The pharmacist's role in reducing infusion-related phlebitis.

PURPOSE: Pharmacists oversee parenteral drug preparation and administration in hospitals, clinics, infusion centers, and home infusion settings. Infusion-related phlebitis (IRP), the most common complication of intravenous infusion therapy, significantly impacts therapeutic outcomes, patient satisfaction, cost of care, and provider workload. Here we review the major etiologies of IRP and describe potential pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions for preventing and managing the condition as well as for improving vascular access health in multiple-drug administration settings. SUMMARY: Many parenterally administered drugs cause phlebitis due to mechanical, chemical, or infectious etiologies. Pharmacists can recommend nonpharmacological strategies to mitigate phlebitis, including -judicious device selection and placement; adjustment of the drug concentration, flow rate, or formulation; infusion site rotation; and use of inline filters to minimize contaminant particulates. Pharmacological treatments for phlebitis include topical, local, and systemic anti-inflammatory and analgesic agents that can reduce symptom severity and prevent further treatment complications or delays. CONCLUSION: Pharmacists can contribute a unique perspective to interprofessional teams tasked with making policy and formulary decisions that minimize the negative impacts of IRP on drug delivery and patient outcomes.

Drugs That May Cause or Exacerbate Heart Failure: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Heart failure is a common, costly, and debilitating syndrome that is associated with a highly complex drug regimen, a large number of comorbidities, and a large and often disparate number of healthcare providers. All of these factors conspire to increase the risk of heart failure exacerbation by direct myocardial toxicity, drug-drug interactions, or both. This scientific statement is designed to serve as a comprehensive and accessible source of drugs that may cause or exacerbate heart failure to assist healthcare providers in improving the quality of care for these patients.

Epinephrine in anaphylaxis: higher risk of cardiovascular complications and overdose after administration of intravenous bolus epinephrine compared with intramuscular epinephrine.

BACKGROUND: Epinephrine is the drug of choice for the management of anaphylaxis, and fatal anaphylaxis is associated with delayed epinephrine administration. Data on adverse cardiovascular (CV) complications and epinephrine overdose are limited. OBJECTIVE: To compare rates of CV adverse events and epinephrine overdoses associated with anaphylaxis management between various routes of epinephrine administration among patients with anaphylaxis in the emergency department. METHODS: This was an observational cohort study from April 2008 to July 2012. Patients in the emergency department who met diagnostic criteria for anaphylaxis were included. We collected demographics; route of epinephrine administration; trigger; overdose; and adverse CV events, including arrhythmia, cardiac ischemia, stroke, angina, and hypertension. RESULTS: The study cohort included 573 patients, of whom, 301 (57.6%) received at least 1 dose of epinephrine. A total of 362 doses of epinephrine were administered to 301 patients: 67.7% intramuscular (IM) autoinjector, 19.6% IM injection, 8.3% subcutaneous injection, 3.3% intravenous (IV) bolus, and 1.1% IV continuous infusion. There were 8 CV adverse events and 4 overdoses with 8 different patients. All the overdoses occurred when epinephrine was administered IV bolus. Adverse CV events were associated with 3 of 30 doses of IV bolus epinephrine compared with 4 of 316 doses of IM epinephrine (10% vs 1.3%; odds ratio 8.7 [95% CI, 1.8-40.7], P = .006). Similarly, overdose occurred with 4 of 30 doses of IV bolus epinephrine compared with 0 of 316 doses of IM epinephrine (13.3% vs 0%; odds ratio 61.3 [95% CI, 7.5 to infinity], P < .001). CONCLUSION: The risk of overdose and adverse CV events is significantly higher with IV bolus epinephrine administration. Analysis of the data supports the safety of IM epinephrine and a need for extreme caution and further education about IV bolus epinephrine in anaphylaxis.