Emergency medicine pharmacist interventions reducing exposure to costs (EMPIRE-C).

INTRODUCTION: Emergency Medicine (EM) pharmacists are considered essential healthcare providers in the Emergency Department (ED). Limited data are available representing the types of interventions performed by ED pharmacists, especially in community-based health systems. METHODS: Retrospective, multi-centered, observational review of documented EM clinical pharmacist interventions into the electronic medical record (EMR) across five separate EDs between July 1, 2020 and June 30, 2021. Interventions were separated into three categories: ED Intervention, ED Outpatient Culture Review, and ED Discharge Antimicrobial Review. Interventions with supporting literature related to cost avoidance were also analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 23,794 interventions were logged by the EM pharmacy team between the three categories. Of those, 9181 were cost avoidance interventions resulting in $5,350,755.63 in total cost avoidance, or $582.81 per intervention. CONCLUSION: EM pharmacists practicing in community settings have a substantial impact on patients as evidenced by the large quantity and variety of interventions logged which also results in significant cost avoidance to the healthcare system.

Fixed-dose prothrombin complex concentrate for emergent warfarin reversal among patients with intracranial hemorrhage.

INTRODUCTION: Four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (4PCC) is the preferred reversal agent for warfarin reversal, although the ideal dose is unknown. Fixed-dose 4PCC offers simplified dosing compared to standard-dosing algorithms with potentially lower risks of thromboembolic complications given lower doses are typically utilized. METHODS: Retrospective, observational, multicentered, pre- post- study of patients who received 4PCC for warfarin reversal among four hospitals within the same regional health system. Standard-dose patients received variable doses ranging from 25 to 50 units/kg based on total body weight and initial INR and fixed-dose patients received 2000 units. The primary outcome was achievement of a target INR ≤ 1.4 on the first post-4PCC INR result. RESULTS: After exclusions, 48 and 42 patients were analyzed in the standard-dose and fixed-dose groups, respectively. There was no difference in the ability to achieve a target INR of ≤1.4 (82.6% vs 81.5%, p = 0.14). Both groups received the same median dose of 2000 units, although fixed-dose patients actually received a higher weight-based dose than standard-dose patients (27 units/kg vs 24.5 units/kg). CONCLUSION: A fixed-dose 4PCC regimen of 2000 units among patients with ICH was as effective as standard-dose 4PCC for INR reversal among patients with ICH. However, fixed-doses of 2000 units at times exceeded standard 4PCC doses which may be contradictory to the goals of fixed-dose 4PCC for warfarin reversal.

Comparison of 3 Different Prothrombin Complex Concentrate Regimens for Emergent Warfarin Reversal: PCCWaR Study.

BACKGROUND: The ideal dose and specific prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) for warfarin reversal is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the reduction in international normalized ratio (INR) of 3 different PCC dosing regimens: fixed-dose activated 4-factor PCC (aPCC), fixed-dose 4-factor PCC (4PCC), and standard-dose 4PCC. METHODS: This was a multicenter retrospective cohort review. Patients >18 years of age who received PCC for warfarin reversal between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2017, were screened for inclusion. Patients were excluded if they did not receive the correct PCC dosing regimen, received PCC for nonwarfarin bleeding, had a baseline INR less than 2, or received a massive transfusion protocol. Two institutions utilized aPCC dosed at 500 IU for INR <5 and 1000 IU for INR ≥5. Two institutions utilized fixed-dose 4PCC at 1500 to 2000 units depending on patient factors. Two institutions utilized 4PCC package insert dosing. The primary outcome was achievement of post-PCC target INR ≤1.4. Secondary outcomes included percentage change in INR, lowest 24-hour INR, and mortality. RESULTS: A total of 154 patients were included (fixed-dose aPCC: n = 29; fixed-dose 4PCC: n = 53; standard-dose 4PCC: n = 72). There was no statistical difference between groups in achieving the primary outcome (58.6% vs 69.8% vs 79.2%, respectively; P = 0.103) or any secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: There was no difference in the ability to achieve a post-PCC INR of ≤1.4 between 3 different PCC regimens for warfarin reversal. Additional research is warranted to determine the ideal dose and PCC agent for warfarin reversal.

Multi-centered evaluation of a novel fixed-dose four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate protocol for warfarin reversal.

INTRODUCTION: Previous studies have shown fixed-dose 4PCC to be as effective as standard-dose 4PCC for warfarin reversal. However, certain patient populations such as those with high total body weight (TBW) or elevated baseline INR may be at increased risk for treatment failure. The purpose of this study was to validate the efficacy of a novel fixed-dose 4PCC protocol for warfarin reversal. METHODS: This was a multi-centered observational comparison of patients who received 4PCC for warfarin reversal. Fixed-dose patients received 1500 units of 4PCC with the dose increased to 2000 units in patients with a baseline INR ≥ 7.5, a TBW ≥ 100 kg, or for intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). Standard-dosing followed manufacturer recommendations. The primary outcome was achievement of a post-4PCC INR of ≤1.4. Secondary outcomes included target INR achievement among patients with a baseline INR ≥ 7.5, a TBW ≥ 100 kg, or neurologic bleeding indications; hospital length of stay; cost of therapy; and thromboembolic complications. RESULTS: A total of 116 patients were included in the standard-dose group and 75 in the fixed-dose group. There was no difference in the primary outcome (65% vs 57%, p = 0.32). There was no difference in secondary outcomes aside from cost of therapy in which fixed-dose 4PCC was less expensive than standard-dose 4PCC. CONCLUSION: A fixed-dose 4PCC regimen for warfarin reversal of 1500 units, with an increased dose of 2000 units for select patients, is as effective as standard-dose 4PCC for INR reversal.

Hemodynamic Effects of Propofol for Induction of Rapid Sequence Intubation in Traumatically Injured Patients.

Present guidelines for emergency intubation in traumatically injured patients recommend rapid sequence intubation (RSI) as the preferred method of airway management but specific pharmacologic agents for RSI remain controversial. To evaluate hemodynamic differences between propofol and other induction agents when used for RSI in trauma patients. Single-center, retrospective review of trauma patients intubated in the emergency department. Patients were divided in two groups based on induction agent, propofol or nonpropofol. The primary outcome was incidence of hypotension within 30 minutes of intubation. Secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay and inhospital mortality. The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board. Of the 744 patients identified, 83 were analyzed, 43 in the propofol group and 40 in the nonpropofol group. Groups were similar at baseline in terms of pre-RSI hemodynamics, injury mechanism, initial Glasgow Coma Score, and Injury Severity Score. On univariate analysis, although not statistically significant, postintubation hypotension was more common in patients who received propofol compared with those who did not, 39.5 per cent versus 22.5 per cent (P = 0.9). When adjusted for age, Injury Severity Score, and pre-RSI hemodynamics, the risk of hypotension among propofol-treated patients was significantly higher (OR = 3.64; 95% Confidence interval 1.16-13.24). There were no significant differences between groups in hospital length of stay or mortality. Propofol increases the odds of postintubation hypotension in traumatically injured patients. Considerable caution should be used when contemplating the use of propofol the for induction of injured patients requiring RSI because other agents possess more favorable hemodynamic profiles.

Activated Prothrombin Complex Concentrate Versus 4-Factor Prothrombin Complex Concentrate for Vitamin K-Antagonist Reversal.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the international normalized ratio normalization efficacy of activated prothrombin complex concentrates and 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrates and to evaluate the thrombotic complications in patients treated with these products for warfarin-associated hemorrhage. DESIGN: Retrospective, Multicenter Cohort. SETTING: Large, Community, Teaching Hospital. PATIENTS: Patients greater than 18 years old and received either activated prothrombin complex concentrate or 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate for the treatment of warfarin-associated hemorrhage. We excluded those patients who received either agent for an indication other than warfarin-associated hemorrhage, pregnant, had a baseline international normalized ratio of less than 2, received a massive transfusion as defined by hospital protocol, received plasma for treatment of warfarin-associated hemorrhage, or were treated for an acute warfarin ingestion. INTERVENTIONS: Patients in the activated prothrombin complex concentrate group (enrolled from one hospital) with an international normalized ratio of less than 5 received 500 IU and those with an international normalized ratio greater than 5 received 1,000 IU. Patients in the 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (enrolled from a separate hospital) group received the Food and Drug Administration approved dosing algorithm. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 158 patients were included in the final analysis (activated prothrombin complex concentrate = 118; 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate = 40). Those in the 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate group had a higher pretreatment international normalized ratio (2.7 ± 1.8 vs 3.5 ± 2.9; p = 0.0164). However, the posttreatment international normalized ratio was similar between the groups. In addition, even when controlling for differences in the pretreatment international normalized ratio, there was no difference in the ability to achieve a posttreatment international normalized ratio of less than 1.4 (odds ratio, 0.753 [95% CI, 0.637-0.890]; p = 0.0009). Those in the activated prothrombin complex concentrate group did have higher odds of achieving a posttreatment international normalized ratio of less than 1.2 (odds ratio, 3.23 [95% CI, 1.34-7.81]; p = 0.0088). There was only one posttreatment thrombotic complication reported. CONCLUSIONS: A low, fixed dose of activated prothrombin complex concentrate was as effective as standard dose 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate for normalization of international normalized ratio. In addition, we did not see an increase in thrombotic events.