Back to Authors

Osborn, Jennifer L.

Mayo Clinic

Mayo Clinic

Citations 2

Unfractionated heparin infusion for treatment of venous thromboembolism based on actual body weight without dose capping
Shlensky, Julia A , Thurber, Kristina M., O’Meara, John G. , Ou, Narith N., Osborn, Jennifer L., Dierkhising, Ross , Mara, Kristin C. , Bierle, Dennis M. , Daniels, Paul R. , Dierkhising, Ross A, Mara, Kristin C , Osborn, Jennifer L

Vascular Medicine | October 18, 2019 | Volume: 25 | Issue: 1 | Pages: 47-54

10.1177/1358863x19875813 Get It

Controversy exists regarding the use of dose capping of weight-based unfractionated heparin (UFH) infusions in obese and morbidly obese patients. The primary objective of this study was to compare time to first therapeutic activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) in hospitalized patients receiving UFH for acute venous thromboembolism (VTE) among three body mass index (BMI) cohorts: non-obese (< 30 kg/m 2 ), obese (30–39.9 kg/m 2 ), and morbidly obese (⩾ 40 kg/m 2 ). In this single-center, retrospective cohort study, patients were included if they ⩾ 18 years of age, had a documented VTE, and were on an infusion of UFH for at least 24 hours. Weight-based UFH doses were calculated using actual body weight. A total of 423 patients met the inclusion criteria, with 230 (54.4%), 146 (34.5%), and 47 (11.1%) patients in the non-obese, obese, and morbidly obese cohorts, respectively. Median times to therapeutic aPTT were 16.4, 16.6, and 17.1 hours in each cohort. Within 24 hours, the cumulative incidence rates for therapeutic aPTT were 70.7% for the non-obese group, 69.9% for the obese group, and 61.7% for the morbidly obese group (obese vs non-obese: HR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.82–1.26, p = 0.88; morbidly obese vs non-obese: HR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.62–1.21, p = 0.41). There was no significant difference in major bleeding events between BMI groups (obese vs non-obese, p = 0.91; morbidly obese vs non-obese, p = 0.98). Based on our study, heparin dosing based on actual body weight without a dose cap is safe and effective.
Early Diuresis After Colon and Rectal Surgery Does Not Reduce Length of Hospital Stay: Results of a Randomized Trial
Danelich, Ilya , Bergquist, John R. , Bergquist, Whitney J., Osborn, Jennifer L., Wright, Sampaguita S., Tefft, Brittany J., Sturm, Ashley W., Langworthy, Diana R. , Mandrekar, Jay , Devine, Richard M., Mathis, Kellie L. , Pembérton, John H., Jacob, Adam K. , Danelich, Ilya M, Kelley, Scott R. , Bergquist, John R , Osborn, Jennifer L., Larson, David W.

Diseases of the Colon & Rectum | September 6, 2018 | Volume: 61 | Issue: 10 | Pages: 1187-1195

10.1097/dcr.0000000000001183 Get It

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.