Hohlfelder, Benjamin

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to summarize the most significant and impactful publications describing the pharmacotherapeutic care of critically ill patients in 2023. DATA SOURCES: PubMed/MEDLINE and the Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology Pharmacotherapy Literature Update. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials and prospective studies of adult critically ill patients assessing a pharmacotherapeutic intervention and reporting clinical endpoints published between January 1, 2023, and December 31, 2023, were eligible for inclusion in this article. DATA EXTRACTION: Articles from a systematic search and the Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology Pharmacotherapy Literature Update were included. An a priori defined three-round modified Delphi process was employed to achieve consensus on the most impactful publications based on the following considerations: 1) overall contribution to scientific knowledge and 2) novelty to the literature. DATA SYNTHESIS: The systematic search and Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology Pharmacotherapy Literature Update returned a total of 1202 articles, of which 1164 were excluded. The remaining 38 articles underwent a three-round modified Delphi process. In each round, articles were independently scored based on overall contribution to scientific knowledge and novelty to the literature. Included articles are summarized and their impact discussed. Article topics included hydrocortisone for severe community-acquired pneumonia, inhaled amikacin for prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia, methylene blue for septic shock, restrictive vs. liberal fluid management for sepsis-induced hypotension, andexanet alfa for major bleeding associated with factor Xa inhibitors, and early administration of four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate in patients with trauma at risk for massive transfusion. CONCLUSIONS: This review provides a summary and perspective on the potential impact of the most relevant articles in 2023 describing advances in the pharmacotherapeutic care of critically ill patients.

Background: Vancomycin pharmacokinetics are altered in the critically ill and are further distorted by renal replacement therapy. Limited literature is available evaluating vancomycin dosing in continuous veno-venous hemodialysis (CVVHD). Objective: The goal of this analysis was to identify factors that affect vancomycin trough concentration in patients on CVVHD and to determine an appropriate dosing strategy. Methods: This was a single-center, retrospective cohort study of adult inpatients admitted to the Cleveland Clinic from May 2016-December 2017. Patients in the intensive care unit who received ≥ 2 doses of vancomycin during CVVHD were included. Patients with interruptions of CVVHD inappropriately timed troughs, a change in dialysate rate, and those who received different vancomycin dosages were excluded. Multivariable linear regression including age, sex, weight, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, albumin, 24-hour urine output (UOP), dialysate rate, filter type, and vancomycin dose was run to determine predictors of vancomycin concentration. Results: A total of 160 patients were included. The median vancomycin dose was 12.6 mg/kg with a trough of 24.6 mcg/mL. Weight, 24-hour UOP, vancomycin dose (mg/kg), and dialysate rate (mL/kg/h) were all determined to be independent predictors of vancomycin trough level. Patients who received <10 mg/kg doses of vancomycin (N=18) achieved a median trough of 21.5 mcg/mL, with 83% being therapuetic. In patients who received >10 mg/kg (N=142), the median trough was 25.5 mcg/mL, with 47% being therapeutic. Conclusion and Relevance: Vancomycin dose, dialysate rate, UOP, and weight are independently associated with vancomycin trough concentration. In CVVHD patients, vancomycin dosed at 10 mg/kg every 24 hours may be an appropriate recommendation.

Abstract Background The extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) circuit causes pharmacokinetic alterations of medications which impact drug selection and dosing. Although hydromorphone has a favorable pharmacokinetic profile, it is unclear whether hydromorphone provides better patient‐centered benefits compared to fentanyl. The objective of this study is to compare opioid and sedative requirements in ECMO patients started on a fentanyl‐ versus hydromorphone‐based analgesia regimen. Methods This was a non‐interventional retrospective cohort study. It was conducted at a single center in the cardiovascular intensive care units and cardiac intensive care units. We included venovenous (VV) or venoarterial ECMO patients. Patients who were started on a fentanyl continuous infusion within 24 h of cannulation were compared to patients started on a hydromorphone continuous infusion. Results A linear mixed effects model was performed to compare doses of opioid, sedative, and propofol between groups over time. We included 28 hydromorphone patients and 53 fentanyl patients, with 85% on VV ECMO. There were no differences between hydromorphone and fentanyl groups in opioid or sedative (including propofol and benzodiazepine) doses for any ECMO day ( p value for interaction .63 and .83, respectively). Propofol doses alone, however, were significantly higher in the fentanyl group on ECMO days three, four, and five. Conclusions There appear to be no major differences in opioid or sedative requirements whether ECMO patients are initiated on a hydromorphone‐ or fentanyl‐based regimen.