Cost-reduction strategy for isoproterenol use in radiofrequency catheter ablation procedures.

PURPOSE: A cost-reduction strategy for isoproterenol use in radiofrequency catheter ablation procedures was evaluated. SUMMARY: A medication-use evaluation at a 454-bed tertiary medical center revealed that the cardiac catheterization laboratory was the highest user of isoproterenol. Isoproterenol was removed from all AcuDose-Rx machines Omnicell, Mountain View, CA, and compounding was performed by pharmacy personnel. It was initially provided to the cardiac catheterization laboratory as an 8-µg/mL concentration in 20-mL 0.9% sodium chloride injection syringes with a 24-hour beyond-use date. This resulted in an initial cost savings but with an unacceptably high rate of wastage. Isoproterenol was then compounded as a 4-µg/mL concentration in 30 mL 5% dextrose in water syringes with a 9-day beyond-use date after a thorough literature search supported longer stability with this admixture. After 12 months of our current process, isoproterenol use during radio frequency catheter ablations (RFCAs) in the cardiac catheterization laboratory was reduced by 85%, decreasing the number of ampules used from 11.15 to 1.66 per week. CONCLUSION: A pharmacy-initiated process to mitigate an extraordinary increase in isoproterenol acquisition cost resulted in a reduction in usage in a tertiary care community hospital. Isoproterenol usage was reduced 85% after two different interventions were implemented, which is estimated to save $1,839 per procedure.

Blood pressure management in acute hypertensive emergency.

PURPOSE: The frequency with which patients coming to an emergency room with hypertensive emergency received excessive or inadequate blood-pressure reduction was studied. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted for all patients who were treated for hypertensive emergency at a 696-bed university teaching hospital between November 2003 and April 2004. Patients who received a continuous i.v. infusion of an antihypertensive agent for >30 minutes in the emergency department or the intensive care unit were included in the study. The primary outcomes measured were number of patients treated appropriately, number of patients treated excessively (reduction in mean arterial pressure [MAP] beyond 25% at the end of the two-hour acute-phase treatment window), and number of treatment failures within the two-hour window. RESULTS: A total of 427 patients with hypertensive emergency were identified, of whom 47 met the study criteria. Fifteen patients (32%) were appropriately treated, 27 (57%) were excessively treated, and 5 (11%) had treatment failures during the two-hour acute-phase treatment period. Only 6 patients (13%) had been appropriately treated at six hours. Patients who were given nicardipine had a greater risk of an excessive MAP reduction at two hours than all other patients. One or more treatment-related adverse events occurred in 44 patients (94%). CONCLUSION: Excessive reduction of MAP was common among patients who came to an emergency department with hypertensive emergency.

Rates of hospitalizations and emergency department visits in patients with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease taking beta-blockers.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine the rates of hospitalizations and emergency department (ED) visits during cardioselective and nonselective beta-blocker therapy in patients with asthma and/or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). DESIGN: Retrospective, observational cohort study. DATA SOURCE: Electronic medical records database. PATIENTS: A total of 11,592 adult patients with asthma and/or COPD, identified from August 1, 1997-December 31, 2005, who were taking beta-blockers for at least 30 days or had never received a beta-blocker (controls). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of these patients, 3062 were taking cardioselective and 690 nonselective beta-blockers; 7840 were controls. The primary end point for the beta-blocker groups was the rate of hospitalizations and ED visits/patient-year of beta-blocker therapy relative to the control group. In patients with asthma with or without concomitant COPD, cardioselective beta-blockers were associated with a relative risk of 0.89 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53-1.50) for hospitalizations and 1.40 (95% CI 1.20-1.62) for ED visits compared with controls. Nonselective beta-blockers were associated with a relative risk of 2.47 (95% CI 1.37-4.48) for hospitalizations and 1.21 (95% CI 0.91-1.62) for ED visits. In patients with COPD only, cardioselective beta-blockers were associated with a relative risk of 0.64 (95% CI 0.43-0.96) for hospitalizations and 1.19 (95% CI 1.02-1.39) for ED visits. Nonselective beta-blockers were associated with a relative risk of 1.02 (95% CI 0.52-2.02) for hospitalizations and 0.51 (95% CI 0.33-0.80) for ED visits. CONCLUSION: In patients with asthma with or without COPD, both cardioselective and nonselective beta-blocker use increased hospitalizations and ED visits compared with controls. Thus, these patients should receive beta-blocker therapy only if their cardiac risk exceeds their pulmonary risk and if they have concomitant cardiac disease for which beta-blockers decrease mortality, such as previous acute myocardial infarction or chronic heart failure. In patients with COPD only, cardioselective beta-blockers slightly increased the risk of ED visits but reduced the risk of hospitalizations. Nonselective beta-blocker therapy in these patients reduced the rate of ED visits and total visits. These findings suggest a larger safety margin with beta-blocker therapy in patients with COPD only than in those with asthma with or without COPD.