Effect of IV Push Antibiotic Administration on Antibiotic Therapy Delays in Sepsis.

OBJECTIVES: Timeliness of antibiotic administration is recognized as an important factor in reducing mortality associated with sepsis. According to guidelines, antibiotics should be administered within 1 hour of sepsis presentation and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services mandates administration within 3 hours. This study evaluates the difference in time from sepsis diagnosis to first-dose completion of ß-lactam antibiotics between IV push and IV piggyback administration. DESIGN: Single-center, retrospective analysis. SETTING: Urban, tertiary-care emergency department. PATIENTS: Inclusion criteria were as follows: 1) adult patients (n = 274) diagnosed with severe sepsis or septic shock per Sepsis-2 criteria from September to November 2016 and from September to November 2017 and 2) received ß-lactam antibiotic. INTERVENTIONS: Initial ß-lactam agent administered as either IV push or IV piggyback. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Median time (interquartile range) from sepsis diagnosis to administration of a ß-lactam antibiotic was 48 minutes (19-96 min) versus 72 minutes (8-180 min) and to administration of the complete broad-spectrum regimen was 108 minutes (66-144 min) versus 114 minutes (42-282 min) in the IV push (n = 143) versus IV piggyback (n = 131) groups, respectively. When controlling for time to sepsis diagnosis and other factors, IV push was associated with approximately 32-minute time savings to ß-lactam (ß = -0.60; 95% CI, -0.91 to -0.29) and approximately 32-minute time savings to broad-spectrum (ß = -0.32; 95% CI, -0.62 to -0.02) antibiotic administrations. The IV push group was less likely to fail the goal of ß-lactam antibiotics within 1 hour (44.6% vs 57.3%; odds ratio, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.34-3.86) and 3 hours (7.6% vs 24.5%; odds ratio, 4.31; 95% CI, 2.01-10.28) of sepsis diagnosis compared with IV piggyback. The IV push strategy did not affect mortality, need for ICU admission, or ICU length of stay. No adverse events, including infusion reactions, were found in either arm. CONCLUSIONS: Use of an IV push strategy may safely facilitate more rapid administration of ß-lactam antibiotics and may allow for better compliance with sepsis management guidelines.

The Impact of the Parenteral Opioid Medication Shortages on Opioid Utilization Practices in the Emergency Department of Two University Hospitals.

INTRODUCTION: Both opioid and non-opioid analgesics are commonly utilized in treating acute and chronic pain in the emergency department (ED). Opioid stewardship efforts have focused on judicious opioid use and opioid alternatives as first-line analgesics. Parenteral opioid formulations have been impacted by periodic shortages creating the opportunity for a natural experiment to observe how emergency clinician prescribing behavior may be impacted. We investigated the change in analgesic practice related to a period of parenteral opioid shortage at two large urban, academic medical centers. METHODS: A retrospective review of pharmacy administration data from two academic urban EDs was performed looking at time periods before, during, and after resolution of the parenteral opioid shortage. The data were analyzed by medication, dose, time, number of doses, and oral morphine milligram equivalents (MME) administered per patient. RESULTS: The percentage of patients who received any opioid among ED visits decreased during the shortage period and did not return to pre-shortage levels after the shortage ended: 11.5% pre, 8.5% during (p=0.01), 7.2% post (NS; p=0.18). The number of doses of either oral or IV opioid doses administered during the shortage decreased significantly: 8.7% pre, 5.6% during (p=0.02) for PO, and 13.7% pre, 9.0% during (p=0.004) for IV, and neither changed during recovery from the shortage. The percentage of patients receiving non-opioid analgesics rose from 30.5% before to 45.8% (p=0.004) after the shortage. Among patients who received opioids, the MME per patient did not change across the time periods: 11.5% before, 11.2% during, 12.7% post. CONCLUSIONS: A period of restricted opioid use due to parenteral opioid shortages led to less opioid use overall and fewer patients treated with opioids, yet no significant change in opioid MME administered per patient requiring opioids. Overall, the shift in opioid prescribing during the parenteral opioid shortage appeared to be sustained in the post-shortage period.