Sawyer, Mark H.

AbstractPurposeEmerging literature has detailed the safe use of cefazolin in patients with immunoglobulin E–mediated penicillin allergy labeling (PAL) such as hives and anaphylaxis. The purpose of this article is to detail efforts led by an antimicrobial stewardship pharmacist working with an interdisciplinary team to optimize preoperative antimicrobials in patients with PAL.MethodsA pharmacist-led, interdisciplinary collaborative practice agreement (CPA) was activated in January 2020 to permit pharmacists to independently optimize preoperative antibiotics to the preferred cefazolin in patients with PAL if nonsevere or severe reactions had been reported. A patient registry was established covering the timeframe between January 8, 2020, and January 6, 2022. Reaction during surgery was assessed via 2-provider documentation, which included surgeon and anesthesiology staff documentation of any complications during the procedure related to a suspected allergic safety event. Utilization of cefazolin, clindamycin, and vancomycin for preoperative prophylaxis was monitored before and after implementation of the CPA.ResultsDuring the stated timeframe, 10,182 procedures and/or surgeries were completed on 1,572 (15.4%) patients with PAL and 659 (41.9%) patients previously reporting at least one reaction categorized as a severe reaction, which was hives for 71.2% of these patients. Of the 659 patients with PAL reporting a severe reaction, 356 received a preoperative cephalosporin (cefazolin, 98.8%; ceftriaxone, 1.2%) and tolerated it without a reported safety event, including 52 patients with PAL previously reporting anaphylaxis. An increase in preferred preoperative antimicrobial prophylaxis utilization was noted (cefazolin: 86% to 96.3%, P < 0.001; 2019 to 2021) with reductions noted in the use of nonpreferred preoperative antibiotics (clindamycin: 2.1% to 0.2%, P < 0.001; vancomycin: 3.2% to 0.4%, P < 0.001; 2019 to 2021).ConclusionA pharmacist-led, interdisciplinary CPA increased preferred preoperative antimicrobial use in patients with PAL reporting severe allergic reactions, including hives and anaphylaxis, without reported safety events.

Background: Little guidance exists on effective management of postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) following noncardiac, nonthoracic (NCNT) surgery. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to identify whether a difference exists between intravenous (IV) metoprolol and diltiazem when used to achieve hemodynamically stable rate control in POAF following NCNT surgery. Methods: This retrospective cohort study examined critically ill adult surgical patients experiencing POAF with rapid ventricular response. Inclusion in the metoprolol or diltiazem treatment group was determined by the initial rate control agent chosen by the prescriber. The primary end point was hemodynamically stable rate control, defined by heart rate (HR) <110 beats/min and blood pressure >90 mm Hg, maintained for 6 hours. Main Results: Patients on metoprolol (n = 66) and diltiazem (n = 55) were similar in age, comorbidities, surgical procedure distribution, acuity of illness, and home rate and rhythm control medications continued during hospitalization; 76% of diltiazem-treated patients achieved hemodynamically stable rate control, compared with only 53% of those receiving metoprolol ( P = .005). Safety end points were similar between groups, including the portion requiring a new vasopressor or fluid bolus for hemodynamic support. Conclusions: In NCNT surgery, patients with POAF, IV diltiazem more effectively controlled HR and hemodynamics compared with metoprolol. Results warrant further research into optimal medical management of POAF in this population using these 2 agents.