Search

Introduction: Environmental, patient, disease, and care‐related factors can lead to sleep disruption in the intensive care unit (ICU). Medication administration is a potentially modifiable factor in this setting that has not been well described as a target for sleep improvement. Objectives: To determine characteristics of nighttime medication administration practices in the ICU, evaluate the effect on patient perceived sleep, and assess the opportunity for pharmacist‐led nighttime medication administration stewardship. Methods: This was a multicenter, retrospective, observational cohort study. Patients included for chart review had perceived sleep measured using the Richards‐Campbell Sleep Questionnaire (RCSQ). Data were collected on patient characteristics, ICU exposures, and nighttime medications administered. Four RCSQ groups defined for comparison were RCSQ 0–25 indicating "very poor" sleep, 26–50 "poor" sleep, 51–75 "good" sleep, and 76–100 "very good" sleep. Results: Overall, 115 patients with RCSQ assessments and 435 nighttime medication administrations were included. Nighttime medications were most commonly cardiovascular (28.9%) and central nervous system (21.4%) agents, administered via intravenous (54.5%) and oral (22.7%) routes. Patient characteristics were comparable between the four groups except for history of head trauma. Patients reporting very poor sleep had a significantly higher median number of nighttime medications administered as compared to patients reporting very good sleep (4.0 [interquartile range (IQR) (2, 6)] vs. 2.5 [IQR 1, 4], adjusted p = 0.048). Approximately three‐quarters of nighttime medications occurred between the hours of 22:00–0:59 and 5:00–5:59. Nearly 40% of nighttime medications could have been retimed for daytime administration. Conclusions: Unnecessary nighttime medication administration is common and associated with poor patient perceived sleep in the ICU. Pharmacists are well‐positioned to evaluate timing of medication administration and cluster medication‐related care for daytime hours, when appropriate. Nighttime medication stewardship optimization by pharmacists is an opportunity to improve patient perceived sleep in the ICU. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Maternal mortality continues to be an issue globally despite advances in technology and pharmacotherapy. Pregnancy can lead to complications that necessitate immediate action to prevent severe morbidity and mortality. Patients may need escalation to the ICU setting for close monitoring and administration of advanced therapies not available elsewhere. Obstetric emergencies are rare but high‐stakes events that require clinicians to have prompt identification and management. The purpose of this review is to describe complications of pregnancy and provide a focused resource of pharmacotherapy considerations that clinicians may encounter. For each disease state, the epidemiology, pathophysiology, and management are summarized. Brief descriptions of non‐pharmacological (e.g., cesarean or vaginal delivery of the baby) interventions are provided. Mainstays of pharmacotherapy highlighted include oxytocin for obstetric hemorrhage, methotrexate for ectopic pregnancy, magnesium and antihypertensive agents for preeclampsia and eclampsia, eculizumab for atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome, corticosteroids, and immunosuppressive agents for thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura, diuretics, metoprolol, and anticoagulation for peripartum cardiomyopathy, and pulmonary vasodilators for amniotic fluid embolism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Safe and thoughtful medication management of pregnant patients requiring intensive care unit (ICU) level of care is key to optimizing outcomes for both mother and fetus. Pregnancy induces physiologic alterations that closely mirror the changes expected in a critically ill patient. These changes can be predictable depending on the gestational age and trimester and will directly impact the pharmacokinetic profile of medications commonly used in the ICU; examples include decreased gastric emptying, increased blood and plasma volume, increased glomerular filtration, and increased cardiac output. When pregnant patients require ICU care, the resulting impact on drug absorption, distribution, metabolism, and elimination can be difficult to predict. In addition, there are many nuances of medication metabolism and interface with the placental barrier that should be considered when selecting pharmacotherapy for the pregnant patient. Critical care clinicians need to be aware of medication interactions with the placenta and weigh the risk versus benefit profile of medication use in this patient population. Obstetric critical care admissions have increased over the years, especially during the coronavirus waves. Therefore, understanding the interplay between pregnancy and critical illness to optimize pharmacotherapy selection is crucial to improving health outcomes of mother and fetus. This review highlights pharmacotherapy considerations in the pregnant ICU patient for the following topics: physiologic alterations, categorizing medication risk, supportive care, sepsis, cardiogenic shock, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and venous thromboembolism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Alcohol use disorder affects up to 60% of intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) is associated with increased length of stay, mechanical ventilation, and mortality. The lack of clinical practice guidelines specific to ICU patients leads to ambiguity about the standard management of AWS in this population. Objectives: The aim of this study was to describe current practice patterns employed for AWS management in ICU settings across the United States. Methods: This was a cross‐sectional survey of practicing critical care pharmacists identified via a pharmacy professional organization critical care listserv. Emails were sent four times to the recipient list from May 14, 2021 to June 25, 2021. Retired pharmacists and trainees on the listserv were excluded. The survey was conducted by REDCap and descriptive statistics were performed. Results: There were a total of 144/1534 (9.4%) responses. Predominant characteristics included university hospital settings (n = 71/143, 49.7%) with greater than 75 ICU beds (n = 54/144, 37.5%), and medical (n = 53/144, 36.8%) or mixed (n = 52/144, 36.1%) ICU populations. The majority reported having an institutional AWS guideline (n = 96/140, 68.6%). A total of 139/143 (97.2%) preferred benzodiazepines, with lorazepam (n = 136/143, 97.8%) as the primary benzodiazepine agent. Most preferred lorazepam as needed, rather than preemptively (n = 137/138, 99.3%). Phenobarbital use was reported by 82.6% (n = 119/144) of respondents, primarily for treatment of benzodiazepine‐refractory withdrawal (n = 96/117, 82.1%). Similarly, dexmedetomidine use was reported by 86.1% (n = 124/144) of respondents, primarily for refractory withdrawal (n = 48/121, 39.7%). Propofol was primarily preferred for patients on mechanical ventilation (n = 56/98, 57.1%) or refractory withdrawal (n = 51/98, 52.0%). Clonidine was preferred by 45.8% (n = 66/144) and atypical antipsychotics by 33.6% (n = 48/143) of respondents. Conclusions: Most ICU pharmacists prefer symptom‐triggered benzodiazepines first line, followed by propofol in intubated patients and dexmedetomidine and/or phenobarbital for refractory cases. Clinical practice guidelines may help provide guidance for the management of these patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The bispectral index (BIS) is an attractive approach for monitoring level of consciousness in critically ill patients, particularly during paralysis, when commonly used sedation scales cannot be used. Objectives: As a first step toward establishing the utility of BIS during paralysis, this review examines the strength of correlation between BIS and clinical sedation scales in a broad population of non‐paralyzed, critically ill adults. Methods: We included studies evaluating the strength of correlation between concurrent assessments of BIS and Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS), Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS), or Sedation Agitation Scale (SAS) in critically ill adult patients. Studies involving assessment of depth sedation periperative or procedural time periods, and those reporting BIS and sedation scale assessments conducted >5 min apart or while neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBA) were administered, were excluded. Data were abstracted on sedation scale, correlation coefficients, setting, patient characteristics, and BIS assessment characteristics that could impact the quality of the studies. Results: Twenty‐four studies which enrolled 1235 patients met inclusion criteria. The correlation between BIS and RASS, RSS, and SAS overall was 0.68 (95% confidence interval, 0.61–0.74, Ƭ2 = 0.06 I2 = 71.26%). Subgroup analysis by sedation scale indicated that the correlation between BIS and RASS, RSS, and SAS were 0.66 (95% confidence interval 0.58–0.73, Ƭ2 = 0.01 I2 = 30.20%), 0.76 (95% confidence interval 0.69–0.82, Ƭ2 = 0.04 I2 = 67.15%), and 0.53 (95% confidence interval 0.42–0.63, Ƭ2 = 0.01 I2 = 26.59%), respectively. Factors associated with significant heterogeneity included comparator clinical sedation scale, neurologic injury, and the type of intensive care unit (ICU) population. Conclusions: BIS demonstrated moderate to strong correlation with clinical sedation scales in adult ICU patients, providing preliminary evidence for the validity of BIS as a measure of sedation intensity when clinical scales cannot be used. Future studies should determine whether BIS monitoring is safe and effective in improving outcomes in patients receiving NMBA treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Data regarding the use of corticosteroids for treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) are conflicting. As the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic progresses, more literature supporting the use of corticosteroids for COVID‐19 and non‐COVID‐19 ARDS have emerged. Glucocorticoids are proposed to attenuate the inflammatory response and prevent progression to the fibroproliferative phase of ARDS through their multiple mechanisms and anti‐inflammatory properties. The purpose of this systematic review was to comprehensively evaluate the literature surrounding corticosteroid use in ARDS (non‐COVID‐19 and COVID‐19) in addition to a narrative review of clinical considerations of corticosteroid use in these patient populations. OVID Medline and EMBASE were searched. Randomized controlled trials evaluating the use of corticosteroids for COVID‐19 and non‐COVID‐19 ARDS in adult patients on mortality outcomes were included. Risk of bias was assessed with the Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. There were 388 studies identified, 15 of which met the inclusion criteria that included a total of 8877 patients. The studies included in our review reported a mortality benefit in 6/15 (40%) studies with benefit being seen at varying time points of mortality follow‐up (ICU survival, hospital, and 28 and 60 days) in the COVID‐19 and non‐COVID‐19 ARDS studies. The two non‐COVID19 trials assessing lung injury score improvements found that corticosteroids led to significant improvements with corticosteroid use. The number of mechanical ventilation‐free days significantly were found to be increased with the use of corticosteroids in all four studies that assessed this outcome. Corticosteroids are associated with improvements in mortality and ventilator‐free days in critically ill patients with both COVID‐19 and non‐COVID‐19 ARDS, and evidence suggests their use should be encouraged in these settings. However, due to substantial differences in the corticosteroid regimens utilized in these trials, questions still remain regarding the optimal corticosteroid agent, dose, and duration in patients with ARDS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: In response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic, health care institutions have faced challenges necessitating operational agility to facilitate provision of optimal patient care. This research was performed to elucidate how pharmacy departments adapted their staffing models, and the impact on frontline staff satisfaction. Methods: Critical care pharmacists in the American College of Clinical Pharmacy (ACCP) and the American Society of Health‐System Pharmacists list‐serves were electronically invited to participate in a 28‐question survey between April and May 2020. Likert‐like questions used a 1 to 5 (strongly agree to strongly disagree) scale, and responses were compared based on the degree of satisfaction with implemented pharmacy leadership strategies. Practice model changes were compared before and during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess the effects of independent variables on the primary outcome ‐ satisfaction with pharmacy leadership response. Results: Respondents (N = 168) representing 40 states in the United States participated. Forty percent of respondents experienced a surge, 68% experienced a staffing model change, and 65% were satisfied overall with their pharmacy leadership's response to the COVID‐19 pandemic. Both specialists (50% vs 21%, P =.013) and unit‐based generalists (65% vs 35%, P <.001) rounded less frequently in response to the COVID‐19 pandemic. Disagreement with "Satisfied with leadership efforts to protect staff (limiting in‐person meetings, changing code response)" decreased the odds of satisfaction by 96% (odds ratio [OR] 0.043 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.005‐0.336], P =.003). Disagreement with "Satisfied with voice of front‐line staff" was associated with an 84% reduction in satisfaction (OR 0.165 [95% CI 0.049‐0.549], P =.003). Eliminating in‐person rounds was associated with a 95% decrease in satisfaction with pharmacy leadership (OR 0.053 [95% CI 0.007‐0.392], P =.004). Disagreement with "I believe I am at increased risk for COVID‐19 due to departmental staffing decisions" increased satisfaction (OR 3.8, 95% CI [1.06‐13.91], P =.041). Conclusion: Frontline staff perceptions can inform practice model changes to improve employee satisfaction while providing safe, reliable, and responsible patient care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Evidence‐based management of analgesia and sedation in COVID‐19‐associated acute respiratory distress syndrome remains limited. Non‐guideline recommended analgesic and sedative medication regimens and deeper sedation targets have been employed for patients with COVID‐19 due to exaggerated analgesia and sedation requirements with extended durations of mechanical ventilation. This, coupled with a desire to minimize nurse entry into COVID‐19 patient rooms, marked obesity, altered end‐organ function, and evolving medication shortages, presents numerous short‐ and long‐term challenges. Alternative analgesic and sedative agents and regimens may pose safety risks and require judicious bedside management for appropriate use. The purpose of this commentary is to provide considerations and solutions for designing safe and effective analgesia and sedation strategies for adult patients with considerable ventilator dyssynchrony and sedation requirements, such as COVID‐19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) has evolved into an emergent global pandemic. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) can manifest on a spectrum of illness from mild disease to severe respiratory failure requiring intensive care unit admission. As the incidence continues to rise at a rapid pace, critical care teams are faced with challenging treatment decisions. There is currently no widely accepted standard of care in the pharmacologic management of patients with COVID‐19. Urgent identification of potential treatment strategies is a priority. Therapies include novel agents available in clinical trials or through compassionate use, and other drugs, repurposed antiviral and immunomodulating therapies. Many have demonstrated in vitro or in vivo potential against other viruses that are similar to SARS‐CoV‐2. Critically ill patients with COVID‐19 have additional considerations related to adjustments for organ impairment and renal replacement therapies, complex lists of concurrent medications, limitations with drug administration and compatibility, and unique toxicities that should be evaluated when utilizing these therapies. The purpose of this review is to summarize practical considerations for pharmacotherapy in patients with COVID‐19, with the intent of serving as a resource for health care providers at the forefront of clinical care during this pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: We describe a multicenter descriptive case series of six patients admitted with synthetic cannabinoid (SC) intoxication displaying similar symptoms and sequelae, all resulting in multiple organ failure. Methods: Patients were included in this report if they presented with known SC use and experienced multiple organ failure between March 1, 2016, and July 19, 2016, to the intensive care units of three hospitals in Maryland. Patients were followed to either discharge or death, and complications related to SC were documented. Results: All six patients presented with altered mental status and severe rhabdomyolysis, with a peak creatine phosphokinase ranging from 4000 to >320,000 units/L. The majority of patients (five of six) presented with acute kidney injury, with most (four of six) requiring continuous renal replacement therapy. Most patients experienced fever (five of six) and myocardial injury, as evidenced by a troponin elevation (three of six). Seizures occurred in half of patients (three of six patients). Two patients required emergent fasciotomies of the bilateral lower extremities for acute compartment syndrome. Two patients developed fulminant hepatic failure that necessitated liver transplant evaluation, one requiring Molecular Adsorbent Recirculating System (MARS) therapy as a bridge to successful transplant, while the patient without it did not survive. Delirium, severe rhabdomyolysis, acute kidney injury, and fever are common in patients with synthetic cannabinoid intoxication. Conclusions: Given the growing abuse of these substances, clinicians should consider their use in the differential of such patient presentations. To our knowledge, only a few published case reports discuss multiple organ failure associated with SC toxicity, and only two have described an associated acute liver failure. Our report describes the first case of SC‐associated acute liver failure requiring organ transplantation. Clinicians should be aware of life‐threatening complications and consider SC ingestion in the differential diagnosis of patients presenting with multiple organ failure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Sleep deprivation is associated with significant patient morbidity in the intensive care unit (ICU) and must be addressed through a systematic, interdisciplinary approach. The objectives of this study were to describe pharmacists' perceptions and practices regarding sleep in the ICU. We also assessed the prevalence and characteristics of systematic processes to promote sleep in ICU patients. Methods: We administered an international, cross‐sectional survey to 1723 pharmacists via a member distribution list through the American College of Clinical Pharmacy Critical Care Practice and Research Network. The survey included questions about pharmacists' demographics, practice sites, and individual and site‐specific perceptions of sleep promotion practices. Results: Two hundred fifty‐five (15%) pharmacists initiated the survey and 195 were completed and included for analysis. Respondents most commonly had less than 5 years of experience in ICU practice, completed a Critical Care Pharmacy Residency, and worked in a Medical or Surgical ICU. All participants responded that the assessment of sleep quality is important in the ICU. Most respondents reported that they recommend both non‐pharmacological (81%) and pharmacological (93%) interventions to optimize sleep in their ICU patients. Pharmacists reported most commonly recommending to adjust non‐sleep‐related medications to avoid nighttime administration (41.4%) and initiating melatonin receptor agonists (33.7%). A low number of respondents (9%) reported the presence of a sleep protocol in their ICU. Within this subset, 59% reported that less than half of their ICU patients actually receive the protocol and 41% indicated low protocol compliance. Conclusions: Critical care pharmacists value sleep, and most recommend interventions to optimize sleep in their patients. However, sleep protocols in ICUs are uncommon, and overall protocol use and compliance are perceived to be low. Pharmacists can improve protocol use and compliance and potentially impact sleep, delirium incidence, or other ICU patient outcomes. This impact should be evaluated in future studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Objective: Alcohol use disorders are prevalent and put patients at risk for developing alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS). Treatment of AWS with a symptom‐triggered protocol standardizes management and may avoid AWS‐related complications. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether implementation of a specific intensive care unit (ICU) symptom‐triggered protocol for the management of AWS was associated with improved clinical outcomes and, in particular, would reduce the risk of patients with AWS requiring mechanical ventilation. Design: Retrospective pre‐ and postprotocol implementation study. Setting: A 36‐bed closed medical ICU (MICU) at a large tertiary care teaching hospital in an urban setting. Patients: A total of 233 adults admitted to the MICU with any diagnosis of alcohol use disorders based on International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes and who received at least one dose of any benzodiazepine; of these patients, 139 were in the preprotocol era (August 2009–January 2010 and August 2010–January 2011), and 94 were in the postprotocol era (August 2012–January 2013) after implementation of the Yale Alcohol Withdrawal Protocol (YAWP) in April 2012. Measurements and Main Results: The YAWP pairs a modified Minnesota Detoxification Scale with an order set that includes benzodiazepine dosing regimens and suggests adjuvant therapies. AWS was the primary reason for ICU admission (107/233 patients [45.9%]) and did not significantly vary between study eras (p=0.2). Of the 233 patients included, 81.1% were male and 67.0% were white, which did not significantly differ by study era. Severity of illness at MICU admission did not significantly differ between patients in the preprotocol and postprotocol eras (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation [APACHE] II median scores of 12 [interquartile range (IQR) 9–17] and 12.5 [IQR 7–16], respectively, p=0.4). Median lorazepam‐equivalent dose per MICU day, duration of benzodiazepine infusion, and use of adjuvant therapy were not significantly different between eras. MICU intubation was less common in the postprotocol era (36/139 patients [25.9%] preprotocol vs 8/94 patients [8.5%] postprotocol, p=0.0009). ICU‐related pneumonia was also decreased in the postprotocol era (30/139 patients [21.6%] preprotocol vs 10/94 patients [10.6%] postprotocol, p=0.03). After adjusting for demographics, adjuvant therapies, and APACHE II scores, protocol implementation was associated with a decreased odds of MICU intubation (odds ratio 0.13, 95% confidence interval 0.04–0.39). Conclusion: Implementation of YAWP was associated with a decreased risk of MICU intubation in patients at risk for AWS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pregnant women are at high risk for venous thromboembolism, including pulmonary embolism ( PE), given expected changes in coagulation, fibrinolysis, and venous blood flow. In fact, PE is the leading cause of maternal death in the United States. Nonpregnant patients who develop PE with hypotension or show signs of deterioration after anticoagulation receive thrombolytics as a standard of care. Pregnant women, however, have been excluded from clinical trials with thrombolytics, and all data available in this population are published as case reports or case series. We reviewed all reports of thrombolytics, systemic or catheter directed, used in pregnant patients with massive PE. This article summarizes the risks for thromboembolism in pregnancy, compares and contrasts thrombolytic agents in this setting, and provides a recommendation for management of massive PE in this special population. Overall, reports suggest that the use of these agents is associated with beneficial outcomes and a relatively low risk of complications. The quality of this evidence is low, and clinical judgment is required to assess individual patients for risks versus benefits of thrombolysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]