A Retrospective Comparison of the Effectiveness and Safety of Intravenous Olanzapine Versus Intravenous Haloperidol for Agitation in Adult Intensive Care Unit Patients.

OBJECTIVE: Intravenous (IV) olanzapine could be an alternative to first-generation antipsychotics for the management of agitation in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. We compared the effectiveness and safety of IV olanzapine to IV haloperidol for agitation management in adult patients in the ICU at a tertiary academic medical center. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who achieved a Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) score of < +1 within 4 hours of IV olanzapine or IV haloperidol administration. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients who required rescue medications for agitation within 4 hours of initial IV olanzapine or IV haloperidol administration, incidence of adverse events and ICU length of stay. RESULTS: In the 192 patient analytic cohort, there was no difference in the proportion of patients who achieved a RASS score of < +1 within 4 hours of receiving IV olanzapine or IV haloperidol (49% vs. 42%, p = 0.31). Patients in the IV haloperidol group were more likely to receive rescue medications (28% vs 55%, p < 0.01). There was no difference in the incidence of respiratory events or hypotension between IV olanzapine and IV haloperidol. Patients in the IV olanzapine group experienced more bradycardia (11% vs. 3%, p = 0.04) and somnolence (9% vs. 1%, p = 0.02) compared to the IV haloperidol group. Patients in the IV olanzapine group had a longer median ICU length of stay (7.5 days vs. 5 days, p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: In this retrospective cohort study, there was no difference in the effectiveness of IV olanzapine compared to IV haloperidol for the management of agitation. IV olanzapine was associated with an increased incidence of bradycardia and somnolence.

Clozapine-induced cardiomyopathy and myocarditis monitoring: A systematic review.

The use of clozapine requires monitoring the absolute neutrophil count because of the risk of agranulocytosis, but other potentially fatal adverse events associated with clozapine (specifically, myocarditis and cardiomyopathy) do not have mandatory procedures. We performed a systematic review of English-language articles to synthesize an evidence-based approach for myocarditis and cardiomyopathy monitoring. Articles published from January 1988 through February 2017 were identified through a search of Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Selected articles were required to relate to myocarditis or cardiomyopathy in humans from exposure to clozapine. A total of 144 articles were included. Recommendations varied widely. Some authors recommended baseline laboratory monitoring, with or without follow-up testing, for C-reactive protein, creatine kinase MB, and troponin. Electrocardiography was commonly recommended, and echocardiography was less commonly recommended. The expense of monitoring was a consideration. A unanimous recommendation was to stop the use of clozapine and seek a cardiovascular consultation if myocarditis or cardiomyopathy is suspected. Although there is general agreement on which tests to perform for confirming myocarditis and cardiomyopathy, preemptive screening for these clozapine-induced conditions is controversial, and cost and barriers for the use of clozapine are concerns. For asymptomatic patients receiving clozapine, testing could include baseline electrocardiography, echocardiography as part of a cardiac consultation if patients have cardiac disease or risk factors, and monitoring of C-reactive protein and troponin as indicated.