Incidence of Hypotension Associated With Two Different Vasopressin Discontinuation Strategies in the Recovery Phase of Septic Shock.

Introduction: Safe and effective vasopressor withdrawal strategies during the recovery phase of septic shock lack consensus and are not addressed in clinical practice guidelines. The purpose of this study was to compare the incidence of clinically relevant hypotension associated with different vasopressin (AVP) discontinuation strategies. Methods: This was a single-center, retrospective, cohort study, conducted at a university medical center over a three-year period. Adult patients ≥18 years with septic shock were included in the study. Patients were stratified into two groups; patients incrementally weaned from AVP and patients in which AVP was abruptly discontinued. The primary endpoint was to compare the incidence of clinically relevant hypotension between study groups up to 24 hours following discontinuation. Secondary analyses included the incidence of any hypotensive event up to 24 hours after AVP cessation, intensive care unit and hospital length of stay, and in-hospital mortality. Results: A total of 74 patients (n = 46 AVP wean and n = 28 AVP no-wean) met inclusion criteria and were included in the study. The primary outcome was not statistically different between groups. Clinically relevant hypotension occurred in 24 patients (52.3%) and 16 patients (57.1%) in the AVP wean and AVP no-wean groups, respectively (P = .68). There were no significant differences in any secondary clinical outcome between the two study groups. Conclusion: No differences were found in the incidence of clinically relevant hypotension, length of stay, or mortality between AVP weaning and no-weaning discontinuation strategies. These findings suggest incremental weaning and abrupt withdrawal of AVP are both acceptable discontinuation strategies.

Influence of Timing and Catecholamine Requirements on Vasopressin Responsiveness in Critically ill Patients with Septic Shock.

Introduction: Despite its widespread use, there is a paucity of data to guide the optimal use of arginine vasopressin (AVP) in critically ill patients with septic shock. Methods: This multicenter retrospective cohort study conducted in critically ill adults sought to evaluate the role of catecholamine requirements and timing on responsiveness to AVP. Responsiveness was defined as both a decrease in ≥ 50% of catecholamine requirements and no decrease in mean arterial pressure (MAP) at 4 hours post-AVP initiation. Primary outcomes of interest included the proportion of patients who started AVP within 4 hours after starting catecholamine therapy, as well as baseline norepinephrine (NE) equivalents (< 15, 15-39, or ≥ 40 mcg/min). Multivariate analyses and logistic regression were performed to identify other factors associated with AVP responsiveness. Results: There were 300 patients included in this study, with 74 patients being responders and 226 being non-responders. There was no significant difference in the number of patients who received AVP within 4 hours from catecholamine initiation between responders and non-responders (35% vs. 42%, P = 0.29). There were more patients in the non-responder group requiring ≥ 40 mcg/min of NE equivalents at AVP initiation (30% vs. 16%, P = 0.023). Stress dose steroid use was less common in responders (35% vs. 52%, P = 0.011), which was consistent with logistic regression analysis (OR 0.56, 95% 0.32-0.98, P = 0.044). Clinical outcomes between responders and non-responders were similar, apart from ICU (5.4% vs. 19.5%) and hospital (5.4% vs. 20.4%) mortality being lower in responders (P = 0.0032 and P = 0.0002, respectively). Conclusion: Shorter times to AVP initiation was not associated with responsiveness at 4 hours post-catecholamine initiation, although non-responders tended to require higher doses of NE equivalents at time of AVP initiation. Concomitant corticosteroids were associated with a lower likelihood of AVP responsiveness.

Prescriber and pharmacist attitudes toward inclusion of diagnosis or clinical indication on prescription orders.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacy and medication safety organizations have long recommended that diagnosis or clinical indication be required on medication orders to improve the safety and effectiveness of care. OBJECTIVE: To assess attitudes of Arizona prescribers and pharmacists toward the inclusion of the clinical indication or the diagnosis on prescription orders and perceived barriers to its implementation in Arizona. METHODS: Data were obtained by questionnaires from pharmacists and primary care prescribers after a continuing pharmacy education presentation on the value of including a clinical indication or a diagnosis on prescription orders. The survey was distributed to licensed pharmacists who attended the Arizona Pharmacy Association's Southwest Clinical Pharmacy Seminar. The survey was distributed to primary care providers with active Arizona licenses who attended the Arizona Osteopathic Medical Association Annual Convention and to nurse practitioners after an Arizona Nurse Practitioner Council educational webinar. Prescriber and pharmacist responses were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. An a priori alpha of 0.05 was used, and in the cases of multiple comparisons, a Bonferroni correction was employed. RESULTS: A total of 74 complete questionnaires were submitted by prescribers and 54 by pharmacists. Approximately 71% of the prescribers and 66% of the pharmacists agreed that they would support voluntary inclusion of a diagnosis or a clinical indication on prescription orders (P = 0.81). However, the 2 groups disagreed on whether the inclusion of the diagnosis or clinical indication should be a requirement (44% of prescribers agreed vs. 96% of pharmacists, P < 0.001). Two perceived barriers revealed statistically significant differences, with the prescribers being more concerned about possible insurance rejections than pharmacists (P = 0.005, whereas the pharmacists were more concerned about potential software transmission accuracy than prescribers (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Arizona prescribers and pharmacists in our convenience sample supported the voluntary inclusion of a diagnosis or a clinical indication on prescriptions orders but disagreed as to whether it should be required. Prescribers especially indicated they have a variety of concerns that need to be overcome before they could support a statewide mandate.