The impact of push-dose phenylephrine use on subsequent preload expansion in the ED setting.

BACKGROUND: The utilization of bolus-dose phenylephrine (PHE) has transitioned to the emergency department (ED) for the treatment of acutely hypotensive patients, despite a paucity of literature in this setting. METHODS: This was a single center retrospective chart review of the utilization of bolus-dosed PHE for acute hypotension in the ED at an academic non-forprofit hospital. The primary objective of this study is to report the frequency of patients that were initiated on a continuous vasopressor infusion (CVI) within 30 minutes after the first administration of bolus-dose PHE. Secondary objectives included an observational description of the impact of early preload expansion (fluids) on the initiation of CVIs in the setting of bolus-dose PHE in the ED. RESULTS: Seventy-three patients met inclusion criteria for analysis. The primary outcome, 46.5% (n = 34) of patients were initiated on a CVI within 30 minutes following bolus-dose PHE. Initial preload expansion (30 mL/kg of IV fluids) was found to be significantly disproportionate with 34.2% appropriately fluid challenged vs 65.8% (P = .0048). In addition, a significant decrease in the number of PHE bolus doses were required [1.5 vs 2.3 (P = .01)] in the adequately IVF challenged group. For secondary endpoints, PHE was most commonly indicated for peri-intubation hypotension (n = 52, 71.2%). Significant adverse events were documented for 15 (20.5%) patients, with bradycardia (n = 7; 9.6%) as the most common adverse event. CONCLUSIONS: Initial preload IVF expansion was found to be significantly disproportionate, and appears to be associated with an increase number of phenylephrine bolus doses in our study population.

Impact of prescription drug-monitoring program on controlled substance prescribing in the ED.

OBJECTIVE: In 2009, Florida initiated a statewide prescription drug-monitoring program (PDMP) to encourage safer prescribing of controlled substances and reduce drug abuse and diversion. Data supporting the utility of such programs in the emergency department (ED) is scarce. This study sought to determine the effect of PDMP data on controlled substance prescribing from the ED. METHODS: In this pre-post study utilizing a historical control, pharmacists in the ED provided prescribers with a summary of the PDMP data for their patients. The number of controlled substances prescribed in the intervention group was compared with that prescribed in the historical control to determine if the intervention resulted in a change in the average number of controlled substance prescribed. RESULTS: Among the 710 patients evaluated, providing prescribers with PDMP data did not alter the average number of controlled substance per patient prescribed (0.23 controlled substances per patient in the historical control compared with 0.28 controlled substances per patient in the intervention group; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.016 to 0.116; P = .125). All prescribers surveyed indicated that having PDMP data altered their controlled substance prescribing and felt more comfortable prescribing controlled substances. CONCLUSIONS: Although the results did not demonstrate a change in the average number of controlled substances prescribed when prescribers were provided with PDMP data, results from the survey indicate that prescribers felt the data altered their prescribing of controlled substances, and thus were more contented prescribing controlled substances.

Evaluation of an antimicrobial stewardship approach to minimize overuse of antibiotics in patients with asymptomatic bacteriuria.

An antimicrobial stewardship educational initiative provided to physicians and pharmacists was evaluated at an academic medical center to minimize inappropriate treatment of asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB). A significant decrease in empirical antimicrobial use for ASB was observed after education. Multifaceted educational initiatives can reduce inappropriate antimicrobial treatment of ASB.

Medication errors in HIV-infected hospitalized patients: a pharmacist's impact.

BACKGROUND: Treatment with highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) decreases morbidity and mortality associated with HIV infection. Unfortunately, HAART medication errors are prevalent in hospitalized patients with HIV infection. Appropriate regimen administration and adherence are essential for treatment success. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of pharmacist interventions on the rate of medication errors in HIV-infected hospitalized patients who had been prescribed HAART in the outpatient setting. METHODS: Hospitalized patients aged 18 years or older receiving HAART and/or opportunistic infection (OI) prophylaxis were screened for inclusion. Data collection for each enrolled patient included demographic information, pertinent laboratory results, and inpatient and outpatient medication regimens. Patient medication profiles were reviewed within 72 hours of admission. HAART and/or OI prophylaxis errors were classified by type and frequency. Following the pharmacist intervention, prescribers' responses to each recommendation and the estimated time per intervention were recorded. RESULTS: Eighty-six patients were included in this investigation and 210 HAART and OI prophylaxis errors were documented. Of patients receiving HAART and/or OI prophylaxis, 54.7% had at least 1 medication error on admission. An average of 2.4 errors per patient was identified. Dose omission (45.5%) was the most common error type among combined HAART and OI prophylaxis regimens, followed by incorrect regimen (17.1%) and incorrect dose (15.1%). Prescribers accepted 90% of pharmacist recommendations. A pharmacist was able to amend 94.7% of correctable HAART errors, as well as 89.9% of correctable combined HAART and OI prophylaxis errors. An estimated 18.5 minutes of pharmacist time were spent per patient requiring an intervention. CONCLUSIONS: A clinical pharmacist's targeted review of outpatient-prescribed HAART and/or OI primary prophylaxis regimens of hospitalized HIV-infected patients can reduce most medication errors during hospitalization.

Refractory hypotension due to Rogaine® (minoxidil) ingestion managed with midodrine.

BACKGROUND: Minoxidil (Rogaine®) is a direct vasodilator that can cause significant toxicity when ingested. We report a case of ingestion of topical minoxidil [Rogaine® (Johnson & Johnson Healthcare Products, Division of McNeil-PPC, Inc)] resulting in refractory hypotension that was successfully managed with the oral α (1) agonist midodrine. CASE REPORT: A 48-year-old male who ingested an eight ounce bottle of Rogaine® presented to the emergency department. The patient presented with a blood pressure of 57/45 mmHg and a pulse of 84 beats per minute. The patient received IV fluids and multiple vasopressors to maintain an adequate mean arterial pressure. Midodrine, an oral α (1) vasopressor, was added 10 hours post ingestion and was able to maintain an adequate mean arterial pressure. Over the next two days, midodrine was titrated down as his blood pressure returned to baseline. CONCLUSION: Midodrine may serve as an additional option to treat toxicant induced hypotension.

Evaluation of intramuscular fosphenytoin vs intravenous phenytoin loading in the ED.

OBJECTIVE: A comparison of length of stay in an emergency department (ED) after loading patients at risk for seizures with either intravenous (IV) phenytoin or intramuscular (IM) fosphenytoin was studied. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational cohort study that was conducted over a 24-month period in an academic teaching hospital (693 beds). Patients included were 18 years or older, discharged from the ED without hospital admission, and loaded with either IV phenytoin or IM fosphenytoin. The primary end point was the comparison of length of stay in the ED until discharge after loading. Characterization of seizure etiology, cardiac risk factors, and adverse drug events were also observed. RESULTS: A total of 51 patients were evaluated who received IV phenytoin compared with 59 for IM fosphenytoin. The median time-to-discharge difference between IV phenytoin vs IM fosphenytoin was 1:49 hours (95% confidence interval, 1:24-2:24 hours; P < .001). There was no statistical difference in cardiac risk factors and occurrence of adverse drug events between groups. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that patients were discharged from the ED earlier with the loading of IM fosphenytoin compared to IV phenytoin.