Kooda, Kirstin J

Background This study aimed to evaluate outcomes of different antibiotic durations in patients with severe diverticulitis. Methods Initial electronic medical record review identified 2437 adult patients who underwent sigmoid colectomy. Manual chart review identified 133 patients who underwent sigmoid resection and proximal diversion for Hinchey stage 3 or 4 diverticulitis. Patients who received a short antibiotic course (SAC, ≤5 days) were compared with those who received a long antibiotic course (LAC, >5 days). The primary composite outcome included superficial, incisional, organ-space infections or death within 30 days post procedure. Results A total of 53 SAC patients and 55 LAC patients were identified. The composite outcome occurred more frequently in LAC patients than in SAC patients (40% vs 15%; P = .005). Organ-space infection occurred more frequently in LAC patients than in SAC patients (31% vs 13%; P = .04). Conclusions Extended duration of antibiotics after adequate source control does not improve outcomes even in the setting of extensive intra-abdominal contamination.

This study aimed to determine if extended infusion (EI; over > 3 hr) beta-lactam therapy increased IV access requirements compared with traditional dosing (TD; over 30 min). Eighty-six adult ICU patients treated with TD anti-pseudomonal beta-lactams who underwent therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) were included. Patients who transitioned from TD to EI after TDM (EI group) were matched 1:1 to patients who remained on TD. In the primary analysis, the median (interquartile range) total number of lumens in the 24 hours before TDM compared with the 48 hours after TDM were similar between groups (pre: TD 3 [2–5] vs. EI 4 [3–5]; p = 0.22 and post: TD 3 [2–4] vs. EI 4 [3–5]; p = 0.05). Delivery of beta-lactams via EI was not associated with a need for more IV access. Practical challenges such as access should not limit use of EI beta-lactams when indicated.

Background: While criteria for the diagnosis of nosocomial pneumonias exist, objective definitions are a challenge and there is no gold standard for diagnosis. We analyzed the impact of the implementation of a logical, consensus-based diagnostic and treatment protocol for managing nosocomial pneumonias in the cardiovascular surgery intensive care unit (CVS-ICU). Methods: We conducted a quasi-experimental, interrupted time series analysis to evaluate the impact of a diagnostic and treatment protocol for nosocomial pneumonias in the CVS-ICU. Impacts were measured relative to patient outcomes, diagnostic processes, and antimicrobial stewardship improvement. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze results. Results: Overall, 35 pre-protocol and 39 post-protocol patients were included. Primary clinical variables suggesting pneumonia in pre- and post-protocol patients were new lung consolidation (50% vs. 71%), new leukocytosis (59% vs. 64%), and positive culture (32% vs. 55%). Appropriate diagnostic testing improved (23% vs. 54%, p = 0.008) after protocol implementation. The proportion of patients meeting the criteria for nosocomial pneumonia (77% vs. 87%) was not statistically significant, though more patients in the post-protocol group met probable diagnostic criteria (51% vs. 77%). Duration of therapy was not significantly different (6 days [IQR = 5.0, 10.0] vs. 7 days [IQR = 6.0, 9.0]). Conclusions: The implementation of a diagnostic and treatment protocol for management of nosocomial pneumonias in the CVS-ICU resulted in improved diagnostic accuracy, advanced antimicrobial and diagnostic stewardship efforts, and laboratory cost savings without an adverse impact on patient-centered outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: Evaluate effectiveness and safety outcomes associated with the use of ketamine for primary analgosedation in the surgical/trauma ICU setting. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Academic medical center in Minnesota. PATIENTS: Patients admitted to the surgical ICU between 2015 and 2019 requiring mechanical ventilation and meeting one of three definitions for ketamine primary analgosedation were included: 1) no concomitant opioid infusion, 2) ketamine monotherapy for greater than or equal to 6 hours with subsequent opioid infusion, or 3) ketamine initiated concomitantly or within 4 hours of opioid and total opioid duration less than 4 hours. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS: Use of ketamine, analgesics, and sedatives were evaluated. Pain, sedation, and delirium assessments immediately before and during ketamine infusion were collected and compared with reported goals. Concomitant analgesics, sedatives, and psychotropics were recorded. Reported failures due to ineffectiveness and toxicity were collected. MAIN RESULTS: Of 164 included patients, 88% never received a concomitant opioid infusion (primary analgosedation definition 1), 12% met alternative criteria for primary analgosedation (definitions 2 and 3). A majority, 68%, were surgical admissions and mean Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation III score was 90 (± 30). Median mechanical ventilation duration was 2.5 days (1.1–4.5) and ICU length of stay of 4.9 days (3–8). The median ketamine infusion dose and duration were 0.18 mg/kg/hr (0.1–0.3) and 30 hours (15.1–51.8). Concomitant infusions of propofol and dexmedetomidine were administered in 49% and 29% of patients, respectively. During ketamine infusion, the median percent of total pain scores at goal was 62% (33–96%), while 64% (37–91%) of Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale scores were at goal, and 47% of patients were Confusion Assessment Method-ICU positive during the ketamine infusion. Hallucinations were documented in 14% of patients and ketamine failure occurred in 11% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Ketamine may be an effective primary analgosedation option in intubated surgical ICU patients, but prospective randomized studies are needed to evaluate this strategy.

IMPORTANCE: Initial Society of Critical Care Medicine Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory illness Universal Study (VIRUS) Registry analysis suggested that improvements in critical care processes offered the greatest modifiable opportunity to improve critically ill COVID-19 patient outcomes. OBJECTIVES: The Structured Team-based Optimal Patient-Centered Care for Virus COVID-19 ICU Collaborative was created to identify and speed implementation of best evidence based COVID-19 practices. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This 6-month project included volunteer interprofessional teams from VIRUS Registry sites, who received online training on the Checklist for Early Recognition and Treatment of Acute Illness and iNjury approach, a structured and systematic method for delivering evidence based critical care. Collaborators participated in weekly 1-hour videoconference sessions on high impact topics, monthly quality improvement (QI) coaching sessions, and received extensive additional resources for asynchronous learning. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Outcomes included learner engagement, satisfaction, and number of QI projects initiated by participating teams. RESULTS: Eleven of 13 initial sites participated in the Collaborative from March 2, 2021, to September 29, 2021. A total of 67 learners participated in the Collaborative, including 23 nurses, 22 physicians, 10 pharmacists, nine respiratory therapists, and three nonclinicians. Site attendance among the 11 sites in the 25 videoconference sessions ranged between 82% and 100%, with three sites providing at least one team member for 100% of sessions. The majority reported that topics matched their scope of practice (69%) and would highly recommend the program to colleagues (77%). A total of nine QI projects were initiated across three clinical domains and focused on improving adherence to established critical care practice bundles, reducing nosocomial complications, and strengthening patient- and family-centered care in the ICU. Major factors impacting successful Collaborative engagement included an engaged interprofessional team; an established culture of engagement; opportunities to benchmark performance and accelerate institutional innovation, networking, and acclaim; and ready access to data that could be leveraged for QI purposes. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Use of a virtual platform to establish a learning collaborative to accelerate the identification, dissemination, and implementation of critical care best practices for COVID-19 is feasible. Our experience offers important lessons for future collaborative efforts focused on improving ICU processes of care.

BackgroundClinician preferences and practices regarding appropriate vasopressin use in light of its increased acquisition cost secondary to rebranding has not been evaluated or described since the most recent iteration of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guideline was published.ObjectiveTo assess vasopressin cost containment initiatives and pharmacists' opinions regarding appropriate vasopressin use.MethodsA scenario‐based survey was distributed to critical care and emergency medicine pharmacists. Responses were characterized using frequency and descriptive statistics. Categorical variables between those who implemented changes (Vasopressin Cost Consideration) and those who did not (Usual Care) were compared using chi‐square or Fisher's exact tests. McNemar's test was used to compare responses in clinical scenarios between Vasopressin Cost Consideration and Usual Care groups.ResultsAmong 1757 pharmacists surveyed, 200 (11.3%) responded. When respondents considered vasopressin cost and evidence (vs evidence alone), fewer respondents would use vasopressin adjunctively with norepinephrine (21% vs 26.6%, P = 0.031), to raise mean arterial pressure compared with epinephrine (65.2% vs 72.3%, P = 0.012), or to reduce norepinephrine infusion rates (71.4% vs 81.4%, P < 0.001), but would use with steroids (62.4% vs 28.3%, P < 0.001). Most (72%) respondents had implemented vasopressin cost containment and/or education initiatives. The Vasopressin Cost Consideration group respondents were more likely to initiate vasopressin at 0.03 units/minute without titrating (47.9% vs 33.9%, P = 0.045).ConclusionSince vasopressin was generically rebranded, most institutions have implemented at least one initiative to reduce vasopressin use and/or educate clinicians about its appropriate use. When vasopressin acquisition costs were considered, pharmacists recommended its use less frequently, particularly in clinical scenarios where its use is controversial.

Long-acting injectable antipsychotics provide the delivery of medication over an extended period of time requiring administration typically only every 2 to 4 weeks. The side effect profile of a long-acting injectable antipsychotic is predictable and similar to the oral formulation. However, injection site reactions may occur with this novel delivery system. The risk of an injection site reaction may be greater with the repeated administration of a lipophilic decanoate formulation and include pain, development of indurations, and fibrosis. Severe complications from injection site reactions have rarely been described in the literature with newer agents. We report the first case of a patient prescribed paliperidone palmitate every 3 weeks that developed severe sepsis requiring vasopressors and intubation due to delayed relayed recognition of a necrotizing infection at an injection site. Clinicians should be alerted to screen for injection site reactions when there is an unknown source infection in a patient receiving a long-acting injectable antipsychotic.