Use of Intravenous Albumin: A Guideline From the International Collaboration for Transfusion Medicine Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Albumin is used commonly across a wide range of clinical settings to improve hemodynamics, to facilitate fluid removal, and to manage complications of cirrhosis. The International Collaboration for Transfusion Medicine Guidelines developed guidelines for the use of albumin in patients requiring critical care, undergoing cardiovascular surgery, undergoing kidney replacement therapy, or experiencing complications of cirrhosis. METHODS: Cochairs oversaw the guideline development process and the panel included researchers, clinicians, methodologists, and a patient representative. The evidence informing this guideline arises from a systematic review of randomized clinical trials and systematic reviews, in which multiple databases were searched (inception through November 23, 2022). The panel reviewed the data and formulated the guideline recommendations using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. The guidelines were revised after public consultation. RESULTS: The panel made 14 recommendations on albumin use in adult critical care (three recommendations), pediatric critical care (one recommendation), neonatal critical care (two recommendations), cardiovascular surgery (two recommendations), kidney replacement therapy (one recommendation), and complications of cirrhosis (five recommendations). Of the 14 recommendations, two recommendations had moderate certainty of evidence, five recommendations had low certainty of evidence, and seven recommendations had very low certainty of evidence. Two of the 14 recommendations suggested conditional use of albumin for patients with cirrhosis undergoing large-volume paracentesis or with spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. Twelve of 14 recommendations did not suggest albumin use in a wide variety of clinical situations where albumin commonly is transfused. CONCLUSIONS: Currently, few evidence-based indications support the routine use of albumin in clinical practice to improve patient outcomes. These guidelines provide clinicians with actionable recommendations on the use of albumin.

Forecasting disease trajectories in critical illness: comparison of probabilistic dynamic systems to static models to predict patient status in the intensive care unit.

OBJECTIVE: Conventional prediction models fail to integrate the constantly evolving nature of critical illness. Alternative modelling approaches to study dynamic changes in critical illness progression are needed. We compare static risk prediction models to dynamic probabilistic models in early critical illness. DESIGN: We developed models to simulate disease trajectories of critically ill COVID-19 patients across different disease states. Eighty per cent of cases were randomly assigned to a training and 20% of the cases were used as a validation cohort. Conventional risk prediction models were developed to analyse different disease states for critically ill patients for the first 7 days of intensive care unit (ICU) stay. Daily disease state transitions were modelled using a series of multivariable, multinomial logistic regression models. A probabilistic dynamic systems modelling approach was used to predict disease trajectory over the first 7 days of an ICU admission. Forecast accuracy was assessed and simulated patient clinical trajectories were developed through our algorithm. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We retrospectively studied patients admitted to a Cleveland Clinic Healthcare System in Ohio, for the treatment of COVID-19 from March 2020 to December 2022. RESULTS: 5241 patients were included in the analysis. For ICU days 2-7, the static (conventional) modelling approach, the accuracy of the models steadily decreased as a function of time, with area under the curve (AUC) for each health state below 0.8. But the dynamic forecasting approach improved its ability to predict as a function of time. AUC for the dynamic forecasting approach were all above 0.90 for ICU days 4-7 for all states. CONCLUSION: We demonstrated that modelling critical care outcomes as a dynamic system improved the forecasting accuracy of the disease state. Our model accurately identified different disease conditions and trajectories, with a <10% misclassification rate over the first week of critical illness.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign Research Priorities 2023.

OBJECTIVES: To identify research priorities in the management, epidemiology, outcome, and pathophysiology of sepsis and septic shock. DESIGN: Shortly after publication of the most recent Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines, the Surviving Sepsis Research Committee, a multiprofessional group of 16 international experts representing the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Society of Critical Care Medicine, convened virtually and iteratively developed the article and recommendations, which represents an update from the 2018 Surviving Sepsis Campaign Research Priorities. METHODS: Each task force member submitted five research questions on any sepsis-related subject. Committee members then independently ranked their top three priorities from the list generated. The highest rated clinical and basic science questions were developed into the current article. RESULTS: A total of 81 questions were submitted. After merging similar questions, there were 34 clinical and ten basic science research questions submitted for voting. The five top clinical priorities were as follows: 1) what is the best strategy for screening and identification of patients with sepsis, and can predictive modeling assist in real-time recognition of sepsis? 2) what causes organ injury and dysfunction in sepsis, how should it be defined, and how can it be detected? 3) how should fluid resuscitation be individualized initially and beyond? 4) what is the best vasopressor approach for treating the different phases of septic shock? and 5) can a personalized/precision medicine approach identify optimal therapies to improve patient outcomes? The five top basic science priorities were as follows: 1) How can we improve animal models so that they more closely resemble sepsis in humans? 2) What outcome variables maximize correlations between human sepsis and animal models and are therefore most appropriate to use in both? 3) How does sepsis affect the brain, and how do sepsis-induced brain alterations contribute to organ dysfunction? How does sepsis affect interactions between neural, endocrine, and immune systems? 4) How does the microbiome affect sepsis pathobiology? 5) How do genetics and epigenetics influence the development of sepsis, the course of sepsis and the response to treatments for sepsis? CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge advances in multiple clinical domains have been incorporated in progressive iterations of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines, allowing for evidence-based recommendations for short- and long-term management of sepsis. However, the strength of existing evidence is modest with significant knowledge gaps and mortality from sepsis remains high. The priorities identified represent a roadmap for research in sepsis and septic shock.

Peripheral Administration of Norepinephrine: A Prospective Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Historically, norepinephrine has been administered through a central venous catheter (CVC) because of concerns about the risk of ischemic tissue injury if extravasation from a peripheral IV catheter (PIVC) occurs. Recently, several reports have suggested that peripheral administration of norepinephrine may be safe. RESEARCH QUESTION: Can a protocol for peripheral norepinephrine administration safely reduce the number of days a CVC is in use and frequency of CVC placement? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a prospective observational cohort study conducted in the medical ICU at a quaternary care academic medical center. A protocol for peripheral norepinephrine administration was developed and implemented in the medical ICU at the study site. The protocol was recommended for use in patients who met prespecified criteria, but was used at the treating clinician's discretion. All adult patients admitted to the medical ICU receiving norepinephrine through a PIVC from February 2019 through June 2021 were included. RESULTS: The primary outcome was the number of days of CVC use that were avoided per patient, and the secondary safety outcomes included the incidence of extravasation events. Six hundred thirty-five patients received peripherally administered norepinephrine. The median number of CVC days avoided per patient was 1 (interquartile range, 0-2 days per patient). Of the 603 patients who received norepinephrine peripherally as the first norepinephrine exposure, 311 patients (51.6%) never required CVC insertion. Extravasation of norepinephrine occurred in 35 patients (75.8 events/1,000 d of PIVC infusion [95% CI, 52.8-105.4 events/1,000 d of PIVC infusion]). Most extravasations caused no or minimal tissue injury. No patient required surgical intervention. INTERPRETATION: This study suggests that implementing a protocol for peripheral administration of norepinephrine safely can avoid 1 CVC day in the average patient, with 51.6% of patients not requiring CVC insertion. No patient experienced significant ischemic tissue injury with the protocol used. These data support performance of a randomized, prospective, multicenter study to characterize the net benefits of peripheral norepinephrine administration compared with norepinephrine administration through a CVC.

Baricitinib versus tocilizumab in critically ill COVID-19 patients: A retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: The immunomodulators tocilizumab and baricitinib improve outcomes in severely ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19); however, comparative analyses of clinical outcomes related to these agents are lacking. A tocilizumab national shortage shifted treatment to baricitinib in critically ill patients, allowing for an outcome comparison in a similar population. The purpose of this study is to compare clinical outcomes in critically ill COVID-19 patients who received tocilizumab and those who received baricitinib. DESIGN: Retrospective, observational cohort study using generalized estimating equation models, accounting for clustering by hospital and known confounders, to estimate the proportional odds of the ordinal World Health Organization Clinical Progression Scale (WHO-CPS) score at day 14, the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included WHO-CPS score at day 7. SETTING: Multiple hospitals within the Cleveland Clinic Health System. PATIENTS: Adult patients admitted for COVID-19 between January 2021 and November 2021. INTERVENTIONS: Receipt of tocilizumab, before its shortage, or baricitinib, during shortage. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: In total, 507 patients were included; 217 received tocilizumab and 290 received baricitinib. Over 96% of patients required ICU admission and 98% received concomitant dexamethasone. Tocilizumab recipients had higher (worse) baseline WHO-CPS scores. After adjustment, tocilizumab use was associated with higher odds of a worse day 14 WHO-CPS score compared with baricitinib (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.65 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10-2.48]). Similarly, after adjustment, tocilizumab use was associated with higher odds of a worse day 7 WHO-CPS score (adjusted OR 1.65 [95% CI 1.22-2.24]). CONCLUSIONS: Baricitinib use was associated with better WHO-CPS scores at day 14 and day 7 compared with tocilizumab in a cohort of critically ill patients with COVID-19. The odds of having a one unit increase in WHO-CPS score at day 14 was 71% higher with tocilizumab than baricitinib. No difference in mortality or adverse effects was noted.

Physical and Chemical Compatibility of Medications Commonly Used in Critically Ill Patients With Balanced Crystalloids: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate available evidence of physical and/or chemical compatibility of commonly used medications in critically ill patients with balanced crystalloids. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were queried from inception to September 2022. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: This review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. English-language studies reporting physical and/or chemical compatibility data between 50 selected medications and balanced crystalloids were included. A previously designed tool to assess risk of bias was adapted for use. DATA SYNTHESIS: Twenty-nine studies encompassing 39 (78%) medications and 188 unique combinations with balanced crystalloids were included. Combinations included 35 (70%) medications with lactated Ringer's, 26 (52%) medications with Plasma-Lyte, 10 (20%) medications with Normosol, and one (2%) medication with Isolyte. Studies commonly evaluated physical and chemical compatibility (55.2%). More medications were evaluated via Y-site than admixture. Incompatibilities were identified in 18% of combinations comprising 13 individual drugs. RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE: This systematic review evaluates the compatibility of select critical care medications with balanced crystalloid solutions. Results may be used as a tool to guide clinicians on balanced crystalloid compatibility, potentially increasing ubiquitous use and reducing patient exposure to normal saline. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Data are limited regarding chemical/physical compatibility of commonly used medications in critically ill patients with balanced crystalloids. Additional compatibility studies are warranted, particularly methodologically rigorous studies assessing Plasma-Lyte, Normosol, and Isolyte. Of the evaluated medications, there was a low frequency of incompatibilities with balanced crystalloids.

Adjunctive Vasopressors in Patients with Septic Shock: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: Over one-third of patients with septic shock have adjunctive vasopressors added to first-line vasopressors. However, no randomized trial has detected improved mortality with adjunctive vasopressors. Published systematic reviews and meta-analysis have sought to inform the use of adjunctive vasopressors, yet each published review has limitations that hinder its interpretation. This review aims to overcome the limitations of previous reviews by systematically synthesizing the direct evidence for adjunctive vasopressor therapy use in adult patients with septic shock. Methods: We will conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating adjunctive vasopressors (vasopressin analogues, angiotensin II, hydroxocobalamin, methylene blue, and catecholamine analogues) in adult patients with septic shock. Relevant studies will be identified through comprehensive searches of MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and reference lists of previous systematic reviews. Only randomized trials comparing adjunctive vasopressors (>75% of subjects on vasopressors at enrollment) to standard care vasopressors in adults with septic shock (>75% of subjects having septic shock) will be included. Titles and abstracts will be screened, full-text articles assessed for eligibility, and data extracted from included studies. Outcomes of interest include short-term mortality, intermediate-term mortality, kidney replacement therapy, digital/peripheral ischemia, and venous thromboembolism. Pairwise meta-analysis using a random-effects model will be utilized to estimate the risk ratio for the outcomes. Risk of bias will be adjudicated with the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool, and GRADE will be used to rate the certainty of the body of evidence. Discussion: Although adjunctive vasopressors are commonly used in patients with septic shock their effect on patient-important outcomes is unclear. This study is planned to use rigorous systematic review methodology, including strict adhere to established guidelines, in order to overcome limitations of previously-published reviews and inform clinical practice and treatment guidelines for the use of adjunctive vasopressors in adults with septic shock. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD4202327984.

Optimizing Vasopressin Use and Initiation Timing in Septic Shock: A Narrative Review.

TOPIC IMPORTANCE: This review discusses the rationale for vasopressin use, summarizes the results of clinical trials evaluating vasopressin, and focuses on the timing of vasopressin initiation to provide clinicians guidance for optimal adjunctive vasopressin initiation in patients with septic shock. REVIEW FINDINGS: Patients with septic shock require vasoactive agents to restore adequate tissue perfusion. After norepinephrine, vasopressin is the suggested second-line adjunctive agent in patients with persistent inadequate mean arterial pressure. Vasopressin use in practice is heterogeneous likely because of inconsistent clinical trial findings, the lack of specific recommendations for when it should be used, and the high drug acquisition cost. Despite these limitations, vasopressin has demonstrated price inelastic demand, and its use in the United States has continued to increase. However, questions remain regarding optimal vasopressin use in patients with septic shock, particularly regarding patient selection and the timing of vasopressin initiation. SUMMARY: Experimental studies evaluating the initiation timing of vasopressin in patients with septic shock are limited, and recent observational studies have revealed an association between vasopressin initiation at lower norepinephrine-equivalent doses or lower lactate concentrations and lower mortality.

Echocardiographic profiles and hemodynamic response after vasopressin initiation in septic shock: A cross-sectional study.

PURPOSE: Vasopressin, used as a catecholamine adjunct, is a vasoconstrictor that may be detrimental in some hemodynamic profiles, particularly left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction. This study tested the hypothesis that echocardiographic parameters differ between patients with a hemodynamic response after vasopressin initiation and those without a response. METHODS: This retrospective, single-center, cross-sectional study included adults with septic shock receiving catecholamines and vasopressin with an echocardiogram performed after shock onset but before vasopressin initiation. Patients were grouped by hemodynamic response, defined as decreased catecholamine dosage with mean arterial pressure ≥ 65 mmHg six hours after vasopressin initiation, with echocardiographic parameters compared. LV systolic dysfunction was defined as LV ejection fraction (LVEF) <45%. RESULTS: Of 129 included patients, 72 (56%) were hemodynamic responders. Hemodynamic responders, versus non-responders, had higher LVEF (61% [55%,68%] vs. 55% [40%,65%]; p = 0.02) and less-frequent LV systolic dysfunction (absolute difference  -16%; 95% CI -30%,-2%). Higher LVEF was associated with higher odds of hemodynamic response (for each LVEF 10%, response OR 1.32; 95% CI 1.04-1.68). Patients with LV systolic dysfunction, versus without LV systolic dysfunction, had higher mortality risk (HR(t) = e[0.81-0.1*t]; at t = 0, HR 2.24; 95% CI 1.08-4.64). CONCLUSIONS: Pre-drug echocardiographic profiles differed in hemodynamic responders after vasopressin initiation versus non-responders.

Association between emergency department sepsis order set design and delay to second dose piperacillin-tazobactam administration.

BACKGROUND: Delay to first antibiotic dose in patients with sepsis has been associated with increased mortality. Second dose antibiotic delay has also been linked to worsened patient outcomes. Optimal methods to decrease second dose delay are currently unclear. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the association between updating an emergency department (ED) sepsis order set design from one-time doses to scheduled antibiotic frequencies and delay to administration of second piperacillin-tazobactam dose. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was conducted at eleven hospitals in a large, integrated health system and included adult patients treated in the ED with at least one dose of piperacillin-tazobactam ordered through an ED sepsis order set over a two year period. Patients were excluded if they received less than two doses of piperacillin-tazobactam. Midway through the study period, the enterprise-wide ED sepsis order set was updated to include scheduled antibiotic frequencies. Two patient cohorts receiving piperacillin-tazobactam were compared: those in the year before the order set update and those in the year post-update. The primary outcome was major delay, defined as an administration delay >25% of the recommended dosing interval, which was evaluated with multivariable logistic regression and interrupted time series analysis. RESULTS: 3219 patients were included: 1222 in the pre-update group and 1997 in the post-update group. The proportion of patients who experienced major second dose delay was significantly lower in the post-update group (32.7% vs 25.6%, p < 0.01; adjusted OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.78). No between-group difference was detected in the slope of monthly major delay frequency, but there was a significant level change (post-update change -10%, 95% CI -17.9% to -1.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Including scheduled antibiotic frequencies in ED sepsis order sets is a pragmatic mechanism to decrease delays in second antibiotic doses.

Precision fluid and vasoactive drug therapy for critically ill patients.

There are several clinical practice guidelines concerning the use of fluid and vasoactive drug therapies in critically ill adult patients, but the recommendations in these guidelines are often based on low-quality evidence. Further, some were compiled prior to the publication of landmark clinical trials, particularly in the comparison of balanced crystalloid and normal saline. An important consideration in the treatment of critically ill patients is the application of precision medicine to provide the most effective care to groups of patients most likely to benefit from the therapy. Although not currently widely integrated into these practice guidelines, the utility of precision medicine in critical illness is a recognized research priority for fluid and vasoactive therapy management. The purpose of this narrative review was to illustrate the evaluation and challenges of providing precision fluid and vasoactive therapies to adult critically ill patients. The review includes a discussion of important investigations published after the release of currently available clinical practice guidelines to provide insight into how recommendations and research priorities may change future guidelines and bedside care for critically ill patients.

Vasopressin Response and Clinical Trajectory in Septic Shock Patients.

BACKGROUND: In septic shock, vasopressors aim to improve tissue perfusion and prevent persistent organ dysfunction, a characteristic of chronic critical illness (CCI). Adjunctive vasopressin is often used to decrease catecholamine dosage, but the association of vasopressin response with subsequent patient outcomes is unclear. We hypothesized vasopressin response is associated with favorable clinical trajectory. METHODS: We included patients with septic shock receiving vasopressin as a catecholamine adjunct in this retrospective cohort study. We defined vasopressin response as a lowering of the catecholamine dose required to maintain mean arterial pressure ≥65 mm Hg, 6 h after vasopressin initiation. Clinical trajectories were adjudicated as early death (ED; death before day 14), CCI (ICU stay ≥14 days with persistent organ dysfunction), or rapid recovery (RR; not meeting ED or CCI criteria). Trajectories were placed on an ordinal scale with ED the worst outcome, CCI next, and RR the best outcome. The association of vasopressin response with clinical trajectory was assessed with multivariable ordinal logistic regression. RESULTS: In total 938 patients were included; 426 (45.4%) were vasopressin responders. The most frequent trajectory was ED (49.8%), 29.7% developed CCI, and 20.5% had rapid recovery. In survivors to ICU day 14 (those without ED), 59.2% had CCI and 40.8% experienced RR. Compared with vasopressin non-responders, vasopressin responders less frequently experienced ED (42.5% vs. 55.9%) and more frequently experienced RR (24.6% vs. 17.0%; P < 0.01). After controlling for confounders, vasopressin response was independently associated with higher odds of developing a better clinical trajectory (OR 1.63; 95% CI 1.26-2.10). Medical patients most frequently developed ED and survivors more commonly developed CCI than RR; surgical patients developed the three trajectories with similar frequency (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Vasopressin responsive status was associated with improved clinical trajectory in septic shock patients. Early vasopressin response is a potential novel prognostic marker for short-term clinical trajectory.

Association of Methylene Blue Dosing With Hemodynamic Response for the Treatment of Vasoplegia.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the hemodynamic response of methylene blue dosing regimens (bolus v bolus plus infusion) for the treatment of vasoplegia. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort analysis. SETTING: A single-center academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Patients who underwent cardiac surgery at Cleveland Clinic and received methylene blue between 2016 and 2019. Patients were excluded from the analysis if methylene blue was initiated >48 hours after surgery, if the cardiac index was <2.0 L/min/m2, or if they returned to the operating room for postoperative hemorrhage. INTERVENTIONS: Methylene blue bolus-only regimens versus bolus plus continuous infusion methylene blue regimens. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome was vasopressor requirement over 48 hours (1, 3, 6, 12, 24, and 48 hours) after methylene blue initiation. Other hemodynamic outcomes evaluated included the rate of methylene blue response, mean arterial pressure (MAP), and systemic vascular resistance (SVR) values over time. In total, 44 patients were included in the analysis, 33 of whom only received a methylene blue bolus. Vasopressor requirements at baseline were 95 (95% CI: 70-122) µg/min norepinephrine equivalent (NE) in the bolus-only group and 100 (86-130) µg/min in the infusion group. Vasopressor requirements decreased at each time point in both groups and were similar throughout (hour 1 mean [95% CI] NE, bolus 79 [67-91] µg/min v bolus plus infusion 84 [63-104] µg/min; p = 0.71). MAP, SVR, and rates of methylene blue response were similar between groups at all time points. Clinical outcomes also were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of a methylene blue continuous infusion did not significantly improve hemodynamic response. Bolus-only dosing of methylene blue may be sufficient for the treatment of vasoplegia after cardiac surgery.

Association of Arterial pH With Hemodynamic Response to Vasopressin in Patients With Septic Shock: An Observational Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: Vasopressin is reported to retain vasoconstrictive activity in the setting of acidemia, but preclinical models are inconsistent and studies have not evaluated the clinical effectiveness of vasopressin based on arterial pH. This study sought to determine the association between arterial pH and blood pressure after vasopressin initiation in septic shock. DESIGN: This retrospective, multicenter, observational cohort study evaluated the association of arterial pH at the time of vasopressin initiation with hemodynamic response to vasopressin and change in catecholamine dose after vasopressin initiation. Hemodynamic response was defined as a catecholamine dose decrease with mean arterial pressure greater than or equal to 65 mm Hg at 6 hours after vasopressin initiation. SETTING: Patients from eight hospitals in a health system were evaluated. PATIENTS: Patients with septic shock initiated on vasopressin as a catecholamine adjunct between January 2012 and November 2017 were screened for inclusion. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 1,350 patients were included. At the time of vasopressin initiation patients were severely ill with arterial pH 7.28 ± 0.13, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment 14.1 ± 3.5, lactate 5.6 ± 4.6 mmol/L, and norepinephrine-equivalent catecholamine dose 32.3 ± 25.4 µg/min. After adjusting for lactate and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment with multivariable logistic regression, lower arterial pH was independently associated with lower odds of hemodynamic response to vasopressin (for each 0.1 unit arterial pH was below 7.40, response odds ratio 0.79; 95% CI, 0.72-0.87). For each 0.1 unit the pH was below 7.40 at vasopressin initiation, the norepinephrine-equivalent catecholamine dose increased by 1.5 µg/min (95% CI, 0.5-2.5 µg/min) at 1 hour, and increased by 2.5 µg/min (95% CI, 1.4-3.5 µg/min) at 6 hours after vasopressin initiation. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with higher arterial pH, patients with septic shock and low arterial pH had lower odds of vasopressin response and higher catecholamine doses after vasopressin initiation. Similar to other vasopressors, the clinical effectiveness of vasopressin appears to be impaired in the setting of acidemia.

Effectiveness and Safety of Twice Daily Versus Thrice Daily Subcutaneous Unfractionated Heparin for Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis at a Tertiary Medical Center.

BACKGROUND: The direct comparison of twice daily (BID) and thrice daily (TID) dosing of subcutaneous low dose unfractionated heparin (LDUH) for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in a mixed inpatient population is not well-studied. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the effectiveness and safety of BID compared to TID dosing of LDUH for prevention of VTE. METHODS: Retrospective, single-center analysis of patients who received LDUH for VTE prophylaxis between July and September 2015. Outcomes were identified by ICD-9 codes. A matched cohort was created using propensity scores and multivariate analysis was conducted to identify independent risk factors for VTE. The primary outcome was incidence of symptomatic VTE. RESULTS: In the full cohort, VTE occurred in 0.71% of patients who received LDUH BID compared to 0.77% of patients who received LDUH TID (p = 0.85). There was no difference in major (p = 0.85) and minor (p = 0.52) bleeding between the BID and TID groups. For the matched cohort, VTE occurred in 1.4% of BID patients and 2.1% of TID patients (p = 0.32). Major bleed occurred in 0.36% of BID patients and 0.52% of TID patients (p = 0.7), while a minor bleed was seen in 3.4% of BID patients and 2.1% of TID patients (p = 0.13). Personal history of VTE (p = 0.002) and weight (p = 0.035) were independently associated with increased risk of VTE. CONCLUSION: This study did not demonstrate a difference in effectiveness or safety between BID and TID dosing of LDUH for VTE prevention.

Hemodynamic Response to Vasopressin Dosage of 0.03 Units/Min vs. 0.04 Units/Min in Patients With Septic Shock.

BACKGROUND: Arginine vasopressin (AVP) is suggested as an adjunct to norepinephrine in patients with septic shock. Guidelines recommend an AVP dosage up to 0.03 units/min, but 0.04 units/min is commonly used in practice based on initial studies. This study was designed to compare the incidence of hemodynamic response between initial fixed-dosage AVP 0.03 units/min and AVP 0.04 units/min. METHODS: This retrospective, multi-hospital health system, cohort study included adult patients with septic shock receiving AVP as an adjunct to catecholamine vasopressors. Patients were excluded if they received an initial dosage other than 0.03 units/min or 0.04 units/min, or AVP was titrated within the first 6 hours of therapy. The primary outcome was hemodynamic response, defined as a mean arterial pressure ≥65 mm Hg and a decrease in catecholamine dosage at 6 hours after AVP initiation. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) based on the propensity score for initial AVP dosage receipt was utilized to estimate adjusted exposure effects. RESULTS: Of the 1536 patients included in the observed data, there was a nearly even split between initial AVP dosage of 0.03 units/min (n = 842 [54.8%]) and 0.04 units/min (n = 694 [45.2%]). Observed patients receiving AVP 0.03 units/min were more frequently treated at the main campus academic medical center (96.3% vs. 52.2%, p < 0.01) and in a medical intensive care unit (87.4% vs. 39.8%, p < 0.01). The IPTW analysis included 1379 patients with achievement of baseline covariate balance. There was no evidence for a difference between groups in the incidence of hemodynamic response (0.03 units/min 50.0% vs. 0.04 units/min 53.1%, adjusted relative risk 1.06 [95% CI 0.94, 1.20]). CONCLUSIONS: Initial AVP dosing varied by hospital and unit type. Although commonly used, an initial AVP dosage of 0.04 units/min was not associated with a higher incidence of early hemodynamic response to AVP in patients with septic shock.

Association Between Vasopressin Rebranding and Utilization in Patients With Septic Shock.

OBJECTIVES: Vasopressin is suggested as an adjunct to norepinephrine in patients with septic shock. However, after vasopressin was rebranded in November 2014, its cost exponentially increased. Utilization patterns of vasopressin after its rebranding are unclear. The objective of this study was to determine if there is an association between the rebranding of vasopressin in November 2014 and its utilization in vasopressor-dependent patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. DESIGN: Retrospective, multicenter, database study between January 2010 and March 2017. SETTING: Premier Healthcare Database hospitals. PATIENTS: Adult patients admitted to an ICU with severe sepsis or septic shock, who received at least one vasoactive agent for two or more calendar days were included. INTERVENTIONS: The proportion of patients who received vasopressin and vasopressin cost was assessed before and after rebranding, and evaluated with segmented regression. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Among 294,733 patients (mean age, 66 ± 15 yr), 27.8% received vasopressin, and ICU mortality was 26.5%. The proportion of patients receiving vasopressin was higher after rebranding (31.2% postrebranding vs 25.8% prerebranding). Before vasopressin rebranding, the quarterly proportion of patients who received vasopressin had an increasing slope (prerebranding slope 0.41% [95% CI, 0.35-0.46%]), with no difference in slope detected after vasopressin rebranding (postrebranding slope, 0.47% [95% CI, 0.29-0.64%]). After vasopressin rebranding, mean vasopressin cost per patient was higher ($527 ± 1,130 vs $77 ± 160), and the quarterly slope of vasopressin cost was higher (change in slope $77.18 [95% CI, $75.73-78.61]). Total vasopressin billed cost postrebranding continually increased by ~$294,276 per quarter from less than $500,000 in Q4 2014 to over $3,000,000 in Q1 2017. CONCLUSIONS: After vasopressin rebranding, utilization continued to increase quarterly despite a significant increase in vasopressin cost. Vasopressin appeared to have price inelastic demand in septic shock.