The risk of delirium after sedation with propofol or midazolam in intensive care unit patients.

AIM: Knowledge of risk factors may provide strategies to reduce the high burden of delirium in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. We aimed to compare the risk of delirium after deep sedation with propofol versus midazolam in ICU patients. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, ICU patients who were in an unarousable state for ≥24 h due to continuous sedation with propofol and/or midazolam were included. Patients admitted ≤24 h, those with an acute neurological disorder and those receiving palliative sedation were excluded. ICU patients were assessed daily for delirium during the 7 days following an unarousable state due to continuous sedation. RESULTS: Among 950 included patients, 605 (64%) subjects were delirious during the 7 days after awaking. The proportion of subsequent delirium was higher after midazolam sedation (152/207 [73%] patients) and after both propofol and midazolam sedation (257/377 [68%] patients), compared to propofol sedation only (196/366 [54%] patients). Midazolam sedation (adjusted cause-specific hazard ratio [adj. cause-specific HR] 1.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-1.66) and propofol and midazolam sedation (adj. cause-specific HR 1.29, 95% CI 1.06-1.56) were associated with a higher risk of subsequent delirium compared to propofol sedation only. CONCLUSION: This study among sedated ICU patients suggests that, compared to propofol sedation, midazolam sedation is associated with a higher risk of subsequent delirium. This risk seems more apparent in patients with high cumulative midazolam intravenous doses. Our findings underpin the recommendations of the Society of Critical Care Medicine Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (rehabilitation/mobilization), and Sleep (disruption) guidelines to use propofol over benzodiazepines for sedation in ICU patients.

Catching the Culprit: Benzylpenicillin Neurotoxicity Confirmed by Therapeutic Drug Monitoring in a Critically Ill Patient with Continuous Venovenous Hemofiltration.

ABSTRACT: We present the case of a 65-year-old patient who was treated with high-dose benzylpenicillin for severe invasive pneumococcal pneumonia, complicated by acute renal failure managed with continuous venovenous hemofiltration. After cessation of continuous venovenous hemofiltration, the patient experienced multiple tonic-clonic seizures. Therapeutic drug monitoring revealed high total serum concentrations of benzylpenicillin, identifying it as the likely cause of the neurotoxicity. This case study presents the first documented total serum benzylpenicillin concentration associated with neurotoxicity.

The effect of a decision support system on the incidence of prescription errors in a PICU.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: Paediatric intensive care patients are at high risk for prescription errors due to the more complex process of medication prescribing. Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) have shown good results in effectively reducing prescription errors. A specific dosing CDSS was developed that can check and suggest normal dose, dose limits and administration frequencies. This study aimed to assess the effect of this CDSS on protocol deviation (as measure of prescription error) types and frequency in a paediatric intensive care unit (PICU). METHODS: A retrospective observational study was conducted evaluating 9342 prescriptions in a 4-month period before and after the implementation of a CDSS in the PICU of the University Medical Center Utrecht. Medication forms were reviewed to identify protocol deviations (and therefore possible prescription errors). The incidence and nature of deviations from evidence-based protocols that were unintended and needed to be adjusted, were determined. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: In the period before the dosing CDSS, we identified 45 protocol deviations in 5034 prescriptions (0.89%), 28 of which could not be justified (0.56%) and 11 needed to be adjusted (0.22%). In the period after the implementation of the CDSS, there were 21 protocol deviations in 4308 prescriptions (0.49%) of which ten without a valid reason (0.23%) of which two were adjusted (0.05%). WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: The specific dosing CDSS was able to significantly reduce unintentional prescription dose deviations and the number of prescriptions that needed to be adjusted, in an existing low incidence situation.

Assessing health-related quality of life in cancer survivors: factors impacting on EORTC QLU-C10D-derived utility values.

PURPOSE: To investigate the factors influencing EORTC QLQ-C30-derived EORTC QLU-C10D utility values across five cancer types (non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, colorectal, thyroid, and prostate cancer) and a general population sample. METHODS: Data from the Dutch population-based patient-reported outcomes following initial treatment and long-term evaluation of survivorship (PROFILES) registry collected between 2009 and 2012 were used. EORTC QLQ-C30 data were used to estimate utility values by applying the EORTC QLU-C10D instrument using Australian utility weights. Regression analyses were conducted, within and across cancer type, to examine the factors influencing utility values, including patient- and cancer-specific factors, as well as the EORTC QLQ-C30 scale/item scores. RESULTS: The mean utility value for the total cancer sample was 0.791 (SD 0.201), significantly lower than that from the general population (0.865, SD 0.165). Multiple myeloma patients had the lowest utility value at 0.663 (SD 0.244). Physical functioning, pain and nausea and vomiting were the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) domains with the greatest impact on utility values; cognitive functioning and dyspnea had the lowest impact. Of the demographic and clinical factors, unemployment for reasons other than retirement, age older than 75 years, number of comorbidities, and experience of symptoms all had a statistically significant negative impact on utility values. CONCLUSIONS: This study is one of the first to apply the EORTC QLU-C10D to a heterogeneous group of cancer patients. Results can be used to more efficiently target care towards factors influencing HRQoL. Furthermore, it enhances our understanding of how the EORTC QLU-C10D performs across cancer types, supporting its use in cost-utility analyses.

Drug waste of ready-to-administer syringes in the intensive care unit: Aseptically prepared syringes versus prefilled sterilized syringes.

BACKGROUND: The availability of ready-to-administer (RTA) syringes for intravenous (IV) drugs facilitates rapid and safe administration in emergency and intensive care situations. Hospital pharmacies can prepare RTA syringes through aseptic batchwise filling. Due to excess production of these RTA syringes for sufficient availability for patient care and their limited (microbiological) shelf-life, waste is unavoidable, which contributes to environmental pollution. RTA prefilled sterilized syringes (PFSSs) have much longer shelf-lives than aseptically prepared RTA syringes and might contribute to reducing drug waste. AIM: This study aimed to evaluate the difference in drug waste between RTA syringes that were prepared through aseptic batchwise filling and RTA PFSSs in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). METHODS: We measured drug waste of RTA syringes over an 8-year time period from August 2015 to May 2023 in the 32-bed ICU of the University Medical Center Utrecht. We distinguished between RTA syringes prepared through aseptic batchwise filling by our hospital pharmacy ("RTA aseptic syringes", shelf-life of 31 days) and RTA PFSSs (shelf-life of 18 months). An intervention group of three drug products that were replaced by PFSSs was compared to a control group of five drug products that were not replaced by PFSSs during the study period. We then defined four different periods within the total study period, based on quarantine time of the RTA aseptic syringes and time of PFSS introduction: 1) no quarantine, 2) 3-day quarantine, 3) 7-day quarantine and 4) PFSS introduction. Our primary endpoint was the number of RTA syringes that was wasted, expressed as the percentage of the total number of syringes dispensed to the ICU in each of these four periods. We used a Kruskall-Wallis test to test if waste percentages differed between time periods in the control and intervention groups, with a post-hoc Dunn's test for pairwise comparisons. Furthermore, we applied two interrupted time series (ITS) analyses to visualize and test the effect of introducing different quarantine times and the PFSSs on waste percentage. RESULTS: Introduction of PFSSs significantly decreased drug waste of RTA syringes irrespective of drug type in the intervention group, from 31% during the 7-day quarantine period to 5% after introduction of the PFSS (p<0.001). The control group showed no significant decrease in drug waste over the same time periods (from 20% to 16%; p=0.726). We observed a significant difference in the total drug waste of RTA aseptic syringes between time periods, which may be attributed to the implementation of different quality control quarantine procedures. The ITS model of the intervention group showed a direct decrease of 17.7% in waste percentage after the introduction of PFSSs (p=0.083). CONCLUSION: Drug waste of RTA syringes for the ICU can be significantly decreased by introducing PFSSs, supporting hospitals to enhance environmental sustainability. Furthermore, the waste percentage of RTA syringes prepared through aseptic batchwise filling is significantly impacted by duration of quarantine time.