Search

BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)–associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA) is a potential complication in critically ill COVID-19 patients. Corticosteroids are standard of care for hospitalized COVID-19 patients but carry an increased risk of secondary infections including CAPA. The objective of this study was to evaluate if duration of corticosteroid therapy ≤10 days versus >10 days affects the risk of developing CAPA.MethodsThis was a retrospective cohort study of adult patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia requiring mechanical ventilation who received at least 3 days of corticosteroid treatment. Incidence of CAPA and secondary outcomes were compared using appropriate bivariable analyses. Steroid duration was evaluated as an independent predictor in a logistic regression model.ResultsA total of 278 patients were included (n = 169 for ≤10 days’ steroid duration; n = 109 for >10 days). CAPA developed in 20 of 278 (7.2%) patients. Patients treated with >10 days of corticosteroid therapy had significantly higher incidence of CAPA (11.9% vs 4.1%; P = .0156), and steroid duration >10 days was independently associated with CAPA (odds ratio, 3.17 [95% confidence interval, 1.02–9.83]). Secondary outcomes including inpatient mortality (77.1% vs 43.2%; P < .0001), mechanical ventilation–free days at 28 days (0 vs 1.5; P < .0001), and secondary infections (44.9% vs 28.4% P = .0220) were worse in the >10 days cohort.ConclusionsCorticosteroid treatment >10 days in critically ill COVID-19 patients is associated with an increased risk of CAPA. Patients may require corticosteroids for reasons beyond COVID-19 and clinicians should be cognizant of risk of CAPA with prolonged courses.

Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA) has emerged as a complication in critically ill COVID-19 patients. Corticosteroids are standard of care for COVID-19 patients. Prolonged corticosteroids have been associated with an increased risk of CAPA, but duration of use associated with this risk remains unknown. The objective of this study was to evaluate if the duration of corticosteroid therapy ≤ 10 days vs > 10 days affects the risk of developing CAPA. Methods This single-center, retrospective, cohort study included patients ≥ 18 years old admitted to University Hospital between March 2020 and December 2021, diagnosed with severe COVID-19 pneumonia requiring mechanical ventilation, and who received at least 3 days of corticosteroid treatment. CAPA was defined according to 2020 European Confederation of Medical Mycology and the International Society for Human and Animal Mycology consensus guideline. Baseline characteristics, CAPA, and secondary outcomes were compared using appropriate bivariable analyses. Steroid duration was evaluated as an independent predictor of CAPA in a logistic regression model. Results Final analysis included 278 patients (n=169 ≤ 10 days steroid duration; n=109 > 10 day steroid duration). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups, with the exception of acute kidney injury and solid organ transplantation. Median duration of steroids was 6 days in the ≤ 10 day group vs 18 days in the > 10 day group. In total, 20/278 (7.2%) patients developed CAPA. Patients treated with > 10 days of corticosteroid therapy had significantly higher incidence of CAPA (12% vs 4.1%; p = 0.0156) and duration was independently associated with CAPA (OR 3.25, 95% CI 1.03-10.24). Secondary outcomes including inpatient mortality (43.2% vs 77.1%; p < 0.0001), mechanical ventilation free days at 28 (1.5 vs 0; p < 0.0001) and secondary infections (28.4% vs 44.9% p = 0.0220) were all significantly worse for > 10 day corticosteroid cohort. Conclusion Duration of corticosteroid treatment > 10 days in critically ill patients is associated with an increased risk of CAPA. Though patients may require corticosteroids for non-COVID-19 indications, clinicians should attempt to limit prolonged courses of corticosteroids in COVID-19 patients. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures.

Background: Ketamine, an N-methyl-d-aspartate receptor antagonist with sedative and analgesic properties, is becoming more popular as an adjunctive sedative in the critically ill patients. Methods: We conducted a single center, retrospective cohort study of patients admitted to the medical intensive care unit (MICU) between 2013 and 2018. Patients who received continuous infusion ketamine or nonketamine sedatives (NKS) including dexmedetomidine, fentanyl, midazolam, or propofol were identified. The primary outcome was percentage of Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) scores at goal in patients receiving ketamine as adjunct to NKS compared to those on NKS alone. Results: A total of 172 patients were included (n = 86 ketamine, n = 86 NKS). Baseline characteristics were similar with the exception of antipsychotic use, which was higher in the ketamine group ( P = .008). Percentage of RASS scores at goal was not different between groups (78.7% vs 81.4%, P = .29). Fewer patients in the ketamine group received continuous infusion fentanyl (76.7% vs 94.2%, P = .002). Patients on adjunctive ketamine required fewer days of intermittent benzodiazepines (0 [0-1] vs 1 [1-2], P < .0001). Patients receiving ketamine required less norepinephrine, receiving a median of 6.32 mg (2.4-20) versus 11.7 mg (5.2-45.2; P = .03). There was no difference in receipt of new antipsychotics or occurrence of arrhythmias. Conclusion: Addition of ketamine did not increase the percentage of RASS scores at goal versus NKS but was well tolerated. Ketamine was associated with reductions in norepinephrine requirements, days of intermittent benzodiazepine administration, and number of patients receiving continuous infusion fentanyl. Continuous infusion ketamine appears safe and effective for sedation in the MICU.

Background: Trials evaluating hydrocortisone (HC) for septic shock are conflicting with all finding decreased time to shock reversal but few with mortality difference. Those with improved mortality included fludrocortisone (FC), but it is unknown if FC affected the outcome or is coincidental as there are no comparative data. Objective: The objective of this study was to determine the effectiveness and safety of FC + HC versus HC alone as adjunctive therapy in septic shock. Methods: A single-center, retrospective cohort study was conducted of medical intensive care unit (ICU) patients with septic shock refractory to fluids and vasopressors. Patients receiving FC + HC were compared with those receiving HC. Primary outcome was time to shock reversal. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital, 28-, and 90-day mortality; ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS); and safety. Results: There were 251 patients included (FC + HC, n = 114 vs HC, n = 137). There was no difference in time to shock reversal (65.2 vs 71 hours; P = 0.24). Cox proportional hazards model showed time to first corticosteroid dose, full-dose HC duration, and use of FC + HC were associated with shorter shock duration, while time to vasopressor therapy was not. However, in 2 multivariable models controlling for covariates, use of FC + HC was not an independent predictor of shock reversal at greater than 72 hours and in-hospital mortality. No differences were seen in hospital LOS or mortality. Hyperglycemia occurred more frequently with FC + HC (62.3% vs 45.6%; P = 0.01). Conclusion and Relevance: FC + HC was not associated with shock reversal at greater than 72 hours or decreased in-hospital mortality. These data may be useful for determining corticosteroid regimen in patients with septic shock refractory to fluids and vasopressors. Future prospective, randomized studies are needed to further evaluate the role of FC in this patient population.

Purpose To review the efficacy and safety of transitioning from dexmedetomidine to clonidine to facilitate weaning of patients from sedation with dexmedetomidine. There is a paucity of data describing dexmedetomidine withdrawal syndrome (DWS) as well as clonidine’s place in therapy for DWS. This review will describe and analyze current literature to provide clinical recommendations. Summary A MEDLINE literature search was performed to identify original research articles describing DWS and/or transitioning from dexmedetomidine to clonidine for the purpose of weaning patients from sedation with dexmedetomidine. Four case reports describing DWS, 3 case reports describing the use of clonidine to treat DWS, and 3 observational studies describing the use of clonidine to facilitate dexmedetomidine weaning were identified. The incidence of and risk factors for DWS are unknown; factors including patient age and dexmedetomidine infusion rate, loading dose, and discontinuation strategy have inconsistent associations with DWS. All cases of DWS have been associated with infusion durations greater than 72 hours. While there are limited data describing clonidine use for the treatment of dexmedetomidine withdrawal, clonidine appears to be beneficial for dexmedetomidine weaning and its use for that purpose has been well described. Clonidine dosages that have been assessed for discontinuing dexmedetomidine vary from 0.1 to 0.3 mg orally or enterally every 6 to 8 hours; one study assessed use of transdermal clonidine (100 µg/24 h patch). Patients with extensive cardiac comorbidities may be more susceptible to adverse effects of clonidine, which may limit the drug’s use for DWS intervention. Conclusion Despite limited supportive data, clonidine provides a promising option for sedation management in adult ICU patients, with successful transitions from dexmedetomidine reported within 24 hours after clonidine initiation.

Introduction Calcium channel blockers (CCB) are a leading cause of ingestion-associated fatality. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi) overdose as part of co-ingestion is common and associated with refractory shock. Treatment options to manage this profound vasoplegia are limited. We describe the first case of use of newly formulated Angiotensin II for treatment of severe ACEi and CCB poisoning. Case Report A 57-year-old man presented after suicide attempt by ingesting 20 tablets each of amlodipine 10 mg and benazepril 20 mg. His hypotension was initially managed with 35 mL/kg of crystalloid, norepinephrine, and hyperinsulinemic euglycemic therapy (HIET). His hemodynamics further deteriorated, and he developed lactic acidosis, electrolyte derangements, and renal dysfunction. Further complications of his ingestion included cardiac arrest, subsequent requirement for emergency cricothyrotomy, and renal replacement therapy. Maximal hemodynamic support with HIET therapy insulin drip 4.4 units/kg/hour, norepinephrine 2 mcg/kg/min, epinephrine 1 mcg/kg/min, vasopressin .06 units/hour, and intravenous lipid emulsion was unsuccessful. Ang II was started and titrated to maximal doses with dramatic improvement in hemodynamics. Within hours of starting Ang II, epinephrine was stopped and norepinephrine decreased by 50%. He was downgraded from the intensive care unit without any ongoing end-organ dysfunction. Discussion Isolated CCB overdoses have high complication rates and well-established treatments. Therefore, management of CCB and ACEi co-ingestion is typically driven by CCB poisoning algorithm. There are multiple reports of CCB and ACEi co-ingestions causing treatment-refractory shock. Therapeutic options are limited by toxicities and availability of salvage therapies. Ang II is a safe and highly effective option to manage these patients.

Purpose: To compare clinical response of intermittent bolus versus continuous infusion neostigmine for acute colonic pseudo-obstruction (ACPO). Acute colonic pseudo-obstruction occurs due to reduced colonic parasympathetic activity. Neostigmine is an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor that increases frequency of smooth muscle contraction by increasing acetylcholine at autonomic nervous system synapses. Although these administration modalities have been studied separately, they have never been compared. Methods: This retrospective study compared bolus versus continuous infusion neostigmine for ACPO. The primary outcome was initial clinical response, defined as bowel movement (BM) within 4 hours of bolus dose or 24 hours of initiation of continuous infusion. Secondary outcomes included time to BM, bowel diameter reduction at 24 hours, incidence of bradycardia, additional neostigmine requirements, and need for colonic decompression or surgical intervention. Results: Seventy-five patients were included (bolus n = 37; infusion n = 38). Median total 24-hour neostigmine dose was 2.0 mg (interquartile range [IQR]: 2.0-2.6) with bolus and 9.6 mg (IQR: 6.3-9.6) with continuous infusion. Initial clinical response was similar (infusion 81.6% vs bolus 62.2%, P = .06), but continuous infusion was associated with greater bowel diameter reduction (73.7% vs 40.5%, P = .004). Bolus administration had shorter time to BM (1.4 vs 3.5 hours, P = .0478) and increased need for colonic decompression (67.6% vs 39.5%, P = .0148). Bolus dosing was associated with less bradycardia (13.5% vs 39.5%, P = 0.011), with no difference in atropine usage (10.8% vs 5.3%, P = .43). Conclusion: Initial clinical response was similar between groups; however, continuous infusion neostigmine was associated with greater bowel diameter reduction at 24 hours. Bolus administration resulted in less bradycardia; however, given the lack of difference in atropine use, clinical significance is unknown. This study is the first to compare bolus versus continuous infusion neostigmine for ACPO. Further studies are needed to confirm findings.