Search

Purpose: To determine if intravenous (IV) bolus pantoprazole increases intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay compared to IV infusion pantoprazole for treatment of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding in critically ill patients. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included adult patients admitted to the ICU with GI bleeds. Patients treated with IV pantoprazole from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017 were analyzed in the continuous infusion group, and patients treated from March 1, 2018 to February 28, 2019 were analyzed in the bolus only group. Patients with pregnancy, variceal bleeds, or lower GI bleeds were excluded. Intensive care unit length of stay was compared between the two cohorts using the Mann Whitney U test. Adjusted analysis was conducted using the generalized linear model with gamma log link to estimate the effect of type of infusion on ICU length of stay. Results: A total of 145 patients were included in the analysis, with 72 patients in the continuous infusion group and 73 patients in the bolus only group. The median ICU length of stay was 70.5 hours for continuous infusion and 64 hours for bolus only pantoprazole (P -value =.577). In the adjusted analysis, there was no difference in ICU length of stay between the continuous infusion and bolus only groups (RR, 1.06; 95% CI,.76–1.47). Conclusion: Intensive care unit length of stay was not prolonged with the use of IV bolus only compared to continuous infusion pantoprazole. Intravenous bolus only pantoprazole may be used in critically ill patients for treatment of upper GI bleeding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Accelerate Pheno blood culture detection system (AXDX) provides rapid identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing results. Limited data exist regarding its clinical impact. Other rapid platforms coupled with antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP) real-time notification (RTN) have shown improved length of stay (LOS) in bacteremia. Methods A single-center, quasi-experimental study of bacteremic inpatients before and after AXDX implementation was conducted comparing clinical outcomes from 1 historical and 2 intervention cohorts (AXDX and AXDX + RTN). Results Of 830 bacteremic episodes, 188 of 245 (77%) historical and 308 (155 AXDX, 153 AXDX + RTN) of 585 (65%) intervention episodes were included. Median LOS was shorter with AXDX (6.3 days) and AXDX + RTN (6.7 days) compared to historical (8.1 days) (P =.001). In the AXDX and AXDX + RTN cohorts, achievement of optimal therapy (AOT) was more frequent (93.6% and 95.4%, respectively) and median time to optimal therapy (TTOT) was faster (1.3 days and 1.4 days, respectively) compared to historical (84.6%, P ≤.001 and 2.4 days, P ≤.001, respectively). Median antimicrobial days of therapy (DOT) was shorter in both intervention arms compared to historical (6 days each vs 7 days; P =.011). Median LOS benefit during intervention was most pronounced in coagulase-negative Staphylococcus bacteremia (P =.003). Conclusions LOS, AOT, TTOT, and total DOT significantly improved after AXDX implementation. Addition of RTN did not show further improvement over AXDX and an already active ASP. These results suggest that AXDX can be integrated into healthcare systems with an active ASP even without the resources to include RTN. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]