A survey of prescriber perceptions about the prevention of stress-related mucosal bleeding in the intensive care unit.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: Practices vary between institutions and amongst prescribers regarding when to initiate stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP), which agent to choose (including doses and frequencies) and rationale, and decisions about escalation or discontinuation of therapy. The purpose of this survey is to evaluate the perceptions of prescribers about risk assessment of stress-related mucosal bleeding (SRMB) and practice patterns of SUP. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of 800 US critical care prescribers using the membership of the Society of Critical Care Medicine. The levels of agreement with specific statements were rated on a nine-point Likert scale. RESULTS: Of 712 eligible recipients, 245 (34·4%) completed the questionnaire. Respondents were primarily attending physicians (81·2%) working in adult medical or surgical (59·2%) intensive care units. Mucosal ischaemia was identified as the pathophysiological cause of SRMB by 110 (44·9%) respondents. Respondents agreed that risk factors for SRMB were acute hepatic failure, anticoagulant use, burns >35%, coagulopathy, absence of enteral feeding, recent gastroduodenal ulcer, corticosteroid use, Helicobacter pylori infection, neurologic injury, trauma, NSAID use, mechanical ventilation, shock and sepsis. Histamine subtype 2 receptor antagonists (58·4%) and proton pump inhibitors (39·6%) were the most frequently chosen agents. No consensus was reached about whether either class is associated with clostridium difficile infection or nosocomial pneumonia. Reasons to discontinue therapy included clinically improved patient status (73·1%), extubation (68·2%), reversal of 'nil-by-mouth' (68·6%) and transfer to a non-ICU setting (67·8%). WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSIONS: Considerable variability exists in the perceptions surrounding risk factors for SRMB and prescribing patterns for SUP therapy likely because limited or conflicting data are available addressing these issues. Opportunities exist to educate prescribers and conduct research about the pathologic cause and risk factors for SRMB, the preferred class of agents, and the appropriate discontinuation of therapy.

Antibiotic-impregnated cement use in U.S. hospitals.

The results of a survey of the use of antibiotic-impregnated bone cement and cement beads in U.S. hospitals are reported. A random sample of hospitals was selected from all hospitals registered with the American Hospital Association. A questionnaire designed to characterize the extent of use of the products and the degree of pharmacy involvement was mailed to the pharmacy directors at 547 hospitals nationwide. The response rate was 61.7% (336 evaluable returns). Ninety hospitals (26.9%) reported using antibiotic-impregnated bone cement or cement beads. Product use was significantly greater in urban hospitals, hospitals larger than 200 beds, teaching hospitals, and hospitals with pharmaceutical services in the operating rooms. Most facilities using the products were community hospitals. Total hip arthroplasty, total knee arthroplasty, and chronic osteomyelitis were the most common indications for use. Systemic antibiotics were also administered in the great majority of hospitals reporting use of the products. The products were generally used in fewer than one procedure per month. Aminoglycosides and various cephalosporins were the antibiotics most commonly used; most have not been adequately studied for this use. Although nearly all the hospital pharmacies purchased antibiotics for these products, none mixed cement and only two premanufactured antibiotic beads. About one fourth of the hospitals surveyed reported using antibiotic-impregnated bone cement and cement beads, although the total number of patients being treated was small.