Clinical Pharmacist-Led Impact on Inappropriate Albumin Use and Costs in the Critically Ill.

Background:Optimal albumin use in the intensive care unit (ICU) remains challenging with inappropriate use approaching 50%. No published reports have described clinical pharmacist impact aimed at mitigating inappropriate albumin use in the ICU. Objective: To evaluate the clinical and economic impact of a clinical pharmacist-led intervention strategy targeting inappropriate albumin in the ICU. Methods: A retrospective cohort study evaluated all adult (≥18 years) ICU patients administered albumin at an academic medical center over a 2-year period. Institutional guidelines were developed with clinical pharmacists targeting inappropriate albumin use. The primary end point was to compare inappropriate use of albumin administered before and after pharmacist intervention implementation. Secondary analyses compared the overall albumin use between study periods. In-hospital mortality, length of stay, and albumin-related costs between study periods were also compared. Results: A total of 4419 patients were identified, with 2448 (55.4%) critically ill patients included. The pharmacist-led strategy resulted in a 50.9% reduction of inappropriate albumin use (P < 0.001). The rate of inappropriate albumin use was 44.3 ± 10.5 and 5.5 ± 2.9 g per patient-day in the preimplementation and postimplementation periods, respectively (P < 0.001). Costs associated with overall and inappropriate albumin use in the ICU decreased by 34.8% and 87.1%, respectively. Total annual cost-savings was $355 393 in the ICUs. No differences in clinical outcomes were found. Conclusion and Relevance: Clinical pharmacist-led interventions reduced overall and inappropriate albumin use and costs without negatively affecting clinical outcomes.

Use of Prophylactic Ondansetron with Intravenous Opioids in Emergency Department Patients: A Prospective Observational Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: The current literature suggests that the prophylactic use of antiemetics is ineffective at preventing nausea or vomiting caused by opioids in the emergency department (ED). While there is no data evaluating ondansetron's efficacy for preventing opioid-induced nausea and vomiting, this practice remains common despite a lack of supporting evidence. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to identify if prophylactic ondansetron administered with intravenous (IV) opioids prevents opioid-induced nausea or vomiting. METHODS: This prospective observational study was conducted in the ED at two academic medical institutions. Patients were eligible for enrollment if they were prescribed an IV opioid with or without IV ondansetron and absence of baseline nausea. Patients' level of nausea was evaluated at baseline, 5 min, and 30 min after an IV opioid was administered and then observed for 2 hours. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-three patients were enrolled, with 90% of patients presenting with a chief complaint of pain. Sixty-four (48.1%) patients received an IV opioid alone and 69 (51.9%) patients received both IV ondansetron and an IV opioid. Twenty-three (17.3%) patients developed nausea caused by opioid administration. One (0.75%) patient had an emetic event and 3 (2.3%) patients required rescue antiemetics during their observation period. Rate of nausea was similar between treatment groups 5 min after the opioid was administered (p = 0.153). There was no statistical difference in emesis, rescue medication requirements, or nausea severity between treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Our trial found that ondansetron did not appear to be effective at preventing opioid-induced nausea or vomiting. These findings and previous literature suggest prophylactic ondansetron should not be given to ED patients who are receiving IV opioids.

Comparison of acute kidney injury risk associated with vancomycin and concomitant piperacillin/tazobactam or cefepime in the intensive care unit.

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to evaluate AKI incidence with concomitant vancomycin and piperacillin/tazobactam (PTZ) compared to vancomycin and cefepime (FEP) in critically ill patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective, cohort study was conducted in adult critically ill patients from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2017. The primary aim was to compare the incidence of AKI during concomitant therapy or until hospital discharge. Secondary analyses included AKI severity, time to AKI as well as recovery, and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Overall, 333 patients were evaluated. The AKI rate in the vancomycin/PTZ group and vancomycin/FEP group were similar (19.5% vs. 17.3%, respectively, p = .612). Renal replacement therapy (RRT) was initiated in 10.0% and 3.8% administered vancomycin/PTZ and vancomycin/FEP groups, respectively (p = .04). Multivariate regression found vancomycin/PTZ was not associated with an increased risk of developing AKI although the presence of shock was identified as an independent risk factor (odds ratio, 3.22; 95% CI, 1.66-6.26). No significant differences in hospital or ICU length of stay or in-hospital mortality were observed between study groups. CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant PTZ and vancomycin in ICU patients was not associated with an increased risk of developing AKI compared to FEP and vancomycin combinations. More patients administered vancomycin/PTZ received RRT.

Trigger alerts associated with laboratory abnormalities on identifying potentially preventable adverse drug events in the intensive care unit and general ward.

BACKGROUND: Medication safety strategies involving trigger alerts have demonstrated potential in identifying drug-related hazardous conditions (DRHCs) and preventing adverse drug events in hospitalized patients. However, trigger alert effectiveness between intensive care unit (ICU) and general ward patients remains unknown. The objective was to investigate trigger alert performance in accurately identifying DRHCs associated with laboratory abnormalities in ICU and non-ICU settings. METHODS: This retrospective, observational study was conducted at a university hospital over a 1-year period involving 20 unique trigger alerts aimed at identifying possible drug-induced laboratory abnormalities. The primary outcome was to determine the positive predictive value (PPV) in distinguishing drug-induced abnormal laboratory values using trigger alerts in critically ill and general ward patients. Aberrant lab values attributed to medications without resulting in an actual adverse event ensuing were categorized as a DRHC. RESULTS: A total of 634 patients involving 870 trigger alerts were included. The distribution of trigger alerts generated occurred more commonly in general ward patients (59.8%) than those in the ICU (40.2%). The overall PPV in detecting a DRHC in all hospitalized patients was 0.29, while the PPV in non-ICU patients (0.31) was significantly higher than the critically ill (0.25) (p = 0.03). However, the rate of DRHCs was significantly higher in the ICU than the general ward (7.49 versus 0.87 events per 1000 patient days, respectively, p < 0.0001). Although most DRHCs were considered mild or moderate in severity, more serious and life-threatening DRHCs occurred in the ICU compared with the general ward (39.8% versus 12.4%, respectively, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, most trigger alerts performed poorly in detecting DRHCs irrespective of patient care setting. Continuous process improvement practices should be applied to trigger alert performance to improve clinician time efficiency and minimize alert fatigue.