Medication Changes and Diagnosis of New Chronic Illnesses in COVID-19 Intensive Care Unit Survivors.

BACKGROUND: Currently, there is limited literature on the impact of the COVID-19 infection on medications and medical conditions in COVID-19 intensive care unit (ICU) survivors. Our study is, to our knowledge, the first multicenter study to describe the prevalence of new medical conditions and medication changes at hospital discharge in COVID-19 ICU survivors. OBJECTIVE: To determine the number of medical conditions and medications at hospital admission compared to at hospital discharge in COVID-19 ICU survivors. METHODS: Retrospective multicenter observational study (7 ICUs) evaluated new medical conditions and medication changes at hospital discharge in patients with COVID-19 infection admitted to an ICU between March 1, 2020, to March 1, 2021. Patient and hospital characteristics, baseline and hospital discharge medication and medical conditions, ICU and hospital length of stay, and Charlson comorbidity index were collected. Descriptive statistics were used to describe patient characteristics and number and type of medical conditions and medications. Paired t-test was used to compare number of medical conditions and medications from hospital discharge to admission. RESULTS: Of the 973 COVID-19 ICU survivors, 67.4% had at least one new medical condition and 88.2% had at least one medication change. Median number of medical conditions (increased from 3 to 4, P < .0001) and medications (increased from 5 to 8, P < .0001) increased from admission to discharge. Most common new medical conditions at discharge were pulmonary disorders, venous thromboembolism, psychiatric disorders, infection, and diabetes. Most common therapeutic categories associated with medication change were cardiology, gastroenterology, pain, hematology, and endocrinology. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Our study found that the number of medical conditions and medications increased from hospital admission to discharge. Our results provide additional data to help guide providers on using targeted approaches to manage medications and diseases in COVID-19 ICU survivors after hospital discharge.

Effect of IV Push Antibiotic Administration on Antibiotic Therapy Delays in Sepsis.

OBJECTIVES: Timeliness of antibiotic administration is recognized as an important factor in reducing mortality associated with sepsis. According to guidelines, antibiotics should be administered within 1 hour of sepsis presentation and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services mandates administration within 3 hours. This study evaluates the difference in time from sepsis diagnosis to first-dose completion of ß-lactam antibiotics between IV push and IV piggyback administration. DESIGN: Single-center, retrospective analysis. SETTING: Urban, tertiary-care emergency department. PATIENTS: Inclusion criteria were as follows: 1) adult patients (n = 274) diagnosed with severe sepsis or septic shock per Sepsis-2 criteria from September to November 2016 and from September to November 2017 and 2) received ß-lactam antibiotic. INTERVENTIONS: Initial ß-lactam agent administered as either IV push or IV piggyback. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Median time (interquartile range) from sepsis diagnosis to administration of a ß-lactam antibiotic was 48 minutes (19-96 min) versus 72 minutes (8-180 min) and to administration of the complete broad-spectrum regimen was 108 minutes (66-144 min) versus 114 minutes (42-282 min) in the IV push (n = 143) versus IV piggyback (n = 131) groups, respectively. When controlling for time to sepsis diagnosis and other factors, IV push was associated with approximately 32-minute time savings to ß-lactam (ß = -0.60; 95% CI, -0.91 to -0.29) and approximately 32-minute time savings to broad-spectrum (ß = -0.32; 95% CI, -0.62 to -0.02) antibiotic administrations. The IV push group was less likely to fail the goal of ß-lactam antibiotics within 1 hour (44.6% vs 57.3%; odds ratio, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.34-3.86) and 3 hours (7.6% vs 24.5%; odds ratio, 4.31; 95% CI, 2.01-10.28) of sepsis diagnosis compared with IV piggyback. The IV push strategy did not affect mortality, need for ICU admission, or ICU length of stay. No adverse events, including infusion reactions, were found in either arm. CONCLUSIONS: Use of an IV push strategy may safely facilitate more rapid administration of ß-lactam antibiotics and may allow for better compliance with sepsis management guidelines.

Major publications in the critical care pharmacotherapy literature: 2019.

PURPOSE: To summarize selected meta-analyses and trials related to critical care pharmacotherapy published in 2019. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Critical Care Pharmacotherapy Literature Update (CCPLU) Group screened 36 journals monthly for impactful articles and reviewed 113 articles during 2019 according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) criteria. RESULTS: Articles with a 1A grade, including three clinical practice guidelines, six meta-analyses, and five original research trials are reviewed here from those included in the monthly CCPLU. Clinical practice guidelines on the use of polymyxins and antiarrhythmic drugs in cardiac arrest as well as meta-analyses on antipsychotic use in delirium, stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP), and vasoactive medications in septic shock and cardiac arrest were summarized. Original research trials evaluated delirium, sedation, neuromuscular blockade, SUP, anticoagulation reversal, and hemostasis. CONCLUSION: This clinical review and expert opinion provides summary and perspectives of clinical practice impact on influential critical care pharmacotherapy publications in 2019.