An Appraisal of Pharmacotherapy-Pertinent Literature Published in 2021 and 2022 for Clinicians Caring for Patients With Thermal or Inhalation Injury.

Studies focusing on pharmacotherapy interventions to aid patients after thermal injury are a minor focus in burn injury-centered studies and published across a wide array of journals, which challenges those with limited resources to keep their knowledge current. This review is a renewal of previous years' work to facilitate extraction and review of the most recent pharmacotherapy-centric studies in patients with thermal and inhalation injury. Twenty-three geographically dispersed, board-certified pharmacists participated in the review. A Medical Subject Heading-based, filtered search returned 2336 manuscripts over the previous 2-year period. After manual review, 98 (4%) manuscripts were determined to have a potential impact on current pharmacotherapy practice. The top 10 scored manuscripts are discussed. Only 17% of those reviewed were assessed to likely have little effect on current practice. The overall impact of the current cohort was higher than previous editions of this review, which is encouraging. There remains a need for investment in well-designed, high-impact, pharmacotherapy-pertinent research for patients sustaining thermal or inhalation injuries.

Vasopressin Initiation as a Second-Line VasoPressor in Early Septic Shock (VISPSS).

BACKGROUND: Vasopressin is recommended as a second-line vasoactive agent for the management of septic shock; however, a paucity of data to guide its optimal use remains. The aim was to evaluate the effect of time-to vasopressin initiation and norepinephrine (NE) dose at vasopressin initiation on clinical outcomes in patients presenting with septic shock. METHODS: This was a multi-centered, retrospective, observational study conducted in patients with septic shock. Patients were divided into 2 groups: patients initiated on vasopressin when NE-equivalent dose (NEE) < 0.25 mcg/kg/min or ≥ 0.25 mcg/kg/min. The primary outcome was time-to-vasopressor discontinuation (hours). Secondary outcomes included 28-day in-hospital mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), fluid balance after 72 hours, and the change in NEE at 12 hours. RESULTS: A total of 302 patients were included in this study. After propensity-score matching, 73 patients in each group were identified for analysis. There was no significant difference in the time-to-vasopressor discontinuation (hours) between the groups (88.8 [55-187.5] vs 86.7 [47-172]); p = 0.7815). Fluid balance (mL) at 72 hours was significantly lower when vasopressin was initiated at NEE < 0.25 mcg/kg/min (1769 [71-7287] vs 5762 [1463-8813]; p = 0.0077). A multivariable linear regression showed shorter time to shock resolution with earlier vasopressin initiation, defined as within 4 hours (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: In this propensity-score matched cohort, vasopressin initiation at NEE < 0.25 mcg/kg/min was not associated with shorter vasopressor duration. There was a lower fluid balance at 72 hours when vasopressin was initiated at lower NE doses.

Safety and Tolerability of Intravenous Push Lacosamide and Levetiracetam.

Background: Lacosamide and levetiracetam are antiseizure medications (ASMs) commonly utilized in the treatment and prevention of seizures. Historically, these agents have been administered as slow IV infusions after further dilution. Recent literature suggests that rapid administration via undiluted IV push may be safe and may increase efficiency of administration. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the safety and tolerability of undiluted IV push lacosamide and levetiracetam over 5 min. Methods: This study was conducted as a single-centered, retrospective, observational cohort that analyzed the rapid administration of undiluted lacosamide and levetiracetam. Adult patients admitted from September 1st, 2019, to May 31st, 2020, receiving at least one administration of IV push lacosamide at any dose or levetiracetam at doses ≤ 1500 mg were evaluated. The primary safety outcomes were the incidence of hypotension and bradycardia. Results: A total of 86 subjects were evaluated; 36 patients were administered lacosamide, and 50 patients were administered levetiracetam. Hypotension or bradycardia occurred in 6 patients in the lacosamide group (16.6%) and 6 patients in the levetiracetam group (12.0%). There were no reported infusion site reactions. Among the subjects who received lacosamide and had a 12-lead electrocardiogram (EKG), there were no reported incidences of a prolonged PR interval. Conclusions: In this safety-analysis cohort, undiluted lacosamide and levetiracetam were not associated with significant adverse events when administered via IV push over 5 min. This seems to be a safe alternative method of administration to intermittent infusion. A larger, prospective cohort is needed to confirm these findings.

Unanswered questions on the use of hydrocortisone, ascorbic acid, and thiamine therapy in sepsis and septic shock.

PURPOSE: To evaluate current evidence on the utility of hydrocortisone, ascorbic acid, and thiamine (HAT) therapy for the management of septic shock. SUMMARY: The following keyword search terms were utilized in PubMed to identify relevant articles: ascorbic acid, thiamine, hydrocortisone, shock, and critical care. Articles relevant to HAT therapy in patients with septic shock were selected. Retrospective cohorts and randomized controlled trials were included in this review; case reports/series were excluded. Data from included studies illustrating the use of HAT therapy for the management of sepsis and septic shock, including data on time to HAT therapy initiation, severity of illness at baseline, duration of vasopressor therapy, progression of organ failure, and mortality, were evaluated. CONCLUSION: The utilization of HAT therapy for the management of sepsis and septic shock remains controversial. Hemodynamic benefits have been shown to be most pronounced when HAT therapy is initiated earlier. Future studies directed at earlier initiation may be necessary to confirm this theory.

Comparison of fluid resuscitation weight-based dosing strategies in obese patients with severe sepsis.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare the composite outcome of progression to septic shock between 30 mL/kg/ideal body weight (IBW) versus 30 mL/kg/non-IBW fluid resuscitation dosing strategies in obese patients with severe sepsis. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated obese patients admitted to an academic tertiary care center for the management of severe sepsis. Patients were included if they had a fluid bolus order placed using the sepsis order set between Oct 2018 and Sept 2019. The primary objective was the composite of progression to septic shock, defined as either persistent hypotension within 3 h after the conclusion of the 30 mL/kg fluid bolus administration or the initiation of vasopressor(s) within 6 h of the bolus administration. RESULTS: Of 72 included patients, 49 (68%) were resuscitated using an IBW-based and 23 (32%) using a non-IBW-based dosing strategy. There were similar rates of progression to septic shock in the IBW and non-IBW groups (18% vs. 26%; p = 0.54). Median ICU and hospital LOS in the IBW group versus non-IBW group were (0 [IQR 0] vs. 0 [IQR 0 to 4] days; p = 0.13) and (6 [IQR 3 to 10] vs. 8 [IQR 5 to 12] days; p = 0.07), respectively. In-hospital mortality rates were similar between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our study results suggest that in obese septic patients, fluid administration using an IBW-dosing strategy did not affect the progression to septic shock.

A feasibility study on the use of Li(4)V(3)O(8) as a high capacity cathode material for lithium-ion batteries.

Li(4)V(3)O(8) materials have been prepared by chemical lithiation by Li(2)S of spherical Li(1.1)V(3)O(8) precursor materials obtained by a spray-drying technique. The over-lithiated vanadates were characterised physically by using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and X-ray diffraction (XRD), and electrochemically using galvanostatic charge-discharge and cyclic voltammetry measurements in both the half-cell (vs. Li metal) and full-cell (vs. graphite) systems. The Li(4)V(3)O(8) materials are stable in air for up to 5 h, with almost no capacity drop for the samples stored under air. However, prolonged exposure to air will severely change the composition of the Li(4)V(3)O(8) materials, resulting in both Li(1.1)V(3)O(8) and Li(2)CO(3). The electrochemical performance of these over-lithiated vanadates was found to be very sensitive to the conductive additive (carbon black) content in the cathode. When sufficient carbon black is added, the Li(4)V(3)O(8) cathode exhibits good cycling behaviour and excellent rate capabilities, matching those of the Li(1.1)V(3)O(8) precursor material, that is, retaining an average charge capacity of 205 mAh g(-1) at 2800 mA g(-1) (8C rate; 1C rate means full charge or discharge of a battery in one hour), when cycled in the potential range of 2.0-4.0 V versus Li metal. When applied in a non-optimised full cell system (vs. graphite), the Li(4)V(3)O(8) cathode showed promising cycling behaviour, retaining a charge capacity (Li(+) extraction) above 130 mAh g(-1) beyond 50 cycles, when cycled in the voltage range of 1.6-4.0 V, at a specific current of 117 mA g(-1) (C/3 rate).