Fludrocortisone Plus Hydrocortisone Versus Hydrocortisone Alone as Adjunctive Therapy in Septic Shock: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Trials evaluating hydrocortisone (HC) for septic shock are conflicting with all finding decreased time to shock reversal but few with mortality difference. Those with improved mortality included fludrocortisone (FC), but it is unknown if FC affected the outcome or is coincidental as there are no comparative data. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the effectiveness and safety of FC + HC versus HC alone as adjunctive therapy in septic shock. METHODS: A single-center, retrospective cohort study was conducted of medical intensive care unit (ICU) patients with septic shock refractory to fluids and vasopressors. Patients receiving FC + HC were compared with those receiving HC. Primary outcome was time to shock reversal. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital, 28-, and 90-day mortality; ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS); and safety. RESULTS: There were 251 patients included (FC + HC, n = 114 vs HC, n = 137). There was no difference in time to shock reversal (65.2 vs 71 hours; P = 0.24). Cox proportional hazards model showed time to first corticosteroid dose, full-dose HC duration, and use of FC + HC were associated with shorter shock duration, while time to vasopressor therapy was not. However, in 2 multivariable models controlling for covariates, use of FC + HC was not an independent predictor of shock reversal at greater than 72 hours and in-hospital mortality. No differences were seen in hospital LOS or mortality. Hyperglycemia occurred more frequently with FC + HC (62.3% vs 45.6%; P = 0.01). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: FC + HC was not associated with shock reversal at greater than 72 hours or decreased in-hospital mortality. These data may be useful for determining corticosteroid regimen in patients with septic shock refractory to fluids and vasopressors. Future prospective, randomized studies are needed to further evaluate the role of FC in this patient population.

Comparison of nimodipine formulations and administration techniques via enteral feeding tubes in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: A multicenter retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Nimodipine improves outcomes following aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) and current guidelines suggest that patients with aSAH receive nimodipine for 21 days. Patients with no difficulty swallowing will swallow the whole capsules or tablets; otherwise, nimodipine liquid must be drawn from capsules, tablets need to be crushed, or the commercially available liquid product be used to facilitate administration through an enteral feeding tube (FT). It is not clear whether these techniques are equivalent. The goal of the study was to determine if different nimodipine formulations and administration techniques were associated with the safety and effectiveness of nimodipine in aSAH. METHODS: This was a retrospective multicenter observational cohort study conducted in 21 hospitals across North America. Patients admitted with aSAH and received nimodipine by FT for ≥3 days were included. Patient demographics, disease severity, nimodipine administration, and study outcomes were collected. Safety end points included the prevalence of diarrhea and nimodipine dose reduction or discontinuation secondary to blood pressure reduction. Predictors of the study outcomes were analyzed using regression modeling. RESULTS: A total of 727 patients were included. Administration of nimodipine liquid product was independently associated with higher prevalence of diarrhea compared to other administration techniques/formulations (Odds ratio [OR] 2.28, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.41-3.67, p-value = 0.001, OR 2.76, 95% CI 1.37-5.55, p-value = 0.005, for old and new commercially available formulations, respectively). Bedside withdrawal of liquid from nimodipine capsules prior to administration was significantly associated with higher prevalence of nimodipine dose reduction or discontinuation secondary to hypotension (OR 2.82, 95% CI 1.57-5.06, p-value = 0.001). Tablet crushing and bedside withdrawal of liquid from capsules prior to administration were associated with increased odds of delayed cerebral ischemia (OR 6.66, 95% CI 3.48-12.74, p-value <0.0001 and OR 3.92, 95% CI 2.05-7.52, p-value <0.0001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that enteral nimodipine formulations and administration techniques might not be equivalent. This could be attributed to excipient differences, inconsistency and inaccuracy in medication administration, and altered nimodipine bioavailability. Further studies are needed.

Hemostatic Efficacy and Safety of 4-Factor Prothrombin Complex Concentrate in Doac-Associated Intracranial Hemorrhage.

Background: Factor Xa (FXa) inhibitor use has increased over the last decade and though associated rates of major bleeding are lower compared to warfarin, outcomes from intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) are still significant. Targeted FXa inhibitor reversal agent became available in 2018, however use of 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (4F-PCC) for FXa inhibitor-associated ICH continues at many institutions. Objective: Evaluate the safety and hemostatic efficacy of 4F-PCC for FXa inhibitor-associated ICH. Methods: Single-center, retrospective study of patients who received 4F-PCC for FXa inhibitor-associated ICH. The primary efficacy endpoint was hemostasis and thrombosis was the main safety endpoint. Secondary endpoints included in-hospital mortality and discharge disposition. Results: 76 patients on apixaban or rivaroxaban were included. Good or excellent hemostasis was achieved in 80.3% of patients. Five patients experienced a thrombotic event. Favorable discharge disposition and lower in-hospital mortality was more likely in patients who achieved excellent hemostasis. Conclusion: 4F-PCC is safe and effective for FXa inhibitor associated ICH.

Ketamine Boluses Are Associated with a Reduction in Intracranial Pressure and an Increase in Cerebral Perfusion Pressure: A Retrospective Observational Study of Patients with Severe Traumatic Brain Injury.

Background: Increased intracranial pressure (ICP) and hypotension have long been shown to lead to worse outcomes in the severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) population. Adequate sedation is a fundamental principle in TBI care, and ketamine is an attractive option for sedation since it does not commonly cause systemic hypotension, whereas most other sedative medications do. We evaluated the effects of ketamine boluses on both ICP and cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) in patients with severe TBI and refractory ICP. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of all patients admitted to the neurointensive care unit at a single tertiary referral center who had a severe traumatic brain injury with indwelling intracranial pressure monitors. We identified those patients with refractory intracranial pressure who received boluses of ketamine. We defined refractory as any sustained ICP greater than 20 mmHg after the patient was adequately sedated, serum Na was at goal, and CO2 was maintained between 35 and 40 mmHg. The primary outcome was a reduction in ICP with a subsequent increase in CPP. Results: The patient cohort consisted of 44 patients with a median age of 30 years and a median presenting Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) of 5. The median reduction in ICP after administration of a ketamine bolus was -3.5 mmHg (IQR -9 to +1), and the postketamine ICP was significantly different from baseline (p < 0.001). Ketamine boluses led to an increase in CPP by 2 mmHg (IQR -5 to +12), which was also significantly different from baseline (p < 0.001). Conclusion: In this single-institution study of patients with severe traumatic brain injury, ketamine boluses were associated with a reduction in ICP and an increase in CPP. This was a retrospective review of 43 patients and is therefore limited in nature, but further randomized controlled trials should be performed to confirm the findings.

Comparison of Amantadine, Modafinil, and Standard of Care in the Acute Treatment of Disorders of Consciousness After Severe Traumatic Brain Injury.

OBJECTIVE: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a major cause of death and disability worldwide. Many patients who experience severe TBI have persistent disorders of consciousness. Amantadine and modafinil are used for some neurological disorders; however, a comparison of the 2 medications in TBI has not been reported. This study compared the effectiveness of amantadine, modafinil, and standard of care (SOC) on disorders of consciousness after TBI. METHODS: All adult TBI patients admitted between January 1, 2017, and September 31, 2020 who received amantadine, modafinil, or SOC treatments were screened. Data collection included: demographics, change in Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), location of hemorrhage, medication duration, intensive care unit and hospital length of stay, adverse drug reactions, and concomitant sedative medications. Patients in the amantadine and modafinil groups were matched 1:2 with patients who received SOC therapies. The primary outcome was change in GCS ≥ 3 from baseline to discharge. RESULTS: A total of 142 patients met inclusion criteria. Medications were initiated a median of 8 days from admission. Patients in the SOC group experienced a greater improvement in GCS and shorter hospital length of stay compared with amantadine. A change in GCS ≥ 3 from medication initiation to hospital discharge occurred in 46.5% of amantadine patients and 53.8% of modafinil patients. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, TBI patients did not benefit from amantadine or modafinil compared with SOC therapies, and no differences were found between medication groups. Further studies are warranted to determine whether the addition of amantadine or modafinil in the weeks after TBI provides benefit.

Use of Intraventricular Medications in Critically Ill Patients: A Systematic Review.

New evidence and increased use of intracranial devices have increased the frequency of intraventricular (IVT) medication administration in the neurologic intensive care unit. Significant benefits and risks are associated with administration of medications directly into the central nervous system. This review summarizes important literature, along with key information for clinicians regarding the administration, dosing, monitoring, and adverse effects related to IVT medication usage. Multiple medications have supporting literature for their use in critically ill patients including amphotericin B, aminoglycosides, colistimethate, daptomycin, quinupristin/dalfopristin, vancomycin, alteplase, and nicardipine. Sterile preparation and delivery, along with different types of devices that support medication administration, are also reviewed. One randomized, placebo-controlled trial of alteplase demonstrated decreased mortality but no change in good functional outcome. Other reports of IVT medication use are mainly limited to case reports and retrospective case series. There is a need for increased research on the topic; however, several practical barriers decrease the likelihood of a large, placebo-controlled, prospective study for most indications. Providers should consider implementing protocols to maximize safety of IVT medication delivery to ensure optimal patient outcomes.

Iatrogenic Propylene Glycol Intoxication Due to High-Dose Pentobarbital for Refractory Intracranial Hypertension: A Case Report.

Propylene glycol is a rarely reported toxicity from high-dose administration of certain intravenous drugs, including lorazepam and pentobarbital. We present a case of iatrogenic propylene glycol toxicity secondary to a high-dose pentobarbital infusion for the treatment of refractory intracranial hypertension due to cerebral venous sinus thrombosis. The patient developed metabolic acidosis and acute kidney failure secondary to propylene glycol toxicity. After initiation of continuous renal replacement therapy, the patient's acute renal failure and lactic acidosis resolved. Using the Naranjo scale, this case received a score of 5, defining it as a "probable" adverse drug event. In patients who develop lactic acidosis and acute renal failure after initiation of high-dose pentobarbital, propylene glycol toxicity should be higher up in the differential diagnosis. Monitoring the serum osmolality while on pentobarbital could help provide valuable information to prevent iatrogenic propylene glycol toxicity.

Safety and Efficacy of Intermittent Bolus and Continuous Infusion Neostigmine for Acute Colonic Pseudo-Obstruction.

PURPOSE: To compare clinical response of intermittent bolus versus continuous infusion neostigmine for acute colonic pseudo-obstruction (ACPO). Acute colonic pseudo-obstruction occurs due to reduced colonic parasympathetic activity. Neostigmine is an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor that increases frequency of smooth muscle contraction by increasing acetylcholine at autonomic nervous system synapses. Although these administration modalities have been studied separately, they have never been compared. METHODS: This retrospective study compared bolus versus continuous infusion neostigmine for ACPO. The primary outcome was initial clinical response, defined as bowel movement (BM) within 4 hours of bolus dose or 24 hours of initiation of continuous infusion. Secondary outcomes included time to BM, bowel diameter reduction at 24 hours, incidence of bradycardia, additional neostigmine requirements, and need for colonic decompression or surgical intervention. RESULTS: Seventy-five patients were included (bolus n = 37; infusion n = 38). Median total 24-hour neostigmine dose was 2.0 mg (interquartile range [IQR]: 2.0-2.6) with bolus and 9.6 mg (IQR: 6.3-9.6) with continuous infusion. Initial clinical response was similar (infusion 81.6% vs bolus 62.2%, P = .06), but continuous infusion was associated with greater bowel diameter reduction (73.7% vs 40.5%, P = .004). Bolus administration had shorter time to BM (1.4 vs 3.5 hours, P = .0478) and increased need for colonic decompression (67.6% vs 39.5%, P = .0148). Bolus dosing was associated with less bradycardia (13.5% vs 39.5%, P = 0.011), with no difference in atropine usage (10.8% vs 5.3%, P = .43). CONCLUSION: Initial clinical response was similar between groups; however, continuous infusion neostigmine was associated with greater bowel diameter reduction at 24 hours. Bolus administration resulted in less bradycardia; however, given the lack of difference in atropine use, clinical significance is unknown. This study is the first to compare bolus versus continuous infusion neostigmine for ACPO. Further studies are needed to confirm findings.

Surveillance Ultrasound in the Neuro Intensive Care Unit: Time to Deep Vein Thrombosis Diagnosis.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) are complications of hospitalization leading to increased morbidity and mortality. Routine surveillance ultrasound has become common practice in some intensive care units (ICU) to detect DVT early and initiate anticoagulation, preventing complications. However, initiating anticoagulants for asymptomatic DVT treatment may increase risk of hemorrhage. The objective of this study was to investigate the value of routine surveillance ultrasound in early DVT diagnosis in Neuro ICU patients. METHODS: This is a retrospective review of patients diagnosed with DVT during admission to the Neuro ICU at University Hospital from January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2017. Patients were identified through International Classification of Diseases 9th and 10th Revision codes for DVT and PE, screened for inclusion criteria, and then classified as surveillance group or symptom-driven group based on intervention received. Primary outcome was time to DVT diagnosis. Secondary outcome included clinically significant hemorrhage identified by anticoagulation treatment discontinuation for suspected hemorrhage or new or expanding hemorrhage on head computerized tomography (CT). RESULTS: A total of 116 patients were identified, with 50 included: 27 were classified as surveillance and 23 as symptom-driven. Seven patients (surveillance = 3 and symptom-driven = 4) were diagnosed with only PE and were excluded from primary outcome. Median time to DVT diagnosis was similar at 148 h for surveillance versus 172 h for symptom driven (p = 0.2). There was no difference in treatment discontinuation rates (surveillance 21% vs symptom 31%; p = 0.4). Of the 27 patients with follow-up head CT, two in the surveillance group and two in the symptom-driven group showed a new or expanding hemorrhage. CONCLUSION: Routine surveillance ultrasound did not lead to significantly earlier DVT diagnosis. Hemorrhagic events were not different between groups. Utility of surveillance ultrasound in this population should be evaluated in large, prospective trials before routine use can be recommended.

Retrospective analysis of levetiracetam compared to phenytoin for seizure prophylaxis in adults with traumatic brain injury.

BACKGROUND: Phenytoin is standard of care for seizure prophylaxis following traumatic brain injury (TBI). Levetiracetam, an alternative antiepileptic drug, is utilized for seizure prophylaxis despite limited data supporting its use. OBJECTIVE: Our primary outcome was post-TBI seizure activity measured by electroencephalogram (EEG) for levetiracetam versus phenytoin. Secondary outcomes were length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, requirement for additional antiepileptic drugs (AED), and drug and monitoring costs. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of patients admitted to neurosurgical or surgical trauma ICU. Adult patients with at least 1 day of EEG monitoring were included. Patients were excluded if they had history of epilepsy, prior TBI, less than 48 hours of AED therapy, or additional AED prior to EEG monitoring. RESULTS: A total 90 patients met inclusion criteria, with 18 receiving levetiracetam and 72 receiving phenytoin. Prevalence of EEG-confirmed seizure activity was similar between the levetiracetam and phenytoin groups (28% vs 29%; P = .99). ICU length of stay (13 vs 18 days; P = .28), time to EEG-confirmed seizure activity (4 vs 6 days; P = .24), and duration of seizure prophylaxis (9 vs 14 days; P = .18) were also similar. The median daily cost of levetiracetam therapy was $43 compared to $55 for phenytoin therapy and monitoring (P = .08). When all anticonvulsant therapy and monitoring were included, costs were lower for the levetiracetam group ($45 vs $83; P = .02). CONCLUSION: Levetiracetam may provide an alternative treatment option for seizure prevention in TBI patients in the ICU. Total antiepileptic drug and monitoring costs were lower for levetiracetam patients.