International pharmacy survey of peripheral vasopressor infusions in critical care (INFUSE).

PURPOSE: The primary objective was to determine the proportion of hospitals that administered norepinephrine peripheral vasopressor infusions (PVIs) in critically ill adult patients. Secondary objectives were to describe how norepinephrine is used such as the maximum duration, infusion rate and concentration, and to determine the most common first-line PVI used by country. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An international multi-centre cross-sectional survey study was conducted in adult intensive care units in Australia, US, UK, Canada, and Saudi Arabia. RESULTS: Critical care pharmacists from 132 institutions responded to the survey. Norepinephrine PVIs were utilised in 86% of institutions (n = 113/132). The median maximum duration of norepinephrine PVIs was 24 h (IQR 24-24) (n = 57/113). The most common maximum norepinephrine PVI rate was between 11 and 20 µg/min (n = 16/113). The most common maximum norepinephrine PVI concentration was 16 µg/mL (n = 60/113). Half of the institutions had a preference to administer another PVI over norepinephrine as a first-line agent (n = 66/132). The most common alternative PVI used by country was: US (phenylephrine 41%, n = 37/90), Canada (dopamine 31%, n = 5/16), UK (metaraminol 82%, n = 9/11), and Australia (metaraminol 89%, n = 8/9). CONCLUSIONS: There is variability in clinical practice regarding PVI administration in critically ill adult patients dependent on drug availability and local institutional recommendations.

Comparison of metaraminol versus no metaraminol on time to resolution of shock in critically ill patients.

OBJECTIVE: There is limited evidence to support metaraminol use in critically ill patients. Metaraminol is not included as a vasopressor choice in international guidelines for the management of shock. Nevertheless, metaraminol is used in rates up to 42% in this patient population. The objective of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of metaraminol for the treatment of critically ill patients with shock. METHODS: A single-centre retrospective matched observational study was conducted in a 54-bed intensive care unit of a tertiary hospital. Patients aged 16 years or older who were admitted from 2017 to 2019 with shock were included. Patients treated with metaraminol and norepinephrine (MET-NOR) were compared with those treated with norepinephrine without metaraminol (NOR). The primary outcome was the time to resolution of shock defined as the time to cessation of vasopressors. The secondary outcome was vasopressor-free days until 28 days. RESULTS: There were 286 patients included in this study, including 143 patients in each group. The median time to resolution of shock was 44 hours (IQR 28-66 hours) in the MET-NOR group compared with 27 hours (IQR 14-63 hours) in the NOR group (95% CI of median difference 7 to 19 hours; p<0.01). The Cox regression analysis for the time to resolution of shock showed no significant difference between groups (HR 1.24, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.60; p=0.10). However, the proportional hazards assumption was not met (p<0.01). The median number of vasopressor-free days until 28 days was 26 days (IQR 24-27 days) in the MET-NOR group compared with 27 days (IQR 25-27 days) in the NOR group (95% CI of median difference -0.8 to -0.1 day; p<0.01). CONCLUSION: In critically ill patients, metaraminol may be associated with a longer time to resolution of shock compared with those who do not receive metaraminol.

Dose equivalence between metaraminol and norepinephrine in critical care.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to determine the conversion dose ratio between continuous infusion metaraminol and norepinephrine in critically ill patients with shock. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted in adult patients with shock admitted to an intensive care unit from 29 October 2018 to 30 October 2019 and who transitioned from metaraminol monotherapy to norepinephrine monotherapy. Mean arterial pressure (MAP) and infusion doses for both drugs were collected at hourly intervals; 2 hours before to 5 hours after switching from metaraminol monotherapy to norepinephrine monotherapy. The conversion dose ratio was defined as the ratio of metaraminol (µg.kg-1 .min-1) : norepinephrine (µg.kg-1 .min-1 ) required to achieve a similar MAP. RESULTS: A total of 43 out of 144 eligible patients were included. The median age was 68 years (IQR 56-76) and 22 (51%) were male. There was no significant difference between the baseline MAP during metaraminol monotherapy (median 71 mm Hg, IQR 66-76) and the post-transition MAP during norepinephrine monotherapy (median 70 mm Hg, IQR 66-73) (P = .09). The median conversion dose ratio between metaraminol and norepinephrine was 13 (IQR 7-24). In the sensitivity analyses, the median conversion dose ratio using the maximum and the mean norepinephrine infusion dose was 8 (IQR 5-16) and 12 (IQR 8-23), respectively. CONCLUSION: A conversion dose ratio of 10:1 (metaraminol µg.kg-1 .min-1 :norepinephrine µg.kg-1 .min-1 ) may be used in critically ill patients with shock to account for ease of calculations and variability of the conversion ratio in the primary and sensitivity analyses.

Medication safety improvements during care transitions in an Australian intensive care unit following implementation of an electronic medication management system.

BACKGROUND: For patients requiring admission to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU), transfers of care (TOC) during admission to and discharge from the ICU are particularly high-risk periods for medication errors. In the Australian setting, commonly general wards and the ICU do not share an integrated Electronic Medical ecord (EMR) and specifically an Electronic Medication Management System (EMMS) as part of the EMR. PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of a hospital wide integrated EMMS on medication error rates during ICU admission and at TOC. METHOD: A 6-month historical control study was performed before and after implementation of the EMMS in the ICU of a tertiary hospital. Prescribing errors detected by pharmacists in the study period were divided into phase 1, (pre-EMMS, 6months), phase 2 (3 months post implementation after shakedown stage) and phase 3 (next 3 months of post implementation). They were categorized as prescribing error types under system or clinical intervention. Chi square statistics and interrupted time series analysis were used to determine if there was significant change in the proportion of patients who had an error at TOC during each phase. Logistics regression was used to determine the relationship between the dependent (error type) and the independent variable (study phase) for errors that occurred during TOC. RESULTS: Errors occurred during TOC in 42 %, 64 % and 19 % of patients in phase 1, 2 and 3 respectively. There was a significant decline in the proportion of patients with an error between phase 1 and 3 (p < 0.01). During a patient's ICU admission, at least one medication error occurred in 28.3 %, 62.6 % and 25.1 % in phase 1, 2 and 3 respectively. Besides procedural errors, the likelihood of an error occurring was greatest in phase 1, compared to phase 2 and 3 across system-related error categories. CONCLUSION: Medication errors during TOC reduced following implementation of the integrated ICU EMMS. EMMS safety features facilitated reduced system related prescribing errors as well as the severity of errors made.