems), macrolides, fluoroquinolones, and other. We adjusted for baseline covariates (age, comorbidities, cognition scores, sepsis, and mechanical ventilation), previous-day covariates (delirium, doses of analgesics/sedatives, and antipsychotic use), and same-day covariates (illness severity). Our primary outcome of delirium was measured by using the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU. A daily delirium logistic regression model was used with an ICU time-restricted sensitivity analysis including daily adjustment for sepsis and mechanical ventilation. RESULTS: Of 418 ICU patients, delirium occurred in 308 (74%) with a median of 3 days (interquartile range 2-6) among those affected and 318 (76%) were exposed to antimicrobials. When covariates and ICU type were adjusted for, only first- to third-generation cephalosporins were associated with delirium (logistic regression model odds ratio (OR) = 2.2, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.28-3.79, P = 0.004; sensitivity analysis OR = 2.13, 95% CI 1.10-4.10, P = 0.024). CONCLUSIONS: First-, second-, and third-generation cephalosporins doubled the odds of delirium after baseline co-morbidities, ICU type, the course of critical care, and other competing antimicrobial and psychotropic medication risks were adjusted for. We did not find an association between delirium and cefepime, penicillins, carbapenems, fluoroquinolones, or macrolides.

Risk of Hypoglycemia During Insulin Infusion Directed by Paper Protocol Versus Electronic Glycemic Management System in Critically Ill Patients at a Large Academic Medical Center.

BACKGROUND: Insulin infusions are commonly utilized to control hyperglycemia in critically ill patients and decrease hyperglycemia associated complications. Safety concerns have been raised in trials evaluating methods of glycemic control regarding the incidence of hypoglycemia and its relationship to increased mortality. Electronic glycemic management systems (eGMS) may result in less variable blood glucose (BG) control and less hypoglycemia. This study aimed to compare BG control, time in target BG range, and the rate of hypoglycemia when critically ill patients were managed with an insulin infusion guided by paper-based protocol (PBP) versus eGMS. METHODS: This retrospective review compared critically ill patients ≥ 18 years old that received insulin infusion from March to May 2015 (PBP group) and October to January 2017 (eGMS group). The primary outcome was the incidence of hypoglycemia. Secondary outcomes included frequency and severity of hypoglycemia, duration in glycemic target, length of insulin therapy, as well as ICU and hospital length of stay. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients were evaluated, 27 in each group. Percentage of days with BG <70 mg/dL was significantly reduced after eGMS implementation (21.5% v 1.3%, P < .0001) including the frequency of severe hypoglycemia (BG < 40 mg/dL) (5.4% v 0.01%, P < .0001). Patients in the eGMS group spent a greater amount of time in target BG range (31.5% v 63.7%, P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: An eGMS has the potential to address many of the unmet needs of an optimal glycemic control strategy, minimizing hypoglycemia, and glycemic variability in a heterogeneous critically ill population.