Low Dose Aspirin Initiation 18 Hours After Thrombolytic Therapy in Acute Ischemic Stroke.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the safety of administering low-dose aspirin (81 mg) 18 hours after intravenous thrombolytic therapy. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort investigation. Individuals received either alteplase or tenecteplase for acute ischemic stroke followed by aspirin 81 mg (after follow-up imaging). An institutional change moved follow-up post-thrombolytic CT scans to 18 hours, and qualifying patients were grouped based on whether they received aspirin ≤24 hours or >24 hours. Chart reviews were conducted to assess the primary outcome of new or worsening intracranial hemorrhage, as well as secondary outcomes of change in stroke scale scores at discharge and 3 months, lengths of stay, favorable outcomes at 3 months, hospital readmission, and mortality. RESULTS: Out of 350 patients screened, 130 qualified for inclusion-50 of whom received aspirin ≤24 hours (mean 21.1 hours, SD±6.2), and 80 who received aspirin >24 hours (mean 34 hours, SD±8.2). Only 1 new intracranial bleed occurred following aspirin administration in the >24-hour group. No statistically significant differences were observed in any of the secondary outcomes, although there was higher mortality (3/50 vs. 2/80, P=0.372) and shorter hospital length of stay (median difference -1.0 day, P=0.0336) in the <24 hours group. CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose aspirin administration sooner than 24 hours following thrombolytic therapy did not increase bleeding events. Sooner aspirin administration after ischemic stroke can potentially enhance the prevention of secondary embolization and did not demonstrate worse clinical outcomes; however, further randomized controlled trials are needed.

Guidelines for Seizure Prophylaxis in Adults Hospitalized with Moderate-Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: A Clinical Practice Guideline for Health Care Professionals from the Neurocritical Care Society.

BACKGROUND: There is practice heterogeneity in the use, type, and duration of prophylactic antiseizure medications (ASMs) in patients with moderate-severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of articles assessing ASM prophylaxis in adults with moderate-severe TBI (acute radiographic findings and requiring hospitalization). The population, intervention, comparator, and outcome (PICO) questions were as follows: (1) Should ASM versus no ASM be used in patients with moderate-severe TBI and no history of clinical or electrographic seizures? (2) If an ASM is used, should levetiracetam (LEV) or phenytoin/fosphenytoin (PHT/fPHT) be preferentially used? (3) If an ASM is used, should a long versus short (> 7 vs. ≤ 7 days) duration of prophylaxis be used? The main outcomes were early seizure, late seizure, adverse events, mortality, and functional outcomes. We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to generate recommendations. RESULTS: The initial literature search yielded 1998 articles, of which 33 formed the basis of the recommendations: PICO 1: We did not detect any significant positive or negative effect of ASM compared to no ASM on the outcomes of early seizure, late seizure, adverse events, or mortality. PICO 2: We did not detect any significant positive or negative effect of PHT/fPHT compared to LEV for early seizures or mortality, though point estimates suggest fewer late seizures and fewer adverse events with LEV. PICO 3: There were no significant differences in early or late seizures with longer versus shorter ASM use, though cognitive outcomes and adverse events appear worse with protracted use. CONCLUSIONS: Based on GRADE criteria, we suggest that ASM or no ASM may be used in patients hospitalized with moderate-severe TBI (weak recommendation, low quality of evidence). If used, we suggest LEV over PHT/fPHT (weak recommendation, very low quality of evidence) for a short duration (≤ 7 days, weak recommendation, low quality of evidence).

Quo vadis? from disaster management to building community resiliency: Medical reserve corps and their unique potential.

Background: Medical Reserve Corps (MRC) in the U.S. provide an approach to organize and incorporate trained public health and medical professionals and supplement the current public health workforce. During the COVID-19 pandemic, MRCs provided immunizations, educated the general public, and assisted with community screening and testing. Reports of MRC activities are publicly available; however, their challenges are not well discussed. Therefore, this exploratory study aimed to identify some challenges that MRC units faced during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: This cross-sectional pilot study aimed to address the composition, recruitment, and training of MRC volunteers and their responses during the pandemic. The survey consisted of 18 close-ended questions across 3 domains: (1) structure and designation of the MRC unit, (2) recruitment and training opportunities for volunteers; (3) demographics; and 2 open-ended questions. Results: A total of 568 units across 23 states were invited to participate in this exploratory study with only 29 units completing the survey. Out of 29 respondents, 72% were female and 28% male, 45% were nurses, 10% were physicians, and 5% were pharmacists. Retired members were reported in 58% of MRC units, while 62% reported members being active professionals. Qualitative analysis revealed two themes - Obstacles faced by MRC units and Interdisciplinary Composition. Conclusions: In this exploratory pilot study, we identified the challenges of MRC units during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our findings indicated variation in composition and type of volunteers at different MRC units that may be considered in planning for future disasters and emergencies.

Continued Relevance of Initial Temperature Measurement in Trauma Patients.

OBJECTIVES: Hypothermia occurs in 30-50% of severely injured trauma patients and is associated with multiple metabolic derangements and worsened outcomes. However, hypothermia continues to be under-diagnosed which leads to inadequate triage and treatment in trauma patients. Our study set out to determine if hypothermia is an independent predictor of mortality in trauma patients. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed data of all trauma activation patients over a 5-year period. Data were collected on patient demographics, initial core temperature, Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) on presentation, and injury severity score (ISS). Patients were then stratified into groups based on presenting temperature, ISS, and GCS. Outcomes compared were mortality, blood products received, and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay. Correlations and logistic regression were used to test the hypotheses. RESULTS: Survival and temperature data were reviewed on 15,567 patients. Initial temperature was not significantly associated with ICU length of stay or blood products transfused (P = .21 and P = .08, respectively). However, odds ratio of mortality in hypothermic patients (<35°C) compared to normothermic patients (35-39°C) was 3.95 (95% CI 2.90-5.41). When controlling for GCS and ISS, separately, temperature remained an independent predictor of mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Hypothermia is an independent risk factor for mortality in trauma patients. It remains crucial to obtain accurate presenting temperatures in trauma patients in order to triage and treat hypothermia. Based on our data, obtaining core temperatures and rapidly treating hypothermia continues to be a vital part of the secondary survey of trauma patients.

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.