Prospective assessment of the frequency of and risk factors for bleeding events in patients treated with cefazolin.

PURPOSE: Major bleedings have been described with cefazolin. The objective was to determine the frequency of bleeding events in cefazolin-treated patients and to identify risk factors for these complications. METHODS: Monocenter prospective observational study of all consecutive cefazolin-treated patients. Patients benefited from a daily clinical assessment of bleedings and a twice-a-week blood sampling including hemostasis. Bleedings were classified according to the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis classification: major, clinically relevant non-major bleedings (CRNMB) and minor bleedings. RESULTS: From September 2019 to July 2020, 120 patients were included, with a mean age of 59.4 (± 20.7) years; 70% of them (84/120) were men. At least 1 CRNMB or major bleeding were observed in 10% of the patients (12/120). Compared to patients with no or minor bleeding, patients with CRNMB or major bleeding were, upon start of cefazolin, more frequently hospitalized in an intensive care unit (7/12, 58.3%, vs. 12/108, 11.1%, P < 0.001, respectively) and receiving vitamin K antagonists (4/12, 33.3%, vs. 8/108, 7.4%, P = 0.019, respectively). After multivariate analysis, patients receiving vitamin K antagonists the day prior bleeding and/or treated for endocarditis were factors associated with an increased risk of CRNMB or major bleeding (odd ratio 1.36, confidence interval 95%, 1.06-1.76, P = 0.020 and 1.30, 1.06-1.61, P = 0.015, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Bleeding events associated with cefazolin treatment are frequent. Close clinical monitoring should be performed for patients treated for endocarditis and/or receiving vitamin K antagonists. Hemostasis work-up could be restricted to these patients.

Overview of the current use of levosimendan in France: a prospective observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Following the results of randomized controlled trials on levosimendan, French health authorities requested an update of the current use and side-effects of this medication on a national scale. METHOD: The France-LEVO registry was a prospective observational cohort study reflecting the indications, dosing regimens, and side-effects of levosimendan, as well as patient outcomes over a year. RESULTS: The patients included (n = 602) represented 29.6% of the national yearly use of levosimendan in France. They were treated for cardiogenic shock (n = 250, 41.5%), decompensated heart failure (n = 127, 21.1%), cardiac surgery-related low cardiac output prophylaxis and/or treatment (n = 86, 14.3%), and weaning from veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (n = 82, 13.6%). They received 0.18 ± 0.07 µg/kg/min levosimendan over 26 ± 8 h. An initial bolus was administered in 45 patients (7.5%), 103 (17.1%) received repeated infusions, and 461 (76.6%) received inotropes and or vasoactive agents concomitantly. Hypotension was reported in 218 patients (36.2%), atrial fibrillation in 85 (14.1%), and serious adverse events in 17 (2.8%). 136 patients (22.6%) died in hospital, and 26 (4.3%) during the 90-day follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: We observed that levosimendan was used in accordance with recent recommendations by French physicians. Hypotension and atrial fibrillation remained the most frequent side-effects, while serious adverse event potentially attributable to levosimendan were infrequent. The results suggest that this medication was safe and potentially associated with some benefit in the population studied.

Prophylactic levosimendan in patients with low ejection fraction undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting: A pooled analysis of two multicentre randomised controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of preoperative levosimendan on mortality at day 90 in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 40%, and to investigate a possible differential effect between patients undergoing isolated coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) versus CABG combined with valve replacement surgery. DESIGN: Pooled analysis of two multicentre randomised controlled trials (RCT) investigating prophylactic levosimendan versus placebo prior to CABG surgery on mortality at day 90 in patients with LVEF ≤ 40%. A meta-analysis of all RCT investigating the same issue was also conducted. RESULTS: A cohort of 1084 patients (809 isolated CABG, and 275 combined surgery) resulted from the merging of LEVO-CTS and LICORN databases. Seventy-two patients were dead at day 90. The mortality at day 90 was not different between levosimendan and placebo (Hazard Ratio (HR): 0.73, 95% CI: 0.41-1.28, p = 0.27). However, there was a significant interaction between the type of surgery and the study drug (p = 0.004). We observed a decrease in mortality at day 90 in the isolated CABG subgroup (HR: 0.39, 95% CI: 0.19-0.82, p = 0.013), but not in the combined surgery subgroup (HR: 1.73, 95% CI: 0.77-3.92, p = 0.19). The meta-analysis of 6 RCT involving 1441 patients confirmed the differential effect on mortality at day 30 between the 2 subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative levosimendan did not reduce mortality in a mixed surgical population with LV dysfunction. However, the subgroup of patients undergoing isolated CABG had a reduction in mortality at day 90, whereas there was no significant effect in combined surgery patients. This finding requires confirmation with a specific prospective trial.

Effect of Levosimendan on Low Cardiac Output Syndrome in Patients With Low Ejection Fraction Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting With Cardiopulmonary Bypass: The LICORN Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Low cardiac output syndrome after cardiac surgery is associated with high morbidity and mortality in patients with impaired left ventricular function. Objective: To assess the ability of preoperative levosimendan to prevent postoperative low cardiac output syndrome. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted in 13 French cardiac surgical centers. Patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction less than or equal to 40% and scheduled for isolated or combined coronary artery bypass grafting with cardiopulmonary bypass were enrolled from June 2013 until May 2015 and followed during 6 months (last follow-up, November 30, 2015). Interventions: Patients were assigned to a 24-hour infusion of levosimendan 0.1 µg/kg/min (n = 167) or placebo (n = 168) initiated after anesthetic induction. Main Outcomes and Measures: Composite end point reflecting low cardiac output syndrome with need for a catecholamine infusion 48 hours after study drug initiation, need for a left ventricular mechanical assist device or failure to wean from it at 96 hours after study drug initiation when the device was inserted preoperatively, or need for renal replacement therapy at any time postoperatively. It was hypothesized that levosimendan would reduce the incidence of this composite end point by 15% in comparison with placebo. Results: Among 336 randomized patients (mean age, 68 years; 16% women), 333 completed the trial. The primary end point occurred in 87 patients (52%) in the levosimendan group and 101 patients (61%) in the placebo group (absolute risk difference taking into account center effect, -7% [95% CI, -17% to 3%]; P = .15). Predefined subgroup analyses found no interaction with ejection fraction less than 30%, type of surgery, and preoperative use of ß-blockers, intra-aortic balloon pump, or catecholamines. The prevalence of hypotension (57% vs 48%), atrial fibrillation (50% vs 40%), and other adverse events did not significantly differ between levosimendan and placebo. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with low ejection fraction who were undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting with cardiopulmonary bypass, levosimendan compared with placebo did not result in a significant difference in the composite end point of prolonged catecholamine infusion, use of left ventricular mechanical assist device, or renal replacement therapy. These findings do not support the use of levosimendan for this indication. Trial Registration: EudraCT Number: 2012-000232-25; clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02184819.

Rationale and design of the multicenter randomized trial investigating the effects of levosimendan pretreatment in patients with low ejection fraction (≤40 %) undergoing CABG with cardiopulmonary bypass (LICORN study).

BACKGROUND: Patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of less than 40 % are at high risk of developing postoperative low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS). Despite actual treatments (inotropic agents and/or mechanical assist devices), the mortality rate of such patients remains very high (13 to 24 %). The LICORN trial aims at assessing the efficacy of a preoperative infusion of levosimendan in reducing postoperative LCOS in patients with poor LVEF undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). METHODS/DESIGN: LICORN study is a multicenter, randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in parallel groups. 340 patients with LVEF ≤40 %, undergoing CABG will be recruited from 13 French hospitals. The study drug will be started after anaesthesia induction and infused over 24 h (0.1 µg/kg/min). The primary outcome (postoperative LCOS) is evaluated using a composite criterion composed of: 1) need for inotropic agents beyond 24 h following discontinuation of the study drug; 2) need for post-operative mechanical assist devices or failure to wean from these techniques when inserted pre-operatively; 3) need for renal replacement therapy. Secondary outcomes include: 1) mortality at Day 28 and Day 180; 2) each item of the composite criterion of the primary outcome; 3) the number of "ventilator-free" days and "out of intensive care unit" days at Day 28. DISCUSSION: The usefulness of levosimendan in the perioperative period has not yet been documented with a high level of evidence. The LICORN study is the first randomized controlled trial evaluating the clinical value of preoperative levosimendan in high risk cardiac surgical patients undergoing CABG. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02184819 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Cost-effectiveness modelling of percutaneous coronary interventions in stable coronary artery disease.

The objective of this study is to develop a cost-effectiveness model comparing drug eluting stents (DES) vs bare metal stent (BMS) in patients suffering of stable coronary artery disease. Using a 2-years time horizon, two simulation models have been developed: BMS first line strategy and DES first line strategy. Direct medical costs were estimated considering ambulatory and hospital costs. The effectiveness endpoint was defined as treatment success, which is the absence of major adverse cardiac events. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were carried out using 10000 Monte-Carlo simulations. DES appeared slightly more efficacious over 2 years (60% of success) when compared to BMS (58% of success). Total costs over 2 years were estimated at 9303 € for the DES and at 8926 € for bare metal stent. Hence, corresponding mean cost-effectiveness ratios showed slightly lower costs (P < 0.05) per success for the BMS strategy (15520 €/success), as compared to the DES strategy (15588 €/success). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is 18850 € for one additional percent of success. The sequential strategy including BMS as the first option appears to be slightly less efficacious but more cost-effective compared to the strategy including DES as first option. Future modelling approaches should confirm these results as further comparative data in stable coronary artery disease and long-term evidence become available.

Annual cost of stable coronary artery disease in France: A modeling study.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have analyzed the cost of treatment of chronic angina pectoris, especially in European countries. AIM: To determine, using a modeling approach, the cost of care in 2012 for 1year of treatment of patients with stable angina, according to four therapeutic options: optimal medical therapy (OMT); percutaneous coronary intervention with bare-metal stent (PCI-BMS); PCI with drug-eluting stent (PCI-DES); and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG). METHODS: Six different clinical scenarios that could occur over 1year were defined: clinical success; recurrence of symptoms without hospitalization; myocardial infarction (MI); subsequent revascularization; death from non-cardiac cause; and cardiac death. The probability of a patient being in one of the six clinical scenarios, according to the therapeutic options used, was determined from a literature search. A direct medical cost for each of the therapeutic options was calculated from the perspective of French statutory health insurance. RESULTS: The annual costs per patient for each strategy, according to their efficacy results, were, in our models, €1567 with OMT, €5908 with PCI-BMS, €6623 with PCI-DES and €16,612 with CABG. These costs were significantly different (P<0.05). A part of these costs was related to management of complications (recurrence of symptoms, MI and death) during the year (between 3% and 38% depending on the therapeutic options studied); this part of the expenditure was lowest with the CABG therapeutic option. CONCLUSION: OMT appears to be the least costly option, and, if reasonable from a clinical point of view, might achieve appreciable savings in health expenditure.

Dramatic reduction of clindamycin serum concentration in staphylococcal osteoarticular infection patients treated with the oral clindamycin-rifampicin combination.

OBJECTIVES: Pharmacokinetics of clindamycin in combination with rifampicin or levofloxacin were prospectively evaluated for the oral treatment of severe staphylococcal osteo articular infections. METHODS: Thirty-four patients (25 males, 9 females), with a mean age of 52.4 ± 17 years (range, 24-81 years), were randomly assigned either to the clindamycin-rifampicin or to the clindamycin-levofloxacin arm (control), following surgical debridement and intravenous adapted treatment. Trough and peak serum concentrations of clindamycin were measured at day-1 (D1), D15 and D30 of oral treatment. Cure was evaluated at a minimum of one year after the initiation of treatment. RESULTS: The oral treatment was interrupted in 4 cases because of adverse events. Mean trough and peak serum concentrations of clindamycin in the clindamycin-rifampicin arm were lower than in the clindamycin-levofloxacin arm during the time of oral antibiotic regimen (0.79 ± 0.3 µg/ml vs 4.7 ± 1.2 µg/ml, p < 0.001, and 3.48 ± 1.1 µg/ml vs 10.2 ± 1.8 µg/ml, p < 0.001, respectively). A consistent decrease in clindamycin serum concentration was observed at each time-point of follow-up. At a mean of 23 ± 7.8 months (range, 12-47 months), 24 patients were available for clinical evaluation. No difference could be detected in the cure rates between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate a significant influence of rifampicin on clindamycin pharmacokinetics using the oral route. Clindamycin serum concentrations (trough and peak) were systematically below the recommended therapeutic ranges when associated with rifampicin, as opposed to the control. Considering the potential risk of selection of mutant resistant to clindamycin, we do not recommend the clindamycin-rifampicin combination in the oral treatment of severe staphylococcal osteoarticular infection, unless clindamycin serum concentration is thoroughly controlled. The study has been registered on the clinicaltrials.gov website under the number NCT 01500837.

A simulation study of the interception of prescribing errors by clinical pharmacists in an acute hospital setting.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the performance of several pharmacists in the same department who analysed the same prescriptions in a simulation study. METHODS: One hundred prescriptions were retrospectively extracted from the prospective database of our hospital. Five clinical pharmacists working in the same department were asked to analyse individually the order lines of each prescription as if it were part of their routine daily practice. Afterward, an independent committee of five other clinical pharmacists reviewed the same 100 prescriptions. We calculated the sensitivity and the specificity of error detection in a line order by using the results of the committee as the gold standard. RESULTS: A total of 908 order lines were analysed (mean 9 ± 3 order lines per prescription). Fifty-one medication errors were identified by the committee (5.6%), including 23 related to laboratory test results: renal failure, or therapeutic concentrations being too low or too high. The sensitivity of the five pharmacists ranged between 19.6% and 56.9% and the specificity between 92.8% and 98.7%. The rates of agreement between each pharmacist and the committee, assessed using kappa coefficient, were between 0.20 and 0.39. The main factors affecting sensitivity and/or specificity in univariate analysis were the number of drugs per prescription, type of drug prescribed (ATC classification) and the glomerular filtration rate. CONCLUSION: Discrepancies between the performances of pharmacists exist, as there are between other health care professionals. Pharmacist training, standardization of the pharmaceutical analysis of drug prescription, and implementation of a clinical decision support system allowing biological values to be linked to drug prescriptions could improve individual performance.

Treatment for stable coronary artery disease: a network meta-analysis of cost-effectiveness studies.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Numerous studies have assessed cost-effectiveness of different treatment modalities for stable angina. Direct comparisons, however, are uncommon. We therefore set out to compare the efficacy and mean cost per patient after 1 and 3 years of follow-up, of the following treatments as assessed in randomized controlled trials (RCT): medical therapy (MT), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) without stent (PTCA), with bare-metal stent (BMS), with drug-eluting stent (DES), and elective coronary artery bypass graft (CABG). METHODS: RCT comparing at least two of the five treatments and reporting clinical and cost data were identified by a systematic search. Clinical end-points were mortality and myocardial infarction (MI). The costs described in the different trials were standardized and expressed in US $ 2008, based on purchasing power parity. A network meta-analysis was used to compare costs. RESULTS: Fifteen RCT were selected. Mortality and MI rates were similar in the five treatment groups both for 1-year and 3-year follow-up. Weighted cost per patient however differed markedly for the five treatment modalities, at both one year and three years (P<0.0001). MT was the least expensive treatment modality: US $3069 and 13 864 after one and three years of follow-up, while CABG was the most costly: US $27 003 and 28 670 after one and three years. PCI, whether with plain balloon, BMS or DES came in between, but was closer to the costs of CABG. CONCLUSIONS: Appreciable savings in health expenditures can be achieved by using MT in the management of patients with stable angina.

Drug administration errors in hospital inpatients: a systematic review.

CONTEXT: Drug administration in the hospital setting is the last barrier before a possible error reaches the patient. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to analyze the prevalence and nature of administration error rate detected by the observation method. DATA SOURCES: Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library from 1966 to December 2011 and reference lists of included studies. STUDY SELECTION: Observational studies, cross-sectional studies, before-and-after studies, and randomized controlled trials that measured the rate of administration errors in inpatients were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers (senior pharmacists) independently identified studies for inclusion. One reviewer extracted the data; the second reviewer checked the data. The main outcome was the error rate calculated as being the number of errors without wrong time errors divided by the Total Opportunity for Errors (TOE, sum of the total number of doses ordered plus the unordered doses given), and multiplied by 100. For studies that reported it, clinical impact was reclassified into four categories from fatal to minor or no impact. Due to a large heterogeneity, results were expressed as median values (interquartile range, IQR), according to their study design. RESULTS: Among 2088 studies, a total of 52 reported TOE. Most of the studies were cross-sectional studies (N=46). The median error rate without wrong time errors for the cross-sectional studies using TOE was 10.5% [IQR: 7.3%-21.7%]. No fatal error was observed and most errors were classified as minor in the 18 studies in which clinical impact was analyzed. We did not find any evidence of publication bias. CONCLUSIONS: Administration errors are frequent among inpatients. The median error rate without wrong time errors for the cross-sectional studies using TOE was about 10%. A standardization of administration error rate using the same denominator (TOE), numerator and types of errors is essential for further publications.

Information about medication in HIV-infected patients and its relation to adherence.

QUESTIONS UNDER STUDY: In HIV-infected patients, comprehension of medication instructions is an essential condition for adherence to Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy (HAART). In this study, we used a self-reported questionnaire to know which sources of medication information HIV-infected patients used and their impact on adherence. In secondary objectives, we determined profiles of non-adherent patients and specified the role of the pharmacist. METHODS: A cross-sectional, observational study was conducted in one community pharmacy and one French university hospital pharmacy, in HAART-naïve or not patients, from April to June 2009. RESULTS: During the 3-month study period, 233 HIV-infected patients were included. The majority of patients sought information about their HAART treatments from the hospital physician (79.8%), the community physician (74.2%), and patient information leaflets (73.8%). The community and hospital pharmacists were consulted by respectively 16.3% and 3.4% of patients. According to multivariate regression analysis, adherence seemed to be associated with the sources of information "community physician", "hospital physician", "internet", and the potential support of patient associations. A total of 65.7% of patients were considered to be adherent. CONCLUSIONS: In our study, among sources used by HIV-infected outpatients, their physicians are the most helpful sources of information about HAART. Regarding practice implications, the key role of the pharmacist is underutilised, indicating the need for improved communication between the pharmacist and outpatients.

A clinical data warehouse-based process for refining medication orders alerts.

The objective of this case report is to evaluate the use of a clinical data warehouse coupled with a clinical information system to test and refine alerts for medication orders control before they were fully implemented. A clinical decision rule refinement process was used to assess alerts. The criteria assessed were the frequencies of alerts for initial prescriptions of 10 medications whose dosage levels depend on renal function thresholds. In the first iteration of the process, the frequency of the 'exceeds maximum daily dose' alerts was 7.10% (617/8692), while that of the 'under dose' alerts was 3.14% (273/8692). Indicators were presented to the experts. During the different iterations of the process, 45 (16.07%) decision rules were removed, 105 (37.5%) were changed and 136 new rules were introduced. Extensive retrospective analysis of physicians' medication orders stored in a clinical data warehouse facilitates alert optimization toward the goal of maximizing the safety of the patient and minimizing overridden alerts.

Evaluation of drug administration errors in a teaching hospital.

BACKGROUND: Medication errors can occur at any of the three steps of the medication use process: prescribing, dispensing and administration. We aimed to determine the incidence, type and clinical importance of drug administration errors and to identify risk factors. METHODS: Prospective study based on disguised observation technique in four wards in a teaching hospital in Paris, France (800 beds). A pharmacist accompanied nurses and witnessed the preparation and administration of drugs to all patients during the three drug rounds on each of six days per ward. Main outcomes were number, type and clinical importance of errors and associated risk factors. Drug administration error rate was calculated with and without wrong time errors. Relationship between the occurrence of errors and potential risk factors were investigated using logistic regression models with random effects. RESULTS: Twenty-eight nurses caring for 108 patients were observed. Among 1501 opportunities for error, 415 administrations (430 errors) with one or more errors were detected (27.6%). There were 312 wrong time errors, ten simultaneously with another type of error, resulting in an error rate without wrong time error of 7.5% (113/1501). The most frequently administered drugs were the cardiovascular drugs (425/1501, 28.3%). The highest risks of error in a drug administration were for dermatological drugs. No potentially life-threatening errors were witnessed and 6% of errors were classified as having a serious or significant impact on patients (mainly omission). In multivariate analysis, the occurrence of errors was associated with drug administration route, drug classification (ATC) and the number of patient under the nurse's care. CONCLUSION: Medication administration errors are frequent. The identification of its determinants helps to undertake designed interventions.

Knowledge of oral drug treatment in immunocompromised patients on hospital discharge.

PRINCIPLES: Several studies have shown that patients' inappropriate knowledge about their medication is associated with non-adherence. The aim of this study was to assess immunocompromised inpatient knowledge of their oral drug treatment on discharge. METHODS: We conducted a single-centre, prospective, cross-sectional study from July to November 2008 in the Immunology unit of a university-based hospital. Knowledge of all oral prescribed medication was assessed before discharge of immunocompromised inpatients using a self-administered questionnaire, assessing drug name, dosage, indication and administration guidelines. Prescribed drugs were classified as treatments for chronic disease, or as adjuvant treatments which were differentiated regarding their link with the chronic disease. RESULTS: Over four months, 17 transplant recipients and 38 HIV-infected patients were included. Overall, 57% of the 497 prescribed drugs were adequately known. The proportions of drugs adequately known were 79%, 91%, 81% and 62% respectively for the drug name, dosage, indication and administration guideline components. Drugs for the treatment of chronic disease were more adequately known than adjuvant treatments. Older age and a low educational level were significantly associated with poor knowledge of drugs. CONCLUSIONS: Immunocompromised patients demonstrated moderate to good knowledge of oral drugs on discharge. Adjuvant treatments were less well known than drugs for the treatment of chronic disease. Some recommendations for interventions aimed at utilising the skills of clinical pharmacists are needed. Efforts which encourage patients to be active participants in their own treatment could improve therapeutic adherence and reduce potential complications.

Substitution of corticosteroid with everolimus after lung transplantation: a pediatric case report.

We report the case of a 12 year-old lung transplant recipient, in whom compressive epidural lipomatosis secondary to corticosteroid prompted us to replace prednisone with everolimus. Discontinuing corticosteroid treatment after lung transplantation is associated with a risk of graft rejection despite concomitant immunosuppressive therapy with tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil. During a follow-up of 18 months with everolimus instead of prednisone, we did not observe graft rejection. In parallel, all symptoms related to epidural compression disappeared within a month.