O’Meara, John G.

Controversy exists regarding the use of dose capping of weight-based unfractionated heparin (UFH) infusions in obese and morbidly obese patients. The primary objective of this study was to compare time to first therapeutic activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) in hospitalized patients receiving UFH for acute venous thromboembolism (VTE) among three body mass index (BMI) cohorts: non-obese (< 30 kg/m 2 ), obese (30–39.9 kg/m 2 ), and morbidly obese (⩾ 40 kg/m 2 ). In this single-center, retrospective cohort study, patients were included if they ⩾ 18 years of age, had a documented VTE, and were on an infusion of UFH for at least 24 hours. Weight-based UFH doses were calculated using actual body weight. A total of 423 patients met the inclusion criteria, with 230 (54.4%), 146 (34.5%), and 47 (11.1%) patients in the non-obese, obese, and morbidly obese cohorts, respectively. Median times to therapeutic aPTT were 16.4, 16.6, and 17.1 hours in each cohort. Within 24 hours, the cumulative incidence rates for therapeutic aPTT were 70.7% for the non-obese group, 69.9% for the obese group, and 61.7% for the morbidly obese group (obese vs non-obese: HR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.82–1.26, p = 0.88; morbidly obese vs non-obese: HR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.62–1.21, p = 0.41). There was no significant difference in major bleeding events between BMI groups (obese vs non-obese, p = 0.91; morbidly obese vs non-obese, p = 0.98). Based on our study, heparin dosing based on actual body weight without a dose cap is safe and effective.

Introduction Safe management of warfarin in the inpatient setting can be challenging. At the Mayo Clinic hospitals in Rochester, Minnesota, we set out to improve the safety of warfarin management among surgical and non-surgical inpatients. Methods A multidisciplinary team designed a pharmacist-managed warfarin protocol (PMWP) which designated warfarin dosing to inpatient pharmacists with guidance from computerised dosing algorithms. Ordering this protocol was ultimately designed as an ‘opt out’ practice. The primary improvement measure was frequency of international normalised ratio (INR) greater than 5; secondary measures included adoption rate of the protocol, a counterbalance INR metric (INR <1.7 three days after first inpatient warfarin dose), and complication rates, including bleeding and thrombosis events. An interrupted time series analysis was conducted to compare outcomes. Results Among over 50 000 inpatient warfarin recipients, the PMWP was adopted for the majority of both surgical and non-surgical inpatients during the study period (1 January 2005 to 31 December 2011). The primary improvement measure decreased from 5.6% to 3.4% for medical patients and from 5.2% to 2.4% for surgical patients during the preimplementation and postimplementation periods, respectively. The INR counterbalance measure did not change. Postoperative bleeding decreased from 13.5% to 11.1% among surgical patients, but bleeding was unchanged among medical patients. Conclusion Our PMWP led to achievement of improved INR control for inpatient warfarin recipients and to less near-term bleeding among higher risk, surgical patients.

To reliably assess quality, a standardized electronic approach is needed to identify bleeding events. The study aims were the following: (1) clinically validate an electronic health record–based algorithm for bleeding and (2) assess interrater results to determine validity and reliability. Data were analyzed before and after implementation of a pharmacist-managed warfarin protocol. Bleeding was based on ≥2 of 3 criteria: (1) diagnosis indicating bleeding, (2) lab value decrease suggesting bleeding, and (3) blood product use. All suspected bleeds (234) and a sample (58) not meeting criteria were compared with clinical review. There were 234 bleeding cases identified electronically. Reviewer agreement was 78.2% (κ = 0.565). Algorithm sensitivity was 93.9% and positive predictive value 46.2%. Algorithm identification was least accurate for those with only 2 criteria but good for those with all criteria. This study supports using multiple electronic criteria to identify bleeding events. However, cases having exactly 2 criteria may require manual review for validation.

Background: Carbohydrate counting may improve glycemic control in hospitalized cardiology patients by providing individualized insulin doses tailored to meal consumption. The purpose of this study was to compare glycemic outcomes with mealtime insulin dosed by carbohydrate counting versus fixed dosing in the inpatient setting. Materials and Methods: This single-center retrospective cohort study included 225 adult medical cardiology patients who received mealtime, basal, and correction-scale insulin concurrently for at least 72 h and up to 7 days in the interval March 1, 2010–November 7, 2013. Mealtime insulin was dosed by carbohydrate counting or with fixed doses determined prior to meal intake. An inpatient diabetes consult service was responsible for insulin management. Exclusion criteria included receipt of an insulin infusion. The primary end point compared mean daily postprandial glucose values, whereas secondary end points included comparison of preprandial glucose values and mean daily rates of hypoglycemia. Results: Mean postprandial glucose level on Day 7 was 204 and 183 mg/dL in the carbohydrate counting and fixed mealtime dose groups, respectively (unadjusted P =0.04, adjusted P =0.12). There were no statistical differences between groups on Days 2–6. Greater rates of preprandial hypoglycemia were observed in the carbohydrate counting cohort on Day 5 (8.6% vs. 1.5%, P =0.02), Day 6 (1.7% vs. 0%, P =0.01), and Day 7 (7.1% vs. 0%, P =0.008). No differences in postprandial hypoglycemia were seen. Conclusions: Mealtime insulin dosing by carbohydrate counting was associated with similar glycemic outcomes as fixed mealtime insulin dosing, except for a greater incidence of preprandial hypoglycemia. Additional comparative studies that include hospital outcomes are needed.

Study ObjectiveTo identify specific risk factors for excessive anticoagulation, defined as an international normalized ratio (INR) higher than 5, in hospitalized adults receiving warfarin therapy using a pharmacist‐managed dosing protocol.DesignRetrospective nested case‐control study.SettingLarge academic tertiary care medical center.PatientsHospitalized nonsurgical patients 18 years or older who received at least one dose of warfarin according to the pharmacist‐managed protocol from January 1, 2009, to January 31, 2012, were included. Patients who experienced an INR higher than 5 were designated as case patients; those who received warfarin for at least as many days as the case patients but who did not experience an INR more than 5 were deemed control patients. Controls were matched to cases in a 2:1 ratio by age, sex, INR goal, and type of warfarin therapy (new start or continuation).Measurements and Main ResultsA total of 87 case patients were matched to 174 controls. Ten different hypothesized risk factors were examined. Two variables, severity of illness score (odds ratio [OR] 4.89, p<0.001) and poor nutritional status (OR 4.27, p<0.001), demonstrated strong independent associations with risk of excessive anticoagulation. Administration of interacting drugs that highly potentiate warfarin's effect (OR 2.26, p=0.011) and concurrent diarrheal illness (OR 4.75, p<0.001) also displayed a statistically significant risk for excessive anticoagulation.ConclusionEven in a highly standardized system for warfarin dosing by a pharmacist‐managed protocol, higher disease severity and poor nutritional status placed hospitalized patients at greater risk of experiencing excessive anticoagulation. In addition, administration of interacting drugs that highly potentiate warfarin's effect or the occurrence of diarrheal illness may predict increased risk.