A Retrospective Analysis of Intravenous Insulin versus Insulin and Nebulized Albuterol for the Treatment of Hyperkalemia in the Emergency Department.

There is limited literature evaluating the use of nebulized albuterol in the management of hyperkalemia. The objective was to evaluate the efficacy of insulin alone compared with the addition of nebulized albuterol for the treatment of hyperkalemia. This is a retrospective, single-center evaluation of adult patients with hyperkalemia attending the Emergency Department of a large urban academic medical center. Consecutive patients with a potassium level of >5 mmol/L were included. Patients without a repeat potassium level within 4 hours of medication administration, those receiving hemodialysis before a repeat serum potassium, or those that had a hemolyzed blood sample were excluded. The primary outcome was the change in potassium level within 4 hours in patients who received insulin monotherapy versus patients who received insulin and albuterol. The secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and mortality. Out of the 204 patients, 141 received insulin, whereas 63 received insulin and nebulized albuterol. There was no difference in the change in potassium level between the insulin and the insulin and nebulized albuterol groups (0.85 ± 0.6 vs 0.96 ± 0.78 mmol/L; P = .36). There was no difference in median hospital length of stay (8.6 days, IQR 13.2 days, vs 5.6 days, IQR 8.2 days; P = .09), ICU admission (31.9% vs 38.1%; P = .39), and all-cause mortality (14.9% vs 17.5%; P = .64). In this retrospective analysis, the addition of albuterol to insulin for the treatment of hyperkalemia did not result in a greater change in potassium level within 4 hours of therapy.

A systematic review of second line therapies in toxic seizures.

BACKGROUND: Seizures are a common manifestation of toxic exposures requiring immediate and possibly ongoing management. Guidelines recommend benzodiazepines as first-line therapy for toxic seizures; however, there is a paucity of literature regarding optimal secondary treatment. We systematically evaluated the available literature for second-line treatment of toxic seizures. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, PsychINFO, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts from inception through August of 2018, following PRISMA Guideline. The MESH terms focused on identifying treatments for seizures induced by drugs or other potentially toxic substances. We excluded the articles if they involved animals, had seizures resulting from alcohol withdrawal, were case reports, or not peer-reviewed. Our primary outcome was seizure termination and/or suppression by the second-line agent as agreed upon by two authors. We used descriptive statistics for analysis. RESULTS: We identified six case series that met inclusion and exclusion criteria. Included case series contained nine to 235 patient cases each. The most common xenobiotic exposures were bupropion, isoniazid, and anti-psychotics. The description of seizure type and duration was diverse. First-line treatments were primarily benzodiazepines. Secondary treatments included propofol, barbiturates, phenytoin, valproic acid, and levetiracetam. Patient outcomes differed, attributable to any of the following: mixed toxic substances, drug-drug interactions, inability to control seizures, or toxicity of the anti-epileptic drugs (AED) themselves. Few cases specifically discussed the success of secondary treatment administration to suppress or terminate seizures. CONCLUSIONS: Available literature discussing second-line treatment for toxic seizures is of poor quality with high heterogeneity. Although the majority of articles used similar second-line agents, it is difficult to compare the efficacy of the regimens. Additional studies are necessary to identify the most efficacious second-line therapies in toxic seizures.

Extended thromboprophylaxis in the acutely ill medical patient after hospitalization - a paradigm shift in post-discharge thromboprophylaxis.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a significant healthcare burden with approximately 900,000 events annually in the United States, over half of which are healthcare-associated. This number is anticipated to double by 2050. Group prophylaxis strategies confined to the inpatient setting appear to have minimal impact on the reduction of post-discharge VTE in medically ill patients due to shortened lengths of stay and a heterogenous population that includes patients at low risk for VTE. In accordance with current guideline recommendations, very few (<5%) medically ill patients are discharged with extended prophylaxis, which potentially creates a clinical gap for at-risk patients as VTE risk has been shown to persist for up to 90 days. Initial studies of extended thromboprophylaxis in acutely ill medical patients with enoxaparin, rivaroxaban and apixaban showed little to no benefit towards VTE reduction that was consistently outweighed by increased bleeding. The more recent APEX study that compared betrixaban to enoxaparin in an enriched patient population at high-risk for VTE was the first study of extended thromboprophylaxis that showed similar efficacy in VTE prevention without an increase in major bleeding. Based on the APEX results, betrixaban recently gained FDA approval for extended thromboprophylaxis in acutely ill medical patients. Recognition that up to half of medically ill patients are not at sufficient risk to warrant thromboprophylaxis has driven extensive research towards development of scientifically derived and validated VTE risk assessment models intended to identify patients who do not warrant prophylaxis, as well as those at high risk who may derive benefit from extended thromboprophylaxis. This article will review prior and ongoing extended thromboprophylaxis studies, VTE and bleed risk assessment models, incorporation of biomarkers in VTE risk assessment and key issues in the paradigm shift towards individualized VTE prophylaxis in acutely ill medical patients.