Danelich, Ilya M

BACKGROUND: Excessive perioperative fluid administration likely increases postoperative cardiovascular, infectious, and GI complications. Early administration of diuretics after elective surgery facilitates rapid mobilization of excess fluid, potentially leading to decreased bowel edema, more rapid return of bowel function, and reduced length of hospital stay. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the benefit of early diuresis after elective colon and rectal surgery in the setting of an enhanced recovery after surgery practice. DESIGN: This was a prospective study. SETTINGS: The study was conducted at a quaternary referral center. PATIENTS: A randomized, open-label, parallel-group trial was conducted in patients undergoing elective colon and rectal surgery at a single quaternary referral center. INTERVENTION: The primary intervention was administration of intravenous furosemide plus enhanced recovery after surgery on postoperative day 1 and 2 versus enhanced recovery after surgery alone. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was length of hospital stay. Secondary outcomes included 30-day readmission rate, time to stool output during hospitalization after surgery, and incidence of various complications within the first 48 hours of hospital stay. RESULTS: In total, 123 patients were randomly assigned to receive either furosemide plus enhanced recovery after surgery (n = 62) or enhanced recovery after surgery alone (n = 61). Groups were evenly matched at baseline. At interim analysis, length of hospital stay was not superior in the intervention group (80.6 vs 99.6 hours, p = 0.564). No significant difference was identified in the rates of nasogastric tube replacement (1.6% vs 9.7%, p = 0.125). Time to return of bowel function was significantly longer in the intervention group (45.4 vs 48.8 hours, p = 0.048). The decision was made to end the study early because the conditional power of the study favored futility. LIMITATIONS: This was a single-center study. CONCLUSIONS: Early administration of furosemide does not significantly reduce the length of hospital stay after elective colon and rectal surgery in the setting of enhanced recovery after surgery practice. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A714.

Introduction: The therapeutic trough range for mexiletine (0.8–2 mcg/mL) was largely established in the setting of arrhythmia prophylaxis following myocardial infarction. Objective: Describe the usage patterns of serum mexiletine concentrations and the impact of these concentrations on mexiletine dosing in modern practice for ventricular arrhythmia treatment. Methods: A single-center, retrospective analysis was conducted using the electronic medical record to identify serum mexiletine concentrations drawn between December 2004 and December 2014. The primary endpoint was the incidence of mexiletine concentrations drawn as troughs. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of mexiletine concentrations that prompted a dose change, association between adverse events and elevated concentrations, and association between baseline characteristics and mexiletine concentrations. Results: A total of 237 individual concentrations were included for analysis with 109 (46.0%) drawn appropriately as trough concentrations. Only 31 (13.1%) of the 237 concentrations drawn prompted a dose change. Mexiletine was primarily used for the treatment of ventricular arrhythmias (96.2%), and 108 (45.6%) concentrations were drawn in an effort to assess efficacy. The median concentration was statistically different between patients with and without an adverse event (0.8 vs 0.7 mcg/mL, respectively; p = 0.017), but may not represent a clinical significance. Patients with hepatic dysfunction had higher median concentrations compared to those without hepatic dysfunction (1.30 vs 1.07 mcg/mL; p = 0.01). Conclusion: Mexiletine concentrations are often drawn at inappropriate times and seldom influence a dose change. This study suggests that routine monitoring of mexiletine concentrations may not be necessary; however, therapeutic drug monitoring may be considered in patients with hepatic dysfunction or to confirm mexiletine absorption in patients where this represents a concern.

Nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are used in the management of a variety of conditions, but their prevalence is likely underreported as a result of widespread availability and the perception that nonprescription therapies are unnecessary to report during medication history taking. However, NSAIDs are associated with a number of adverse effects, especially in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD). Patients with CVD and comorbidities for which NSAIDs may provide symptomatic relief (e.g., osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis) tend to be older, which places them at greater risk of harm. For these reasons, the use of NSAIDs in patients with CVD is a significant public health concern. An understanding of the risks associated with NSAIDs is critical for clinicians across practice settings. In this review, we detail the safety of NSAIDs in patients with CVD, provide recommendations on their use in specific disease states, and discuss therapeutic alternatives.