Defining the "ideal state": A primer on critical care pharmacy practice models.

DISCLAIMER: In an effort to expedite the publication of articles, AJHP is posting manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time. PURPOSE: Critical care pharmacists (CCPs) have been clearly established as value-added members of the interprofessional team, and their contributions positively impact patient outcomes in the intensive care unit (ICU). Despite this, not every critically ill patient in the US receives care from a CCP and the model through which CCPs practice is variable, which has important implications. The purpose of this primer is to review current CCP models and discuss elements of the optimal CCP practice model. SUMMARY: Current CCP practice models are defined, including the drug processing and dispensing model, clinical pharmacy specialist model, integrated pharmacy generalist model, and hybrid model, as well as unit-based vs service-based models. The optimal CCP practice model considers the Triple Domain of CCP workload, which includes direct patient care, indirect patient care, and professional service. Elements of the ideal CCP practice model including 24/7/365 CCP services, unit- vs service-based models, prescriptive authority, operational support, and CCP-to-patient ratio are discussed. Other vital elements include protected offline time, use of appropriate workload metrics, development of career ladders, opportunities for professional development, and providing wellness resources. The ideal CCP practice model must also be considered through the lens of the patient and medical team, the CCP, the institution, and professional organizations. Strategies for optimizing current CCP practice models are provided, and application of optimal CCP practice model elements is explored through 5 case studies. CONCLUSION: The optimal CCP practice model includes multiple elements and incorporates the viewpoints of patients, providers, CCPs, institutions, and professional organizations; this model will increase access of all ICU patients to CCPs, enhance the scope of CCP cognitive services, and ensure the economic sustainability of CCP practice while establishing CCP involvement in activities outside of patient care and in professional service.

Adverse Effects Related to Corticosteroid Use in Sepsis, Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome, and Community-Acquired Pneumonia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: We postulate that corticosteroid-related side effects in critically ill patients are similar across sepsis, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). By pooling data across all trials that have examined corticosteroids in these three acute conditions, we aim to examine the side effects of corticosteroid use in critical illness. DATA SOURCES: We performed a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention library of COVID research, CINAHL, and Cochrane center for trials. STUDY SELECTION: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared corticosteroids to no corticosteroids or placebo in patients with sepsis, ARDS, and CAP. DATA EXTRACTION: We summarized data addressing the most described side effects of corticosteroid use in critical care: gastrointestinal bleeding, hyperglycemia, hypernatremia, superinfections/secondary infections, neuropsychiatric effects, and neuromuscular weakness. DATA SYNTHESIS: We included 47 RCTs (n = 13,893 patients). Corticosteroids probably have no effect on gastrointestinal bleeding (relative risk [RR], 1.08; 95% CI, 0.87-1.34; absolute risk increase [ARI], 0.3%; moderate certainty) or secondary infections (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.89-1.05; absolute risk reduction, 0.5%; moderate certainty) and may have no effect on neuromuscular weakness (RR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.03-1.45; ARI, 1.4%; low certainty) or neuropsychiatric events (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.82-1.74; ARI, 0.5%; low certainty). Conversely, they increase the risk of hyperglycemia (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.11-1.31; ARI, 5.4%; high certainty) and probably increase the risk of hypernatremia (RR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.29-1.96; ARI, 2.3%; moderate certainty). CONCLUSIONS: In ARDS, sepsis, and CAP, corticosteroids are associated with hyperglycemia and probably with hypernatremia but likely have no effect on gastrointestinal bleeding or secondary infections. More data examining effects of corticosteroids, particularly on neuropsychiatric outcomes and neuromuscular weakness, would clarify the safety of this class of drugs in critical illness.

Corticosteroids in Sepsis and Septic Shock: A Systematic Review, Pairwise, and Dose-Response Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of corticosteroids in patients with sepsis. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, up to January 10, 2023. STUDY SELECTION: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing corticosteroids with placebo or standard care with sepsis. DATA EXTRACTION: The critical outcomes of interest included mortality, shock reversal, length of stay in the ICU, and adverse events. DATA ANALYSIS: We performed both a pairwise and dose-response meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of different corticosteroid doses on outcomes. We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation to assess certainty in pooled estimates. DATA SYNTHESIS: We included 45 RCTs involving 9563 patients. Corticosteroids probably reduce short-term mortality (risk ratio [RR], 0.93; 95% CI, 0.88-0.99; moderate certainty) and increase shock reversal at 7 days (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.11-1.38; high certainty). Corticosteroids may have no important effect on duration of ICU stay (mean difference, -0.6 fewer days; 95% CI, 1.48 fewer to 0.27 more; low certainty); however, probably increase the risk of hyperglycemia (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.08-1.18; moderate certainty) and hypernatremia (RR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.32-2.03; moderate certainty) and may increase the risk of neuromuscular weakness (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.01-1.45; low certainty). The dose-response analysis showed a reduction in mortality with corticosteroids with optimal dosing of approximately 260 mg/d of hydrocortisone (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83-0.98) or equivalent. CONCLUSIONS: We found that corticosteroids may reduce mortality and increase shock reversal but they may also increase the risk of hyperglycemia, hypernatremia, and neuromuscular weakness. The dose-response analysis indicates optimal dosing is around 260 mg/d of hydrocortisone or equivalent.

2024 Focused Update: Guidelines on Use of Corticosteroids in Sepsis, Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome, and Community-Acquired Pneumonia.

RATIONALE: New evidence is available examining the use of corticosteroids in sepsis, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), warranting a focused update of the 2017 guideline on critical illness-related corticosteroid insufficiency. OBJECTIVES: To develop evidence-based recommendations for use of corticosteroids in hospitalized adults and children with sepsis, ARDS, and CAP. PANEL DESIGN: The 22-member panel included diverse representation from medicine, including adult and pediatric intensivists, pulmonologists, endocrinologists, nurses, pharmacists, and clinician-methodologists with expertise in developing evidence-based Clinical Practice Guidelines. We followed Society of Critical Care Medicine conflict of interest policies in all phases of the guideline development, including task force selection and voting. METHODS: After development of five focused Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcomes (PICO) questions, we conducted systematic reviews to identify the best available evidence addressing each question. We evaluated the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach and formulated recommendations using the evidence-to-decision framework. RESULTS: In response to the five PICOs, the panel issued four recommendations addressing the use of corticosteroids in patients with sepsis, ARDS, and CAP. These included a conditional recommendation to administer corticosteroids for patients with septic shock and critically ill patients with ARDS and a strong recommendation for use in hospitalized patients with severe CAP. The panel also recommended against high dose/short duration administration of corticosteroids for septic shock. In response to the final PICO regarding type of corticosteroid molecule in ARDS, the panel was unable to provide specific recommendations addressing corticosteroid molecule, dose, and duration of therapy, based on currently available evidence. CONCLUSIONS: The panel provided updated recommendations based on current evidence to inform clinicians, patients, and other stakeholders on the use of corticosteroids for sepsis, ARDS, and CAP.

Corticosteroids in Community-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia: a Systematic Review, Pairwise and Dose-Response Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: International guidelines provide heterogenous guidance on use of corticosteroids for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). METHODS: We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials examining corticosteroids in hospitalized adult patients with suspected or probable CAP. We performed a pairwise and dose-response meta-analysis using the restricted maximum likelihood (REML) heterogeneity estimator. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE methodology and the credibility of subgroups using the ICEMAN tool. RESULTS: We identified 18 eligible studies that included 4661 patients. Corticosteroids probably reduce mortality in more severe CAP (RR 0.62 [95% CI 0.45 to 0.85]; moderate certainty) with possibly no effect in less severe CAP (RR 1.08 [95% CI 0.83 to 1.42]; low certainty). We found a non-linear dose-response relationship between corticosteroids and mortality, suggesting an optimal dose of approximately 6 mg of dexamethasone (or equivalent) for a duration of therapy of 7 days (RR 0.44 [95% 0.30 to 0.66]). Corticosteroids probably reduce the risk of requiring invasive mechanical ventilation (RR 0.56 [95% CI 0.42 to 74] and probably reduce intensive care unit (ICU) admission (RR 0.65 [95% CI 0.43 to 0.97]) (both moderate certainty). Corticosteroids may reduce the duration of hospitalization and ICU stay (both low certainty). Corticosteroids may increase the risk of hyperglycemia (RR 1.76 [95% CI 1.46 to 2.14]) (low certainty). CONCLUSION: Moderate certainty evidence indicates that corticosteroids reduce mortality in patients with more severe CAP, the need for invasive mechanical ventilation, and ICU admission.

Current Practice Review in the Management of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) presents as an acute inflammatory lung injury characterized by refractory hypoxemia and non-cardiac pulmonary edema. An estimated 10% of patients in the intensive care unit and 25% of those who are mechanically ventilated are diagnosed with ARDS. Increased awareness is warranted as mortality rates remain high and delays in diagnosing ARDS are common. The COVID-19 pandemic highlights the importance of understanding ARDS management. Treatment of ARDS can be challenging due to the complexity of the disease state and conflicting existing evidence. Therefore, it is imperative that pharmacists understand both pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic treatment strategies to optimize patient care. This narrative review provides a critical evaluation of current literature describing management practices for ARDS. A review of treatment modalities and supportive care strategies will be presented.

Corticosteroid use in ARDS and its application to evolving therapeutics for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): A systematic review.

Data regarding the use of corticosteroids for treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) are conflicting. As the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic progresses, more literature supporting the use of corticosteroids for COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 ARDS have emerged. Glucocorticoids are proposed to attenuate the inflammatory response and prevent progression to the fibroproliferative phase of ARDS through their multiple mechanisms and anti-inflammatory properties. The purpose of this systematic review was to comprehensively evaluate the literature surrounding corticosteroid use in ARDS (non-COVID-19 and COVID-19) in addition to a narrative review of clinical considerations of corticosteroid use in these patient populations. OVID Medline and EMBASE were searched. Randomized controlled trials evaluating the use of corticosteroids for COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 ARDS in adult patients on mortality outcomes were included. Risk of bias was assessed with the Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. There were 388 studies identified, 15 of which met the inclusion criteria that included a total of 8877 patients. The studies included in our review reported a mortality benefit in 6/15 (40%) studies with benefit being seen at varying time points of mortality follow-up (ICU survival, hospital, and 28 and 60 days) in the COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 ARDS studies. The two non-COVID19 trials assessing lung injury score improvements found that corticosteroids led to significant improvements with corticosteroid use. The number of mechanical ventilation-free days significantly were found to be increased with the use of corticosteroids in all four studies that assessed this outcome. Corticosteroids are associated with improvements in mortality and ventilator-free days in critically ill patients with both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 ARDS, and evidence suggests their use should be encouraged in these settings. However, due to substantial differences in the corticosteroid regimens utilized in these trials, questions still remain regarding the optimal corticosteroid agent, dose, and duration in patients with ARDS.

Thromboelastography is a Marker for Clinically Significant Progressive Hemorrhagic Injury in Severe Traumatic Brain Injury.

BACKGROUND: Coagulopathy in traumatic brain injury (TBI) is associated with increased risk of poor outcomes, but accurate prediction of clinically significant progressive hemorrhagic injury (PHI) in patients with severe TBI remains a challenge. Thromboelastography (TEG) is a real-time test of whole blood coagulation that provides dynamic information about global hemostasis. This study aimed to identify differences in TEG values between patients with severe TBI who did or did not experience clinically significant PHI. METHODS: This was a single-center retrospective cohort study of adult patients with severe TBI. Patients were eligible for inclusion if initial Glasgow coma scale (GCS) was ≤ 8 and baseline head computed tomography (CT) imaging and TEG were available. Exclusion criteria included receipt of hemostatic agents prior to TEG. PHI was defined as bleeding expansion on CT within 24 h associated with 2-point drop in GCS, neurosurgical intervention, or mortality within 24 h. The primary endpoint was TEG value differences between patients with and without PHI. Secondary endpoints included differences in conventional coagulation tests (CCTs) between groups. RESULTS: Of the 526 patients evaluated, 141 met inclusion criteria. The most common reason for exclusion was lack of baseline TEG and receipt of reversal product prior to TEG. Sixty-four patients experienced PHI in the first 24 h after presentation. K time (2.03 min vs. 1.33 min, P = 0.035) and alpha angle (65° vs. 69°, P = 0.015) were found to be significantly different in patients experiencing PHI. R time (5.25 min vs. 4.71 min), maximum amplitude (61 mm vs. 63 mm), and clot lysis at 30 min after maximum clot strength (3.5% vs. 1.7%) were not significantly different between groups. Of the CCTs, only activated partial thromboplastin time (30.3 s vs. 27.6 s, P = 0.014) was found to be different in patients with PHI. CONCLUSIONS: Prolonged K time and narrower alpha angle were found to be associated with developing clinically significant PHI in patients with severe TBI. Despite differences detected in alpha angle, median values in both groups were within normal reference ranges. These abnormalities may reflect pathologic hypoactivity of fibrinogen, and further study is warranted to evaluate TEG-guided cryoprecipitate administration in this patient population.

Predictors of Augmented Renal Clearance in a Heterogeneous ICU Population as Defined by Creatinine and Cystatin C.

INTRODUCTION: The incidence of augmented renal clearance (ARC) in the intensive care unit (ICU) is highly variable, and identification of these patients remains challenging. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to define the incidence of ARC in a cohort of critically ill adults, using serum Cr and cystatin C, and to identify factors associated with its development. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of critically ill patients without stage 2 or 3 acute kidney injury with both serum Cr and cystatin C available. The incidence of ARC was defined as a Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI)Cr-cystatin C-estimated glomerular filtration rate >130 mL/min. A multivariable logistic regression model using a penalized Lasso method was fit to identify independent predictors of ARC. RESULTS: Among the 368 patients included in the study, indication for ICU admission was nonoperative in 55% of patients, and 9% of patients were admitted for major trauma. The overall incidence of ARC was low at 4.1%. In a multivariable logistic regression model, Charlson comorbidity index, major trauma, intracerebral hemorrhage, age, and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score were found to predict ARC. CONCLUSION: The incidence of ARC in this study was low, but prediction models identified several factors for early identification of patients with risk factors for or who develop ARC, particularly in a cohort with a low baseline risk of ARC. These factors could be used to help identify patients who may develop ARC.

Warfarin-Induced Rapid Rise in INR Post-Cardiac Surgery Is Not Associated With Increased Bleeding Risk.

Background: Post-cardiac surgery bleeding can have devastating consequences, and it is unknown if warfarin-induced rapid international normalized ratio (INR) rise during the immediate postoperative period increases bleed risk. Objective: To determine the impact of warfarin-induced rapid-rise INR on post-cardiac surgery bleeding. Methods: This was a single-center, retrospective chart review of post-cardiac surgery patients initiated on warfarin at Mayo Clinic Hospital, Rochester. Patients were grouped based on occurrence or absence of rapid-rise INR (increase ≥1.0 within 24 hours). The primary outcome compared bleed events between groups. Secondary outcomes assessed hospital length of stay (LOS) and identified risk factors associated with bleed events and rapid rise in INR. Results: During the study period, 2342 patients were included, and 56 bleed events were evaluated. Bleed events were similar between rapid-rise (n = 752) and non-rapid-rise (n = 1590) groups in both univariate (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.22; P = 0.594) and multivariable models (HR = 1.24; P = 0.561). Those with rapid-rise INR had longer LOS after warfarin administration (discharge HR = 0.84; P = 0.0002). The most common warfarin dose immediately prior to rapid rise was 5 mg. Risk factors for rapid-rise INR were low body mass index, female gender, and cross-clamp time. Conclusion and Relevance: This represents the first report to assess warfarin-related rapid-rise INR in post-cardiac surgery patients and found correlation to hospital LOS but not bleed events. Conservative warfarin dosing may be warranted until further research can be conducted.

Continuation of Newly Initiated Midodrine Therapy After Intensive Care and Hospital Discharge: A Single-Center Retrospective Study.

OBJECTIVES: Midodrine is an α1-agonist approved for orthostatic hypotension. Recently, it has received attention as an oral vasopressor to facilitate ICU discharge. The purpose of this study was to identify the incidence of continuation of newly initiated midodrine upon ICU and hospital discharge and identify risk factors associated with its occurrence. DESIGN: Single-center retrospective study. SETTING: ICU patients from January 2011 to October 2016 at Mayo Clinic, Rochester. PATIENTS: Adult patients admitted to any ICU who received new midodrine for hypotension and survived to discharge. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: During the study period, 1,010 patients were newly started on midodrine and survived to ICU discharge. Midodrine was continued in 67% (672/1,010) of patients at ICU discharge. Admission to cardiovascular surgery ICU and mixed medical/surgical ICU was a risk factor for midodrine continuation at ICU discharge (odds ratio, 3.94 [2.50-6.21] and 2.03 [1.29-3.20], respectively). At hospital discharge, 34% (311/909) of patients were continued on midodrine therapy. History of congestive heart failure predicted midodrine continuation at hospital discharge (odds ratio, 1.49 [1.05-2.12]). Hypertension and use of mechanical ventilation were associated with a decreased odds of midodrine prescription at both ICU and hospital discharge. Of those discharged from the ICU or hospital on midodrine, 50% were concomitantly prescribed antihypertensives. Discharge from the ICU on midodrine was associated with a significantly shorter ICU length of stay (7.5 ± 8.9 vs 10.6 ± 13.4 d) and reduced risk of in-hospital mortality (hazard ratio, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.32-0.70]; p < 0.001), despite no difference in baseline severity of illness scores. In contrast, patients discharged from the hospital on midodrine had a higher risk of 1-year mortality (hazard ratio, 1.60 [95% CI, 1.26-2.04]; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study established a high prevalence of midodrine continuation in transitions of care. The risks and benefits of this practice remain unclear. Future studies should explore the impact of this practice on patient outcomes and resource utilization. These insights could be used to model interventions for proper tapering, discontinuation, or follow-up of new start midodrine.

Metabolic Support of the Patient on Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy.

Continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) is the modality of choice in critically ill patients with hemodynamic instability requiring renal replacement therapy. The goal of this review is to discuss an overview of CRRT types, components, and important considerations for nutrition support provision. Evidence basis for guidelines and our recommendations are reviewed. Nutrition support-related implications include the possibility of calorie gain with citrate-based anticoagulation, calorie loss with glucose-free replacement fluids and dialysate, and significant amino acid losses in effluent. We challenge nutrition support clinicians to develop a keen understanding of the specific CRRT modalities that are employed in their intensive care units and to be able to determine how the CRRT prescription may impact a patient's nutrition support prescription.

Comparison of Warfarin Requirements in Post-cardiac Surgery Patients: Valve Replacement Versus Non-valve Replacement.

INTRODUCTION: Anticoagulation with warfarin affects approximately 140,000 post-cardiac surgery patients every year, yet there remains limited published data in this patient population. Dosing remains highly variable due to intrinsic risk factors that plague cardiac surgery candidates and a lack of diverse literature that can be applied to those who have undergone a cardiac surgery alternative to heart valve replacement (HVR). In the present study, our aim was to compare the warfarin requirements between HVR and non-HVR patients. METHODS: This was a single-center, retrospective study of post-cardiac surgery patients initiated on warfarin at Mayo Clinic Hospital, Rochester, from January 1st, 2013 to October 31st, 2016. The primary outcome was the maintenance warfarin dose at the earliest of discharge or warfarin day 10 between patients with HVR and non-HVR cardiac surgeries. RESULTS: A total of 683 patients were assessed during the study period: 408 in the HVR group and 275 in the non-HVR group. The mean warfarin maintenance doses in the HVR and non-HVR groups were 2.55 mg [standard deviation (SD) 1.52] and 2.43 mg (SD 1.21), respectively (adjusted p = 0.65). A multivariable analysis was performed to adjust for gender, age, body mass index and drug interactions. CONCLUSIONS: This was the largest study to evaluate warfarin dose requirements in post-cardiac surgery patients and is the first to compare warfarin requirements between HVR and non-HVR patients during the immediate post-operative period. Both groups had similar warfarin requirements, which supports expanding the initial warfarin dosing recommendations of the 9th edition Chest guideline to include non-HVR patients as well as HVR patients.