Identifying Prevalence and Potential Predictors of Do-Not-Attempt-Resuscitation Orders to Facilitate Preoperative Discussions on Code Status.

BACKGROUND: Do Not Attempt Resuscitation (DNAR) orders allow patients with life-threatening conditions to decline resuscitation efforts should the need arise. The American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) recommends discussions with patients on their code status to clarify and honor their goals of care perioperatively. This project sought to determine the prevalence of DNAR orders and to identify the demographics and potential clinical predictors of DNAR status at the beginning and end of admission, which would help anesthesiologists at our center facilitate these discussions. METHODS: Factors associated with DNAR status at beginning and at end of hospital stay were determined through univariate logistic regressions. For DNAR status at beginning and end of hospital admission, variables assessed were age at arrival, race, sex, palliative consult, use of palliative care service, length of stay in days, presence of surgery, presence of emergent surgery, care level, and medical service. RESULTS: Approximately 2.4 percent of the sample had an active DNAR order at the beginning of their hospital admission compared to 7.4 percent at the end of hospital admission. Factors significantly associated with DNAR status at the beginning of the hospital stay were consistent with prior literature (age, palliative care consult or service). However, factors significantly associated with DNAR status at the end of hospital stay that were notable included length of stay, undergoing emergent surgery, higher level of care, and being on the oncology service and medical respiratory intensive care unit. CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective study allows anesthesiologists at our institution to identify patients who may benefit from a more comprehensive perioperative discussion about code status based on certain clinical characteristics, which may improve quality of care by preventing unwanted resuscitative measures that do not align with a patient's goals of care.

Adherence to lipid monitoring and its impact on treat intensification of LDL-C lowering therapies at an urban academic medical center.

BACKGROUND: Lipid monitoring is recommended by treatment guidelines to assess efficacy and adherence to lipid lowering therapy, but the available data is mostly limited to integrated health delivery systems with less diverse populations. OBJECTIVE: To determine the proportion of patients that completed appropriate lipid monitoring at an urban academic medical center and whether lipid monitoring is associated with treatment intensification. METHODS: Adults prescribed ≥1 LDL-C lowering therapy and with ≥1 outpatient encounter during 2018 and 2019 were included. Appropriate lipid monitoring was defined as ≥1 lipid panel obtained during the 12 month follow up period. Treatment intensification was defined as a dose increase, change to a higher intensity statin, or addition of a new LDL-C lowering therapy. The association between lipid monitoring and treatment intensification were assessed using regression models. RESULTS: Of the 12,332 patients on LDL-C lowering therapy, 88% had ≥1 lipid panel. The average patient was 60 years of age, 50% were female, and 50% identified as black or African American. On regression analysis (odds ratio [OR], 95% confidence interval [CI]), lipid monitoring occurred less frequently in adults >75 years of age (0.63, 0.44 to 0.90), black or African American individuals (0.78, 0.69 to 0.89), and those insured by Medicaid (0.72, 0.61 to 0.86). The odds of treatment intensification steadily increased with the number of lipid panels compared to those without lipid monitoring. CONCLUSION: Lipid monitoring is associated with treatment intensification but occurs less frequently in adults >75 years of age, black or African American individuals, and those insured by Medicaid.

Intravenous Versus Oral Acetaminophen Use in Febrile Neurocritical Care Patients.

The use of intravenous (IV) acetaminophen (APAP) for fever has not been thoroughly studied in neurocritical care (NCC) patients, in whom a temperature of ≥38°C is associated with poor outcomes and treatment to normothermia is common practice. This retrospective study evaluated NCC patients admitted between May 1, 2012, and April 30, 2013, and received at least one dose of IV or oral (PO) APAP for a body temperature of ≥38°C. The primary aim of this study was to compare the reduction in body temperature (RIT) between IV and PO APAP, calculated as the change in temperature before and 0.5, 1, 2, 3, and 6 hours after administration. Descriptive statistics were used to assess use characteristics, and Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests were used for between-group differences. There were 142 NCC patients who received a total of 405 IV APAP and 253 PO APAP doses. Seventy percent of all APAP doses resulted in a temperature of <38°C within 6 hours. The median oral body temperature before APAP was 38.8°C and 38.6°C for IV and PO APAP, respectively (p < 0.01). The median RIT at 0.5 (IV 0.25°C vs. PO 0.2°C), 1 (IV 0.4°C vs. PO 0.2°C), 2 (IV 0.7°C vs. PO 0.5°C), 3 (IV 0.9°C vs. PO 0.6°C), and 6 (IV 1°C vs. PO 0.8°C) hours was significantly greater for IV APAP than for PO APAP at all time points (p < 0.05). Patients with an acute ischemic stroke and patients with an intracerebral hemorrhage had a statistically significantly greater RIT with IV APAP therapy. IV APAP administered to febrile NCC patients was associated with a significantly greater RIT than PO, but 70% of all APAP doses resulted in a body temperature of <38°C within 6 hours. Further prospective studies are needed to determine if IV APAP improves clinical outcomes.

Assessment of Different Methods for Pediatric Meningitis Dosing Clinical Decision Support.

BACKGROUND: Indication-specific medication dosing support is needed to improve pediatric dosing support. OBJECTIVE: To compare the sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) of different meningitis dosing alert triggers and dosing error rates between antimicrobials with and without meningitis order sentences. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 4-months of pediatric orders for antimicrobials with meningitis-specific dosing. At the time of the order, it was determined if the antimicrobial was for meningitis management, if a cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) culture was ordered, and if a natural language processing (NLP) system could detect "meningitis" in clinical notes. RESULTS: Of 1383 orders, 243 were for the management of meningitis. A CSF culture or NLP combination trigger searching the electronic health record since admission yielded the greatest sensitivity for detecting meningitis management (67.5%, P < 0.01 vs others), but dosing error detection was similar if the trigger only searched 48 hours preceding the order (68.8% vs 62.5%, P = 0.125). Using a CSF culture alone and a 48-hour time frame had a higher PPV versus a combination with a 48-hour time frame (97.1% vs 80.9%, P < 0.001), and both triggers had a higher PPV than others ( P < 0.001). Antimicrobials with meningitis order sentences had fewer dosing errors (19.8% vs 43.2%, P < 0.01). Conclusion and Relevance: A meningitis dosing alert triggered by a combination of a CSF culture or NLP system and a 48-hour triggering time frame could provide reasonable sensitivity and PPV for meningitis dosing errors. Order sentences with indication-specific recommendations may provide additional dosing support, but additional studies are needed.

Description of a restriction program for gram-positive antimicrobial agents at an academic medical center.

This report examines the effectiveness of antimicrobial restriction at 1 tertiary care health care system by analyzing the consumption of restricted versus nonrestricted gram-positive agents over time for medical versus surgical units. Significant reductions in restricted antibiotic use were detected in 57% of medical units versus none of the surgical units. There were no significant reductions in nonrestricted antibiotic use. We think looking at antibiotic consumption by service line provides opportunities for targeted antibiotic restriction program refinement.

Intravenous Versus Oral Acetaminophen for Pain Control in Neurocritical Care Patients.

BACKGROUND: Acetaminophen (APAP) is used in neurocritical care (NCC) patients for analgesia without sedation or antiplatelet activity. Research suggests that intravenous (IV) APAP produces earlier and higher serum levels compared to oral (PO) APAP. This retrospective study evaluates the associated analgesic effects of IV and PO APAP and use of adjunctive opioids in NCC patients with moderate-severe pain. METHODS: Patients admitted to the neuroscience intensive care unit (NSICU) between May 2012 and April 2013 who received ≥1 dose of IV APAP were included in the study. IV and PO APAP doses administered with a predose pain score ≥4 within 1 h of dosing were compared. Pain intensity difference (PID) was calculated as the change between the pain score prior to each dose and scores at 30 min, 1, 2, 3, and 6 h postdose. Pre- and postdose morphine milligram equivalents (MME) were also calculated. RESULTS: 309 NSICU patients received 459 doses of IV and 440 doses of PO APAP meeting our inclusion criteria. The PID at 30 min postdosing was significantly higher among those receiving IV APAP compared to those receiving PO APAP (p = 0.003). No significant difference in PID was seen at 1, 2, 3, and 6 h; and there was no significant difference in pre- or postdose MME between the two groups. CONCLUSION: IV APAP was more effective than PO APAP at relieving pain within 30 min of dosing, but this difference was not sustained over 6 h. Further studies are needed to assess the benefits of this rapid onset of action.

Potentially inappropriate medication use is associated with clinical outcomes in critically ill elderly patients with neurological injury.

BACKGROUND: Limited data suggest that potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) impact outcomes in critically ill elderly patients. No data are available on the association between PIM use as well as drug burden index (DBI), which is a measure of PIM use, and clinical outcomes in neurocritical care elderly patients. This study evaluates whether PIM use and a higher DBI are associated with poor clinical outcomes in neurocritical care elderly patients. METHODS: PIMs were retrospectively identified in critically ill elderly patients admitted to the neuroscience intensive care unit (NSICU) from March to July 2011. DBI was calculated based on PIM doses. Relationships with clinical outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: PIMs were prescribed to a majority (81.3 %) of the 112 patients. Opioids were most commonly associated with a decrease in Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) scores (56 % of PIM doses). Time to recovery was significantly longer in patients with a higher PIM burden (≤2 PIMs: 8 h, >2 PIMs: 29 h; p = 0.02). There was a significantly longer NSICU and hospital length of stay (9 vs 2; 15 vs 5 days; p < 0.0001) as well as a lower Glasgow Coma Scale score upon discharge (14 vs 15, p = 0.02) in patients with a higher DBI after 72 h of hospitalization. There was no difference in mortality. CONCLUSIONS: PIM use and higher DBI scores were associated with poor clinical outcomes and longer lengths of stay. Further studies are needed to determine the impact of PIMs and DBI on mortality in neurocritical care elderly patients.