Search

Background: Concerns about serious adverse gastrointestinal (GI) events with sodium polystyrene sulfonate (SPS) led to development of two new potassium binders, patiromer and sodium zirconium cyclosilicate (SZC), for treatment of hyperkalemia., Objective: To compare risk of intestinal ischemia/thrombosis or other serious GI events associated with SPS, patiromer, or SZC in hospitalized patients., Design: Retrospective cohort study., Participants: National sample of 3,144,960 veterans hospitalized 2016-2022 in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Healthcare System., Main Measures: Demographics, comorbidities, medications and outcomes were ascertained from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse. Exposures were SPS, patiromer, SZC. Outcomes were 30-day intestinal ischemia/thrombosis, and a composite of intestinal ischemia/thrombosis, peptic ulcer/perforation or bowel resection/ostomy., Key Results: Potassium binders were used during 39,270 (1.3%) hospitalizations: SPS = 30,040 (1.0%), patiromer = 3,750 (0.1%), and SZC = 5,520 (0.2%). Intestinal ischemia/thrombosis occurred with 106/30,040 (0.4%) SPS, 12/3750 (0.3%) patiromer and 24/5520 (0.4%) SZC, vs. 6998/3,105,650 (0.2%) without potassium binder. Adjusted odds ratios (aOR) were 1.40 [95% CI, 1.16 to 1.69] with SPS, 1.36 [CI, 0.79 to 2.36] with patiromer, and 1.78 [CI, 1.21 to 2.63] with SZC exposures. Composite GI adverse events occurred with 754/30,040 (2.5%) SPS, 96/3750 (2.6%) patiromer, 2.6% SZC, vs. 144/5520 (2.4%) without binder; aOR were 1.00 [CI, 0.94 to 1.08] with SPS, 1.08 [CI, 0.89 to 1.32] with patiromer, and 1.08 [CI, 0.93 to 1.27] with SZC exposures. No statistical difference in intestinal ischemia/thrombosis between each new agent and SPS was seen (p = 0.274 for SPS vs. SZC; p = 0.916 for SPS vs. patiromer)., Conclusion: Risk of intestinal ischemia/thrombosis or other serious adverse GI events was low and did not differ across three potassium-binding drugs., (© 2024. This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply.)

Intensive care unit (ICU) admissions are often accompanied by many physical and existential pressure points that can be extraordinarily wearing on patients and their families and surrogate decision makers (SDMs). Multidisciplinary palliative support, including physicians, advanced practice nurses, nutritionists, chaplains and other team members, may alleviate many of these sources of potential suffering. However, the palliative needs of ICU patients undoubtedly exceed the bandwidth of current consultative specialty palliative medicine teams. Informed by standard-of-care palliative medicine domains, we review common ICU symptoms (pain, dyspnea and thirst) and their prevalence, sources and their treatment. We then identify palliative needs and impacts in the domains of communication, SDM support and transitions of care for patients and their families through their journey in the ICU, from discharge and recovery at home to chronic critical illness, post-ICU disability or death. Finally, we examine the evidence for strategies to incorporate specialty palliative medicine and palliative principles into ICU care for the improvement of patient- and family-centered care. While randomized controlled studies have failed to demonstrate measurable improvement in pre-determined outcomes for patient- and family-relevant outcomes, embracing the principles of palliative medicine and assuring their delivery in the ICU is likely to translate to overall improvement in humanistic, person-centered care that supports patients and their SDMs during and following critical illness., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Context: Clinical practice guidelines recommend palliative care for people with advanced heart failure (aHF), yet it remains underutilized., Objectives: We examined medical center variation in specialist palliative care (SPC) and identified factors associated with variation among people with aHF., Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 21,654 people with aHF who received healthcare in 83 Veterans Affairs Medical Centers (VAMCs) from 2018-2020. We defined aHF with ICD-9/10 codes and hospitalizations. We used random intercept multilevel logistic regression to derive SPC reach (i.e., predicted probability) for each VAMC adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics. We then examined VAMC-level SPC delivery characteristics associated with predicted SPC reach including the availability of outpatient SPC (proportion of outpatient consultations), cardiology involvement (number of outpatient cardiology-initiated referrals), and earlier SPC (days from aHF identification to consultation)., Results: Of the sample the mean age = 72.9+/-10.9 years, 97.9% were male, 61.6% were White, and 32.2% were Black. The predicted SPC reach varied substantially across VAMCs from 9% to 57% (mean: 28% [95% Confidence Interval: 25%-30%]). Only the availability of outpatient SPC was independently associated with higher SPC reach. VAMCs, in which outpatient delivery made up the greatest share of SPC consultations (9% or higher) had 11% higher rates of SPC reach relative to VAMCs with a lower proportion of outpatient SPC., Conclusion: SPC reach varies widely across VAMCs for people with aHF. Outpatient palliative is common among high-reach VAMCs but its role in reach warrants further investigation. Strategies used by high-reach VAMCs may be potential targets to test for implementation and dissemination., (Copyright © 2024 American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. All rights reserved.)