Search

Purpose: Medication product labeling was reviewed to determine if sufficient information is available to appropriately calculate dosing regimens for special intensive care unit (ICU) populations, including patients at extremes of body habitus and patients receiving hemodialysis, continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT), or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO)., Methods: The labeling of the 100 most commonly used injectable medications in the adult ICUs of an academic medical center in Arizona were evaluated. Any information related to adult weight-based dosing, weight descriptors, dosing of patients at extremes of weight (body mass index of <18.5 or >40 kg/m2), and dosing of patients receiving hemodialysis, CRRT, or ECMO was extracted from Food and Drug Administration-approved product labeling. Information was ranked for dosing usefulness on a scale of 0 to 3; an information usefulness score of 2 or greater was considered minimally adequate for dosing special ICU populations., Results: Among the 100 medications evaluated, the labeling of 47 provided information on weight-based dosing, with the labeling of 30% referring to a specific weight descriptor. The labeling of 15 medications had information on dosing for patients at extremes of body habitus: underweight (3 medications), obesity (12 medications), and extreme obesity (2 medications), with the labeling of 8 medications receiving an information usefulness score of ≥2 (2, 6, and 1 medication in the respective categories). Among the 42 medications whose labeling provided hemodialysis-related dosing information, the labeled information of 52% was assigned a usefulness score of ≥2; among the 3 medications with CRRT-related dosing information, the labeling of 1 received a score of ≥2. ECMO-related dosing information was available for 2 medications, with 1 score of ≥2 assigned., Conclusion: Information in the product labeling of injectable medications commonly used in the ICU is limited and generally inadequate for calculating an appropriate dose for special ICU populations., (© American Society of Health-System Pharmacists 2020. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

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.

Background: The transition of patients from the intensive care unit (ICU) to the ward is a complicated process and patients may be at risk of increased levels of pain., Objectives: The primary objective was to identify predictors of pain during the transition from the surgical ICU to the surgical ward. The secondary objective was to describe the patient pain experience during this transition., Methods: This was a cross-sectional study conducted at an academic medical centre in the United States. Patients who were discharged from the ICU were interviewed regarding their pain during transition from ICU to the ward using the Revised American Pain Society Patient Outcome Questionnaire (APS-POQ-R). The primary outcome measures were the total score of this validated instrument (0-180 points) and score of the pain severity and sleep interference subscale (0-50 points). Predictors of pain control during this 24-h transition period were identified using linear regression analysis., Results: A total of 50 patients were included. After transition from the ICU, the median score on the APS-POQ-R was 45 (Q1 29 to Q3 74), and the median score on the pain severity and sleep interference subscale was 23 (Q1 15 to Q3 30). After adjusting for sex in a multivariate model, mean pain score in the preceding 24 h of ICU stay explained 31% of the variation in total APS-POQ-R score and 39% of variation in the pain severity and sleep interference subscale. Age, sex, race, type of surgery, number of surgeries, and opioid dose in the 24-h period before transfer were not significantly associated with either outcome measure. The worst pain experienced by patients during transfer was severe (i.e. score ≥7 on 0 to 10 scale) in 90% (n = 45) of patients. For 70% (n = 35) of patients, severe pain persisted for more than 50% of the time during the transition period., Conclusion: Pain scores in the last 24 h of ICU stay is a predictor of total APS-POQ-R score and pain severity and sleep interference subscale score., (Copyright © 2018 Australian College of Critical Care Nurses Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To evaluate the evidence for the use of intravenous ketamine for analgosedation in the intensive care unit., Methods: MEDLINE and EMBASE were queried from inception until July 2015. Search terms used included ketamine, intensive care, and critical care. The search retrieved 584 articles to be screened for inclusion. The intent was to include randomized controlled studies using sustained intravenous infusions (>24 hours) of ketamine in the critically ill patients., Results: One trial evaluated opioid consumption as an outcome in postoperative critically ill patients who were randomized to ketamine or saline infusions. The mean cumulative morphine consumption at 48 hours was significantly lower in the ketamine group (58 ± 35 mg) compared to the morphine-only group (80 ± 37 mg; P < .05). Other trials showed the potential safety of ketamine in terms of cerebral hemodynamics in patients with traumatic brain injury, improved gastrointestinal motility, and decreased vasopressor requirements. The observational study and case reports suggest that ketamine is safe and effective and may have a role in patients who are refractory to other therapies., Conclusion: Ketamine use may decrease analgesic consumption in the intensive care unit. Additional trials are needed to further delineate the role of ketamine for analgosedation.

Objective: The objective of this evaluation was to compare total hospital costs and length of stay of critically ill patients who received dexmedetomidine versus propofol for sedation in the intensive care unit (ICU)., Methods: This was a retrospective quality improvement evaluation at a tertiary care, academic medical center in the United States. Data were retrieved for patients discharged between April 2012 and June 2013. Patients were included if they were admitted to the ICU, were 18 years of age or older, and received dexmedetomidine or propofol for sedation. Multivariate regression models were developed to determine the association between sedative type and hospital costs, ICU length of stay, and hospital length of stay., Results: The final cohort included 3294 patients. Of these, 2685 received propofol and 609 received dexmedetomidine. The median hospital cost was US$31 041 (interquartile range [IQR] US$17 963-US$57 826) in the propofol group and US$46 716 (IQR US$31 247 to US$85 490) in the dexmedetomidine group (P < .001). The median ICU length of stay was 2 days (IQR 1-6 days) and 4 days (IQR 2-9 days) in the propofol and dexmedetomidine groups, respectively (P < .001). Overall, hospital length of stay was 8 days (IQR 4-15 days) and 9 days (IQR 5-18 days) in the 2 groups, respectively (P < .001). In the multivariate analyses, dexmedetomidine use was associated with increased costs, ICU length of stay, and hospital length of stay (P < .001 for each outcome)., Conclusions: In this academic medical center, dexmedetomidine use was associated with higher costs when compared to propofol for sedation in the ICU. Also, use of dexmedetomidine was associated with increased lengths of ICU and hospital stay. Future prospective trials are needed to confirm these findings., (© The Author(s) 2014.)

A number of trials suggest that short-term use of atypical antipsychotics may be useful in the treatment of delirium associated with critical illness. However, long-term use of such agents for this indication has not been studied and may be associated with risks of adverse effects as well as unnecessary health care costs. A retrospective study of prescribing patterns of atypical antipsychotics initiated for the treatment of intensive care unit (ICU) delirium was performed to identify whether these agents were being discontinued prior to or upon hospital discharge. Of the 59 patients who met inclusion criteria and survived to hospital discharge, 28 (47%) were continued on the atypical antipsychotic upon discharge from the medical ICU. For those continued on the agent, 20 patients (71.4%) were prescribed continued therapy as an outpatient. Inpatient costs for atypical antipsychotics during the 9-month study period were increased by approximately $888. Annual cost of the medication as outpatient therapy is assessed at approximately $45,107. Although short-term trials of atypical antipsychotics may be useful for ICU delirium, caution is advised regarding potential adverse effects and added health care costs when use is prolonged.

The field of critical care medicine began to flourish only within the last 40 years, yet it provides some of the best examples of collaborative pharmacy practice models and evidence for the value of pharmacist involvement in interdisciplinary practice. This collaborative approach is fostered by critical care organizations that have elected pharmacists into leadership positions and recognized pharmacists through various honors. There is substantial literature to support the value of the critical care pharmacist as a member of an interdisciplinary intensive care unit (ICU) team, particularly in terms of patient safety. Furthermore, a number of economic investigations have demonstrated cost savings or cost avoidance with pharmacist involvement. As the published evidence supporting pharmacist involvement in patient care activities in the ICU setting has increased, surveys have demonstrated an increase in the percentage of pharmacists performing clinical activities. In addition, substantial support of pharmacists has been provided by other clinicians, safety officers, and administrative personnel who have been involved with the initiation and expansion of critical care pharmacy services in their own institutions. Although there is still room for improvement in the range of pharmacist involvement, particularly with respect to interdisciplinary activities related to education and scholarship, pharmacists have become essential members of interdisciplinary care teams in ICU settings.

Pain in patients who are critically ill remains undertreated despite decades of research, guideline development and distribution, and intense educational efforts. By nature of their complex medical conditions, these patients present unique challenges to the delivery of optimal pain treatment. Outdated clinical practices and faulty systems, such as a formulary that allows dangerous prescriptions, present additional obstacles. A multidisciplinary and patient-centered continuous quality improvement process is essential to identifying barriers and implementing evidence-based solutions to the problem of undertreated pain in hospital ICUs. This article addresses barriers common to the ICU setting and presents a number of structured approaches that have been shown to be successful in improving pain treatment in patients who are critically ill.

In the ICU where critically ill patients receive aggressive life-sustaining interventions, suffering is common and death can be expected in up to 20% of patients. High-quality pain management is a part of optimal therapy and requires knowledge and skill in pharmacologic, behavioral, social, and communication strategies grounded in the holistic palliative care approach. This contemporary review article focuses on pain management within comprehensive palliative and end-of-life care. These key points emerge from the transdisciplinary review: (1) all ICU patients experience opportunities for discomfort and suffering regardless of prognosis or goals, thus palliative therapy is a requisite approach for every patient, of which pain management is a principal component; (2) for those dying in the ICU, an explicit shift in management to comfort-oriented care is often warranted and may be the most beneficial treatment the health-care team can offer; (3) communication and cultural sensitivity with the patient-family unit is a principal approach for optimizing palliative and pain management as part of comprehensive ICU care; (4) ethical and legal misconceptions about the escalation of opiates and other palliative therapies should not be barriers to appropriate care, provided the intention of treatment is alleviation of pain and suffering; (5) standardized instruments, performance measurement, and care delivery aids are effective strategies for decreasing variability and improving palliative care in the complex ICU setting; and (6) comprehensive palliative care should addresses family and caregiver stress associated with caring for critically ill patients and anticipated suffering and loss.

Pain is a common and distressing symptom in ICU patients. Yet a major challenge exists in assessing and evaluating the pain. Although the patient's self-report of pain is the "gold standard" for pain assessment, other methods must be considered when patients are unable to self-report. Currently only two pain behavior instruments have been tested for their reliability, validity, and feasibility of use in ICUs: the pain behavior scale and the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool. Other tools, albeit with less validity testing, include the pain assessment, intervention, and notation (PAIN) algorithm and a pain behaviors checklist. When established tools are insufficient to evaluate a patient's pain, alternative methods of augmenting a pain evaluation should be considered. These can include the completion of a pain risk profile, use of surrogates, or performance of an analgesic trial. Meticulous attention to the evaluation of a critically ill patient's pain provides the basis for selection of pain interventions and the subsequent assessment of the intervention's effectiveness.

The intensive care unit (ICU) continues to be a major focus of decentralized pharmacy activities in health systems that care for critically ill patients. This is not surprising, given the need for rapid decision-making involving unstable patients, the large number of powerful medications typically used per patient, the high cost of many drugs used in the ICU and, most importantly, the evidence demonstrating the benefits of having a pharmacist as part of an interdisciplinary team. The purpose of this paper is to highlight important issues to consider when introducing or developing critical care pharmacy services beginning with the establishment of basic services and continuing through practitioner development, guideline/protocol development and implementation, patient safety, residency training, and research.

Purpose: The cost implications of and potential adverse events prevented by the interventions of a critical care pharmacist were studied., Methods: A decentralized clinical pharmacist assigned to a surgical intensive care unit (ICU) documented all interventions made from mid-October 2003 through February 2004 using a standardized written form. The data were retrospectively evaluated and the following information was extracted: amount of time spent performing various clinical activities, how drug-related problems were identified (e.g., order entry versus chart review), and a general description of the interventions. The interventions were independently reviewed by two other clinical pharmacists to determine whether an actual or potential adverse drug event (ADE) would have occurred without the intervention, the probability that an ADE would have occurred without the intervention, the type of intervention, and potential cost avoidance of the intervention. Once the evaluations were completed, the data obtained from order entry and verification activities were compared with the data obtained during other clinical functions., Results: A total of 129 interventions were documented over 4.5 months. The majority of interventions were identified during chart review (40%) and patient care rounds (39%). The potential cost avoidance of the documented interventions was $205,919-$280,421. Interventions identified during patient care rounds and chart review were most likely to achieve the greatest impact on cost avoidance., Conclusion: Among the interventions performed and documented by a clinical pharmacist in an ICU, patient care rounds and chart-review activities were associated with the greatest number of interventions and the greatest potential cost avoidance.

Objective: To determine the incidence and preventability of medication errors and potential/actual adverse drug events. To evaluate system failures leading to error occurrence., Design: Prospective, direct observation study., Setting: Tertiary care academic medical center., Patients: Patients in a medical/surgical intensive care unit., Interventions: Observers would intervene only in the event that the medication error would cause substantial patient harm or discomfort., Measurements and Main Results: The observers identified 185 incidents during a pilot period and four phases totaling 16.5 days (33 12-hr shifts). Two independent evaluators concluded that 13 of 35 (37%) actual adverse drug events were nonpreventable (i.e., not medication errors). An additional 40 of the remaining 172 medication errors were judged not to be clinically important. Of the 132 medication errors classified as clinically important, 110 (83%) led to potential adverse drug events and 22 (17%) led to actual, preventable adverse drug events. There was one error (i.e., resulting in a potential or actual, preventable adverse drug event) for every five doses of medication administered. The potential adverse drug events mostly occurred in the administration and dispensing stages of the medication use process (34% in each); all of the actual, preventable adverse drug events occurred in the prescribing (77%) and administration (23%) stages. Errors of omission accounted for the majority of potential and actual, preventable adverse drug events (23%), followed by errors due to wrong dose (20%), wrong drug (16%), wrong administration technique (15%), and drug-drug interaction (10%)., Conclusions: Using a direct observation approach, we found a higher incidence of potential and actual, preventable adverse drug events and an increased ratio of potential to actual, preventable adverse drug events compared with studies that used chart reviews and solicited incident reporting. All of the potential adverse drug events and approximately two thirds of the actual adverse drug events were judged to be preventable. There was one preventable error for every five doses of medication administered; most errors were due to dose omission, wrong dose, wrong drug, wrong technique, or interactions.

Objective: To document the incidence of medication errors related to medications administered by continuous infusion., Design: Observational study., Setting: Sixteen-bed surgical intensive care unit., Measurements and Main Results: All continuous infusions in the surgical intensive care unit were evaluated at least once daily for correct flow-sheet charting, concentration, infusion rate, and dose administered, as well as patients' heights and weights (actual, ideal, and "dry"). Collected information was examined to determine the error rate, types of errors occurring, and weight used for dose calculation. Variations inpatient weight measures were compared. Seventy-one patients with 202 total infusions were observed. Errors involving continuously infused medications in our surgical intensive care unit occurred at a rate of 105.9 per 1,000 patient days. For nonweight-based infusions, 94% of doses were delivered correctly. Slightly >10% of the doses administered for weight-based infusions (dose based on dry body weight) were incorrect. Significant differences were found between the weight measurements recorded, but this did not translate into statistically significant differences in the apparent calculated doses delivered., Conclusions: Medications delivered by continuous infusion, particularly those that are weight based, can contribute to medication errors in the intensive care unit. A large proportion (87.6%) of doses for weight-based infusions was calculated based on estimated or unreliable admission weights. There were no severe consequences resulting from the errors observed in this 1 month investigation; however, depending on the pharmacokinetic characteristics of the drug being administered, there is a potential to deliver artificially low or high doses resulting in subtherapeutic or adverse effects.

Compilations of key articles and guidelines in a particular clinical practice area are useful not only to clinicians who practice in that area, but to all clinicians. We compiled pertinent articles and guidelines pertaining to drug therapy in the intensive care unit setting from the perspective of an actively practicing critical care pharmacist. This document also may serve to stimulate other experienced clinicians to undertake a similar endeavor in their practice areas.

Purpose The purpose of this review is to discuss important considerations when prescribing buprenorphine for opioid use disorder (OUD) in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting, recognizing the challenges of providing detailed recommendations in the setting of limited available evidence. Summary Buprenorphine is a partial mu-opioid receptor agonist that is likely to be increasingly prescribed for OUD in the ICU setting due to the relaxation of prescribing regulations. The pharmacology and pharmacokinetics of buprenorphine are complicated by the availability of several formulations that can be given by different administration routes. There is no single optimal dosing strategy for buprenorphine induction, with regimens ranging from very low-dose to high dose regimens. Faster induction with higher doses of buprenorphine has been studied and is frequently utilized in the emergency department. In patients admitted to the ICU who were receiving opioids either medically or illicitly, analgesia will not occur until their baseline opioid requirements are covered when their preadmission opioid is either reversed or interrupted. For patients in the ICU who are not on buprenorphine at the time of admission but have possible OUD, there are no validated tools to diagnose OUD or the severity of opioid withdrawal in critically ill patients unable to provide the subjective components of instruments validated in outpatient settings. When prescribing buprenorphine in the ICU, important issues to consider include dosing, monitoring, pain management, use of adjunctive medications, and considerations to transition to outpatient therapy. Ideally, addiction and pain management specialists would be available when buprenorphine is prescribed for critically ill patients. Conclusion There are unique challenges when prescribing buprenorphine for OUD in critically ill patients, regardless of whether they were receiving buprenorphine when admitted to the ICU setting for OUD or are under consideration for buprenorphine initiation. There is a critical need for more research in this area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Current critical care pharmacist (CCP) practices and perceptions related to neuromuscular infusion (NMBI) use for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) maybe different with the COVID-19 pandemic and the publication of 2020 NMBI practice guidelines. Objective: To evaluate CCP practices and perceptions regarding NMBI use for patients with moderate-severe ARDS. Methods: We developed, tested, and electronically administered a questionnaire (7 parent-, 42 sub-questions) to 409 American College of Clinical Pharmacy (ACCP) Critical Care Practice and Research Network members in 12 geographically diverse states. The questionnaire focused on adults with moderate-severe ARDS (PaO2:FiO2<150) whose causes of dyssynchrony were addressed. Two reminders were sent at 10-day intervals. Results: Respondents [131/409 (32%)] primarily worked in a medical intensive care unit (ICU) 102 (78%). Compared to COVID-negative(-) ARDS patients, COVID positive(+) ARDS patients were twice as likely to receive a NMBI (34 ± 18 vs.16 ± 17%; P < 0.01). Respondents somewhat/strongly agreed a NMBI should be reserved until after trials of deep sedation (112, 86%) or proning (92, 81%) and that NMBI reduced barotrauma (88, 67%), dyssynchrony (87, 66%), and plateau pressure (79, 60%). Few respondents somewhat/strongly agreed that a NMBI should be initiated at ARDS onset (23, 18%) or that NMBI reduced 90-day mortality (12, 10%). Only 2/14 potential NMBI risks [paralysis awareness (101, 82%) and prolonged muscle weakness (84, 68%)] were frequently reported to be of high/very high concern. Multiple NMBI titration targets were assessed as very/extremely important including arterial pH (109, 88%), dyssynchrony (107, 86%), and PaO2: FiO2 ratio (82, 66%). Train-of-four (55, 44%) and BIS monitoring (36, 29%) were deemed less important. Preferred NMBI discontinuation criteria included absence of dysschrony (84, 69%) and use ≥48 hour (72, 59%). Conclusions and Relevance: Current critical care pharmacists believe NMBI for ARDS patients are best reserved until after trials of deep sedation or proning; unique considerations exist in COVID+ patients. Our results should be considered when ICU NMBI protocols are being developed and bedside decisions regarding NMBI use in ARDS are being formulated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To review the clinical usefulness of the biomarker TIMP-2•IGFBP7 in adult, general medical-surgical intensive care unit (ICU) settings. Data Sources: PubMed (1946 to mid-February 2021) and EMBASE (1947 to mid-February 2021) with bibliographies of retrieved articles reviewed for additional articles. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Studies evaluating use of the urinary TIMP-2•IGFBP7 assay in adult patients in ICU settings. Data Synthesis: Studies published after investigations leading to TIMP-2•IGFBP7 assay approval confirm the appropriateness of considerations discussed in product labeling, such as use of the test within 12 hours of assessment, use of a dichotomous 0.3 (ng/mL)2/1000 cutoff, and use only in combination with other assessments of acute kidney injury (AKI). However, as a biomarker routinely used for early identification of patients at risk for AKI in mixed ICU populations, the additional resources required for TIMP-2•IGFBP monitoring are difficult to justify because of limited data demonstrating usefulness in preventing or ameliorating AKI and its attendant complications. Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: Biomarkers are potentially useful not only for assessment and diagnosis of AKI, but also for practitioners involved in the management of nephrotoxic medications and medications needing adjustment for decreased kidney function. Conclusions: Although there is evidence to suggest that the urinary TIMP-2•IGFBP7 biomarker is helpful in predicting AKI progression in general medical-surgical ICU patients when used within 12 hours of patient assessment in combination with routine testing, including serum creatinine and urine output, there is little evidence that its use leads to improvements in clinically important patient outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The purpose of this critical narrative review is to discuss common indications for ordering serum albumin levels in adult critically ill patients, evaluate the literature supporting these indications, and provide recommendations for the appropriate ordering of serum albumin levels.Data Sources: PubMed (1966 to August 2020), Cochrane Library, and current clinical practice guidelines were used, and bibliographies of retrieved articles were searched for additional articles.Study Selection and Data Extraction: Current clinical practice guidelines were the preferred source of recommendations regarding serum albumin levels for guiding albumin administration and for nutritional monitoring. When current comprehensive reviews were available, they served as a baseline information with supplementation by subsequent studies.Data Synthesis: Serum albumin is a general marker of severity of illness, and hypoalbuminemia is associated with poor patient outcome, but albumin is an acute phase protein, so levels vacillate in critically ill patients in conjunction with illness fluctuations. The most common reasons for ordering serum albumin levels in intensive care unit (ICU) settings are to guide albumin administration, to estimate free phenytoin or calcium levels, for nutritional monitoring, and for severity-of-illness assessment.Relevance To Patient Care and Clinical Practice: Because hypoalbuminemia is common in the ICU setting, inappropriate ordering of serum albumin levels may lead to unnecessary albumin administration or excessive macronutrient administration in nutritional regimens, leading to possible adverse effects and added costs.Conclusions: With the exception of the need to order serum albumin levels as a component of selected severity-of-illness scoring systems, there is little evidence or justification for routinely ordering levels in critically ill patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this paper is to consider the implications of the opioid epidemic for the critical care practitioner and provide recommendations to try to reduce the likelihood of opioid over‐prescribing. The medical literature pertaining to the current opioid epidemic has focused on opioid overdose and deaths associated with the chronic use of opioids, but the issue has implications for the critical care pharmacist because excessive prescribing during hospitalization and at discharge may lead to chronic use. Guidelines are available concerning pain assessment and control in the critical care setting, but the evidence base supporting these recommendations is limited and often based on extrapolations from postoperative pain studies. While current pain management guidelines pertaining to critically ill patients place more emphasis and recommendations on nonopioid agents as adjuncts to opioids for severe pain, the recommendations for these adjuncts are tempered by a lack of higher‐level evidence supporting their use and concerns related to adverse effects. Efforts to control opioid over‐prescribing begin in the intensive care unit (ICU) with implementation of recommendations from current clinical practice guidelines that recommend appropriate assessments. After the ICU stay, attention should be focused on prescribing practices associated with patients' transition of care from hospital to home or other care facility, because this is where acute‐to‐chronic use is most likely to occur. Clinical pharmacist involvement in follow‐up clinics postdischarge has the potential to improve patients' pain control by optimizing medication use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Critical care medicine has grown from a small group of physicians participating in patient care rounds in surgical and medical intensive care units (ICUs) to a highly technical, interdisciplinary team. Pharmacy's growth in the area of critical care is as exponential. Today's ICU requires a comprehensive pharmaceutical service that includes both operational and clinical services to meet patient medication needs. This article provides the elements for a business plan to justify critical care pharmacy services by describing the pertinent background and benefit of ICU pharmacy services, detailing a current assessment of ICU pharmacy services, listing the essential ICU pharmacy services, describing service metrics, and delineating an appropriate timeline for implementing an ICU pharmacy service. The structure and approach of this business plan can be applied to a variety of pharmacy services. By following the format and information listed in this article, the pharmacy director can move closer to developing patient-centered pharmacy services for ICU patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Whether or not norepinephrine infusions for support of hemodynamic status in patients with septic shock should be weight based is unknown. This situation is particularly pertinent in patients who are extremely overweight or obese. Objective To compare dosing requirements and effect of norepinephrine on blood pressure in obese and nonobese patients with septic shock. Methods In a retrospective cohort study, data on adult patients with septic shock who received norepinephrine infusion for support of hemodynamic status in a tertiary care, academic medical center were analyzed. Patients were categorized as obese (body mass index ≥ 30) or nonobese (body mass index < 30). The primary outcome was dosing requirements of norepinephrine at 60 minutes after the start of the infusion. The secondary outcome was the log-transformed ratio of mean arterial pressure to norepinephrine. Results The final cohort consisted of 100 obese and 100 nonobese patients. Mean norepinephrine infusion rate at 60 minutes was 0.09 (SD, 0.08) µg/kg per minute in the obese group and 0.13 (SD, 0.14) µg/kg per minute in the nonobese group (P = .006). The non--weight-based dose at 60 minutes was 9 µg/min in obese patients and 8 µg/ min in nonobese patients (P = .72). The log transformed mean arterial pressure to norepinephrine ratio at 60 minutes was 2.5 (SD, 0.9) in obese patients and 2.5 (SD, 0.8) in nonobese patients (P = .54) Conclusions Compared with nonobese patients, obese patients with septic shock require lower weight-based doses of norepinephrine and similar total norepinephrine doses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Proponents of dexmedetomidine often cite the agent’s analgesic properties as one of its main advantages over propofol and benzodiazepines. However, there are very limited studies utilizing endpoints such as analgesic requirements to provide supporting evidence for these claims. The primary purpose of this retrospective study was to compare opioid analgesic requirements in trauma patients receiving nonconcurrent dexmedetomidine and propofol for sedation while being weaned from mechanical ventilation. Total analgesic requirements were similar between dexmedetomidine and propofol within 48 hours of sedative initiation in adult trauma patients ( P > .05). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Physicians and nurses have received many accolades in commercial and scientific media for their heroic efforts in caring for patients with COVID-19. These accolades are appropriate and deserved. However, there are a number of clinical pharmacists involved in the daily care of patients who are caring and competent practitioners, and also deserve our thanks and praise. The purpose of this article is to provide the impactful comments of a front-line, critical care pharmacist dedicated to providing the best possible care for patients with COVID-19 in a medical intensive care unit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Albumin is broadly prescribed for critically ill patients although it does not have a mortality benefit over crystalloids. One common use of albumin is to promote diuresis. Objectives To compare urine output in patients treated with furosemide with and without albumin and to assess other variables possibly associated with enhanced diuresis. Methods A retrospective study was conducted on patients in a medical intensive care unit who received furosemide therapy as a continuous infusion with and without 25% albumin for more than 6 hours. Primary end points were urine output and net fluid loss. Results A total of 31 patients were included in the final analysis. Mean urine output in patients treated with furosemide alone did not differ significantly from output in patients treated with furo - semide plus albumin at 6, 24, and 48 hours: mean output, 1119 (SD, 597) mL vs 1201 (SD, 612) mL, P= .56; 4323 (SD, 1717) mL vs 4615 (SD, 1741) mL, P = .42; and 7563 mL (SD, 2766) vs 7432 (SD, 2324) mL, P = .94, respectively. Additionally, net fluid loss did not differ significantly between the 2 groups at 6, 24, and 48 hours. Higher concentrations of serum albumin did not improve urine output. The only independent variable significantly associated with enhanced urine output at 24 and 48 hours was increased fluid intake. Conclusion Addition of albumin to a furosemide infusion did not enhance diuresis obtained with furosemide alone in critically ill patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To compare possible differences in the proportion of medication errors associated with high-risk medications that were avoided by the use of automated infusion device (AID) technology in pediatric and adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients. A secondary purpose was to investigate the number of serious adverse drug events (ADEs) identified by root-cause analyses (RCA).Method: The study included pediatric and adult patients receiving high-risk medications by continuous infusion in an academic medical center with mixed medical-surgical ICUs. A retrospective evaluation of 1 year’s data collected prospectively in an AID database was used to compare the proportion of medication errors avoided based on reprogramming events (2.5 times limit as a low threshold) and overrides (10 times limit as high). Information obtained from RCAs was used to compare the proportion of serious ADEs that occurred during the 5-year periods before and after AID implementation.Results: The pediatric population was 1.68 times (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18 to 2.38) more likely to require a reprogramming event than the adult acute care population for all high-risk medications combined. Significantly more reprogramming events occurred in the pediatric patients with potassium (relative risk [RR], 2.77; 95% CI, 1.15 to 6.68) and insulin (RR, 2.73; 95% CI, 1.15 to 6.45) infusions. Additionally, there were more overrides in the pediatric compared to the adult population for the high-risk medications (RR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.32 to 2.53). The number of serious adverse or sentinel events as identified in RCAs decreased from six before (four deemed preventable by AID technology) to three (zero preventable) after AID implementation.Conclusions: This study demonstrates that AID technology when properly used leads to reductions in medication errors and possibly serious ADEs in critically ill patients receiving high-risk medications. The technology appears to be particularly beneficial in pediatric patients with weight-based dosing strategies. However, the potential for clinicians to override the alerts remains a concern. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a study on the conventional pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic pain treatment in patients admitted in intensive care units (ICUs). The study examined the effectiveness of opioid analgesics which are cited to have been the mainstay to control pain. It proposed various alternative medications to the opioids for pain control and investigated their effectivity in the critically ill patient. It showed that the effectiveness of nonpharmacologic therapies in ICUs is limited.

Objective: To derive recommendations for the dosing of commonly used medications in the morbidly obese patient in the ICU.Data Sources: Articles were obtained through computerized searches involving MEDLINE. The bibliographies of retrieved publications and textbooks were reviewed for additional references.Study Selection: All studies involving the pharmacokinetics or pharmacodynamics of medications in obese subjects or patients.Data Extraction: The emphasis was on studies involving morbidly obese patients but, in the absence of such data, investigations involving lesser forms of obesity were extracted.Data Synthesis: There is a paucity of data upon which to make recommendations for dosing commonly used medications in the morbidly obese patient in the ICU, although recommendations were provided based on the available information.Conclusions: There is clearly a need for more investigations involving dosing regimens of medications in the morbidly obese population. Until such studies are available, the clinician must try to derive the best dosing regimens for medications based on the limited pharmacokinetic data available for some agents and clinical judgement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose Several studies have shown hydrocortisone to be beneficial in the treatment of vasopressor-refractory septic shock, but there are minimal data evaluating the efficacy of this fixed dosing regimen in overweight and obese patients. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of fixed-dose hydrocortisone on vasopressor dose and mean arterial pressure in obese and nonobese patients with septic shock refractory to adequate fluid resuscitation and vasopressor administration. Methods In this multicenter, retrospective study, we included adult patients with a confirmed or suspected diagnosis of septic shock who received hydrocortisone (200 mg/day). Patients were divided into 4 study groups based on admission body mass index (BMI; defined as BMI of <25 kg/m2, 25-29.9 kg/m2, 30-34.9 kg/m2, and ≥35 kg/m2). The primary outcomes analyzed were change in norepinephrine equivalent dose requirements and mean arterial pressure (MAP) at 6, 12, and 24 hours after initiating hydrocortisone. Results Between October 1, 2017, and September 30, 2020, 431 patients were screened of whom 219 met inclusion criteria. Baseline characteristics were comparable among the groups. Mean vasopressor requirements (in μg/min) at 6, 12, and 24 hours were as follows: BMI of <25 kg/m2: 28.8, 24.8, and 20; BMI of 25-29.9 kg/m2: 34.1, 33.5, and 24.8; BMI of 30-34.9 kg/m2: 29.5, 33.5, and 24.8; and BMI of ≥35 kg/m2: 32, 25.7 and, 21.2 (P = 0.75, 0.41, and 0.61, respectively). Mean MAP (in mm Hg) at 6, 12, and 24 hours was as follows: BMI of <25 kg/m2: 73.5, 73.6, and 74; BMI of 25-29.9 kg/m2: 71.6, 73.8, and 71.9; BMI of 30-34.9 kg/m2: 72.2, 70, and 72.7; and BMI of ≥35 kg/m2: 70.7, 73.5, and 71.4 (P = 0.56, 0.15, and 0.62, respectively). Conclusion BMI does not appear to impact the effects of fixed-dose hydrocortisone on vasopressor dose or blood pressure in patients with septic shock. Fixed-dose hydrocortisone should continue to be used for vasopressor-refractory septic shock in obese patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective. Describe continuous infusion (CI) ketamine practices in pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) and evaluate its effect on pain/sedation scores, exposure to analgesics/sedatives, and adverse effects (AEs). Methods. Multicenter, retrospective, observational study in children <18 years who received CI ketamine between 2014 and 2017. Time spent in goal pain/sedation score range and daily cumulative doses of analgesics/sedatives were compared from the 24 hours (H) prior to CI ketamine to the first 24H and 25−48H of the CI. Adverse effects were collected over the first 7 days of CI ketamine. Results. Twenty‐four patients from 4 PICUs were included; median (IQR) age 7 (1‐13.25) years, 54% female (n = 13), 92% intubated (n = 22), 25% on CI vasopressors (n = 6), and 33% on CI paralytics (n = 8). Ketamine indications were analgesia/sedation (n = 21, 87.5%) and status epilepticus (n = 3, 12.5%). Median starting dose was 0.5 (0.48–0.70) mg/kg/hr and continued for a median of 2.4 (1.3–4.4) days. There was a significant difference in mean proportion of time spent within goal pain score range (24H prior: 74% ± 14%, 0–24H: 85% ± 10%, and 25−48H: 72% ± 20%; p = 0.014). A significant reduction in median morphine milligram equivalents (MME) was seen (24H prior: 58 (8–195) mg vs. 0–24H: 4 (0–69) mg and p = 0.01), but this was not sustained (25−48H: 24 (2–246) mg and p = 0.29). Common AEs were tachycardia (63%), hypotension (54%), secretions/suctioning (29%), and emergence reactions (13%). Conclusions. Ketamine CI improved time in goal pain score range and significantly reduced MME, but this was not sustained. Larger prospective studies are needed in the pediatric population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose To evaluate potential differences in days on mechanical ventilation for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) based on route of administration of analgesic and sedative medications: intravenous (IV) alone vs IV + enteral (EN). Summary This institutional review board–approved study evaluated ventilation time and fentanyl or midazolam requirements with or without concurrent EN hydromorphone and lorazepam. Patients were included in the study if they were 18 to 89 years old and were admitted to the intensive care unit with a positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 reverse transcription and polymerase chain reaction or antigen test and respiratory failure requiring invasive mechanical ventilation for more than 72 hours. In total, 100 patients were evaluated, 60 in the IV-only group and 40 in the IV + EN group. There was not a significant difference in ventilation time between the groups (mean [SD], 19.6 [12.8] days for IV + EN vs 15.6 [11.2] days for IV only; P = 0.104). However, fentanyl (2,064 [847] μg vs 2,443 [779] μg; P < 0.001) and midazolam (137 [72] mg vs 158 [70] mg; P = 0.004) requirements on day 3 were significantly higher in the IV-only group, and the increase in fentanyl requirements from day 1 to day 3 was greater in the IV-only group than in the IV + EN group (378 [625] μg vs 34 [971] μg; P = 0.033). Conclusion Addition of EN analgesic and sedative medications to those administered by the IV route did not change the duration of mechanical ventilation in patients with COVID-19, but the combination may reduce IV opioid requirements, decreasing the impact of IV medication shortages. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To conduct a cost analysis of adjunctive hydrocortisone therapy for severe septic shock from the perspective of a third-party payer in the United States.Design: Estimates of outcomes were aggregate data from the Adjunctive Corticosteroid Treatment in Critically Ill Patients with Septic Shock and Activated Protein C and Corticosteroids for Human Septic Shock trials. In these trials, the outcomes of interests were ICU length of stay, vasopressor-free days, ventilation-free days, and the proportion of patients receiving blood transfusion. Each outcome was monetized into a set of mutually exclusive components and was aggregated to estimate the cost-per-patient based on each trial. Cost inputs for each outcome were obtained from literature and adjusted based on the medical care consumer price index. To estimate the budget impact using adjunctive hydrocortisone therapy, per-patient avoided cost was multiplied by expected septic shock annual incidence. Deterministic one-way sensitivity analysis evaluated the robustness of the findings, and Monte Carlo simulation estimated 95% CI of the findings.Setting: A total of 103 medical-surgical ICU (69 for Adjunctive Corticosteroid Treatment in Critically Ill Patients with Septic Shock and 34 for Activated Protein C and Corticosteroids for Human Septic Shock).Patients: Adults greater than or equal to 18 years old with septic shock.Interventions: Adjunctive hydrocortisone therapy (hydrocortisone at a dose of 200 mg/d for 7 d for Adjunctive Corticosteroid Treatment in Critically Ill Patients with Septic Shock and hydrocortisone at a 50 mg IV bolus every 6 hr and fludrocortisone as a 50 μg tablet once daily).Measurements and Main Results: Per Adjunctive Corticosteroid Treatment in Critically Ill Patients with Septic Shock, adjunctive hydrocortisone therapy showed a 90-day monetized benefit of $8,111 (95% CI, $3,914-$12,307) per patient, driven by improvements in ICU-free days, vasopressor-free days, ventilation-free days, and blood transfusion proportion. The total estimated annual impact of adjunctive hydrocortisone therapy, in 2019 dollars, was $750 million. Per Activated Protein C and Corticosteroids for Human Septic Shock, adjunctive hydrocortisone therapy showed a 90-day monetized benefit of $25,539 per patient (95% CI, $22,853-$28,224), driven by improvements in ICU free-days, vasopressor-free days, and ventilation-free days. The total estimated annual impact of adjunctive hydrocortisone therapy, in 2019 dollars, was $2.3 billion. The deterministic one-way sensitivity analysis showed the cost of ICU stays to be the most influential factor in both analyses. The sensitivity analysis using the reported median showed a greater monetized benefit of $10,658 (Adjunctive Corticosteroid Treatment in Critically Ill Patients with Septic Shock) and $30,911 (Activated Protein C and Corticosteroids for Human Septic Shock) per patient.Conclusions: Using adjunctive hydrocortisone therapy yields a significant monetized benefit based on inputs from the Adjunctive Corticosteroid Treatment in Critically Ill Patients with Septic Shock and Activated Protein C and Corticosteroids for Human Septic Shock trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To assess the association between insulin infusion rates, and 24-h insulin consumption on hypoglycemia in the intensive care unit (ICU).Methods: This was a retrospective case-control study, conducted at an academic institution in the United States. Adult patients admitted to the ICU receiving intravenous insulin infusions for blood glucose control were included. Hypoglycemic (blood glucose <70 mg/dL) patients were matched 1:1 with non-hypoglycemic controls based on age, gender, and body mass index. Multivariable conditional logistic regression analyses were conducted to determine the effect of: (1) weight-adjusted insulin infusion rate (units/kg/h), (2) non-weight-adjusted insulin infusion rate (units/h), or (3) 24-h insulin consumption (units/day) on hypoglycemia.Results: A total of 122 patients were included in the study (61 cases, 61 controls). Compared to those patients who received <0.05 units/kg/h, the odds of hypoglycemia was higher in those who received was ≥0.1 units/kg/h (OR 4.57, 95% CI 1.45-14.41, p=0.010). Compared to those patients who received <4 units/h, the odds of hypoglycemia was higher in those who received was ≥8 units/h (4.17, 95% CI 1.18-14.75, p=0.027). The risk of hypoglycemia did not increase with higher 24-h insulin consumption.Conclusions: Higher insulin infusion rates rather than 24-h insulin consumption may be associated with hypoglycemia in critically ill patients in the ICU. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]