Brown, Caitlin S.

Abstract Background Implementing effective antimicrobial stewardship interventions is an important component of antimicrobial stewardship programs. Recently, stewardship research has shown that clinician characteristics may have an impact on antimicrobial stewardship intervention methods and acceptance rates. Methods A multisite health system antimicrobial stewardship prospective audit and feedback program interventions performed by stewardship staff using a standardized electronic medical record (EMR) tool were compared by stewardship clinician profession (pharmacist, physician, or advanced practice provider, APP) from 7/1/2017 to 6/30/2022. Outcomes assessed were intervention rates, communication methods, and intervention acceptance by patient age and intensive care unit (ICU) status of patient. Generalized estimating equations utilizing logistic regression were used to assess for associations between staff. Associations were assessed both univariately and after adjusting for other factors. Results Of 69,503 prospective audit and feedback EMR based rules, there were 14,699 rules associated with an intervention. The majority of rules were reviewed by pharmacists (90.7%) followed by physician (9.2%) and APP (< 1%). Of 9,034 interventions with an outcome documented, 7326 (85.5%) pharmacist interventions were accepted and 360 (77.3%) physician interventions were accepted (adjusted p=0.047). Pharmacists intervened by direct action (ie, adjust a medication order) in 6.6% of interventions; whereas, physicians did so rarely (0.4%). Pharmacists were more likely to use synchronous communication than physicians in the adjusted model (pharmacist vs. physician: 63.8% vs 52.5%; p=0.004). Patients in the ICU had a significantly lower intervention acceptance rate (non-ICU vs. ICU: 86.6% vs. 78.0%; adjusted OR 0.57 [95% CI 0.46-0.70], p< 0.001).Table 1.Intervention Rate by Baseline Demographics of Stewardship Clinicians and Patients. *% are reported as row % **Multivariable model was also adjusted for day of week and time of day APP-Advanced practice provider; ICU-intensive care unitTable 2.Intervention Acceptance. *% are reported as row % **Multivariable model was also adjusted for day of week and time of day APP-Advanced practice provider; ICU-intensive care unit Conclusion Antimicrobial stewardship pharmacists and physicians are both effective at prospective audit and feedback but used different intervention styles. Advanced practice providers were vastly underrepresented. Patients in the ICU may benefit from tailored ASP efforts. Disclosures Sara Ausman, PharmD, Gilead: Honoraria Caitlin Brown, PharmD, Alexion: Grant/Research Support|Trevena: Advisor/Consultant Christina G. Rivera (O'Connor), Pharm.D, Gilead Sciences: Advisor/Consultant|Gilead Sciences: Board Member|Gilead Sciences: Grant/Research Support|Gilead Sciences: Honoraria

IMPORTANCE: Protein binding of valproate varies among ICU patients, altering the biologically active free valproate concentration (VPAC). Free VPAC is measured at few laboratories and is often discordant with total VPAC. Existing equations to predict free VPAC are either not validated or are inaccurate in ICU patients. OBJECTIVES: We designed this study to derive and validate a novel equation to predict free VPAC using data from ICU patients and to compare its performance to published equations. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Two academic medical centers. PARTICIPANTS: Patients older than 18 years old with concomitant free and total VPACs measured in the ICU were included in the derivation cohort if admitted from 2014 to 2018, and the validation cohort if admitted from 2019 to 2022. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Multivariable linear regression was used to derive an equation to predict free VPAC. Modified Bland-Altman plots and the rate of therapeutic concordance between the measured and predicted free VPAC were compared. RESULTS: Demographics, median free and total VPACs, and valproate free fractions were similar among 115 patients in the derivation cohort and 147 patients in the validation cohort. The Bland-Altman plots showed the new equation performed better (bias, 0.3 [95% limits of agreement, –13.6 to 14.2]) than the Nasreddine (–9.2 [–26.5 to 8.2]), Kodama (–9.7 [–30.0 to 10.7]), Conde Giner (–7.9 [–24.9 to 9.1]), and Parent (–9.9 [–30.7 to 11.0]) equations, and similar to Doré (–2.0 [–16.0 to 11.9]). The Doré and new equations had the highest therapeutic concordance rate (73%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: For patients at risk of altered protein binding such as ICU patients, existing equations to predict free VPAC are discordant with measured free VPAC. A new equation had low bias but was imprecise. External validation should be performed to improve its precision and generalizability. Until then, monitoring free valproate is recommended during critical illness.

AbstractCoagulopathy is common in critically ill patients and may result in complications such as bleeding or thromboembolic events. Viscoelastic testing (VET), including both thromboelastography (TEG®) and rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM®), offers a benefit over conventional coagulation tests in that it provides a qualitative and quantitative assessment of the degree of coagulopathy, including the ability to measure fibrinolysis. This review is a “how‐to” primer for critical care pharmacists to interpret and utilize VET in practice across a spectrum of coagulopathies, including trauma and traumatic brain injury, neurologic injury and emergencies, cardiothoracic surgery, liver disease, and medication‐induced coagulopathy.

Abstract Purpose To describe the use of mechanical circulatory support in the setting of cardiac arrest and summarize pharmacists’ role in extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR). Summary ECPR is increasingly used to reduce morbidity and improve mortality after cardiac arrest. ECPR employs venoarterial ECMO, which provides full circulatory perfusion and gas exchange in both adult and pediatric patients in cardiac arrest. After the emergency medicine team identifies potential candidates for ECPR, the ECMO team is consulted. If deemed a candidate for ECPR by the ECMO team, the patient is cannulated during ongoing standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation. A multidisciplinary team of physicians, nurses, perfusionists, pharmacists, and support staff is needed for successful ECPR. Pharmacists play a vital role in advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) prior to cannulation. Pharmacists intervene to make pharmacotherapy recommendations during ACLS, prepare medications, and administer medications as allowed by institutional and state regulations. Pharmacists also provide pharmacotherapy support in the selection of anticoagulation agents, ongoing vasopressor administration during ECMO cannulation, and the optimization of medication selection in the peri-ECPR period. Conclusion With the growing use of ECPR, pharmacists should be aware of their role in medication optimization during ECPR.

AbstractBackgroundNimodipine improves outcomes following aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) and current guidelines suggest that patients with aSAH receive nimodipine for 21 days. Patients with no difficulty swallowing will swallow the whole capsules or tablets; otherwise, nimodipine liquid must be drawn from capsules, tablets need to be crushed, or the commercially available liquid product be used to facilitate administration through an enteral feeding tube (FT). It is not clear whether these techniques are equivalent. The goal of the study was to determine if different nimodipine formulations and administration techniques were associated with the safety and effectiveness of nimodipine in aSAH.MethodsThis was a retrospective multicenter observational cohort study conducted in 21 hospitals across North America. Patients admitted with aSAH and received nimodipine by FT for ≥3 days were included. Patient demographics, disease severity, nimodipine administration, and study outcomes were collected. Safety end points included the prevalence of diarrhea and nimodipine dose reduction or discontinuation secondary to blood pressure reduction. Predictors of the study outcomes were analyzed using regression modeling.ResultsA total of 727 patients were included. Administration of nimodipine liquid product was independently associated with higher prevalence of diarrhea compared to other administration techniques/formulations (Odds ratio [OR] 2.28, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.41–3.67, p‐value = 0.001, OR 2.76, 95% CI 1.37–5.55, p‐value = 0.005, for old and new commercially available formulations, respectively). Bedside withdrawal of liquid from nimodipine capsules prior to administration was significantly associated with higher prevalence of nimodipine dose reduction or discontinuation secondary to hypotension (OR 2.82, 95% CI 1.57–5.06, p‐value = 0.001). Tablet crushing and bedside withdrawal of liquid from capsules prior to administration were associated with increased odds of delayed cerebral ischemia (OR 6.66, 95% CI 3.48–12.74, p‐value <0.0001 and OR 3.92, 95% CI 2.05–7.52, p‐value <0.0001, respectively).ConclusionsOur findings suggest that enteral nimodipine formulations and administration techniques might not be equivalent. This could be attributed to excipient differences, inconsistency and inaccuracy in medication administration, and altered nimodipine bioavailability. Further studies are needed.

ImportanceDirect oral anticoagulant (DOAC)–associated intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) has high morbidity and mortality. The safety and outcome data of DOAC reversal agents in ICH are limited.ObjectiveTo evaluate the safety and outcomes of DOAC reversal agents among patients with ICH.Data SourcesPubMed, MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, Embase, EBSCO, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases were searched from inception through April 29, 2022.Study SelectionThe eligibility criteria were (1) adult patients (age ≥18 years) with ICH receiving treatment with a DOAC, (2) reversal of DOAC, and (3) reported safety and anticoagulation reversal outcomes. All nonhuman studies and case reports, studies evaluating patients with ischemic stroke requiring anticoagulation reversal or different dosing regimens of DOAC reversal agents, and mixed study groups with DOAC and warfarin were excluded.Data Extraction and SynthesisPreferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines were used for abstracting data and assessing data quality and validity. Two reviewers independently selected the studies and abstracted data. Data were pooled using the random-effects model.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was proportion with anticoagulation reversed. The primary safety end points were all-cause mortality and thromboembolic events after the reversal agent.ResultsA total of 36 studies met criteria for inclusion, with a total of 1832 patients (967 receiving 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate [4F-PCC]; 525, andexanet alfa [AA]; 340, idarucizumab). The mean age was 76 (range, 68-83) years, and 57% were men. For 4F-PCC, anticoagulation reversal was 77% (95% CI, 72%-82%; I2 = 55%); all-cause mortality, 26% (95% CI, 20%-32%; I2 = 68%), and thromboembolic events, 8% (95% CI, 5%-12%; I2 = 41%). For AA, anticoagulation reversal was 75% (95% CI, 67%-81%; I2 = 48%); all-cause mortality, 24% (95% CI, 16%-34%; I2 = 73%), and thromboembolic events, 14% (95% CI, 10%-19%; I2 = 16%). Idarucizumab for reversal of dabigatran had an anticoagulation reversal rate of 82% (95% CI, 55%-95%; I2 = 41%), all-cause mortality, 11% (95% CI, 8%-15%, I2 = 0%), and thromboembolic events, 5% (95% CI, 3%-8%; I2 = 0%). A direct retrospective comparison of 4F-PCC and AA showed no differences in anticoagulation reversal, proportional mortality, or thromboembolic events.Conclusions and RelevanceIn the absence of randomized clinical comparison trials, the overall anticoagulation reversal, mortality, and thromboembolic event rates in this systematic review and meta-analysis appeared similar among available DOAC reversal agents for managing ICH. Cost, institutional formulary status, and availability may restrict reversal agent choice, particularly in small community hospitals.