Nei, Andrea M.

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) presents as an acute inflammatory lung injury characterized by refractory hypoxemia and non-cardiac pulmonary edema. An estimated 10% of patients in the intensive care unit and 25% of those who are mechanically ventilated are diagnosed with ARDS. Increased awareness is warranted as mortality rates remain high and delays in diagnosing ARDS are common. The COVID-19 pandemic highlights the importance of understanding ARDS management. Treatment of ARDS can be challenging due to the complexity of the disease state and conflicting existing evidence. Therefore, it is imperative that pharmacists understand both pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic treatment strategies to optimize patient care. This narrative review provides a critical evaluation of current literature describing management practices for ARDS. A review of treatment modalities and supportive care strategies will be presented.

AbstractData regarding the use of corticosteroids for treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) are conflicting. As the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic progresses, more literature supporting the use of corticosteroids for COVID‐19 and non‐COVID‐19 ARDS have emerged. Glucocorticoids are proposed to attenuate the inflammatory response and prevent progression to the fibroproliferative phase of ARDS through their multiple mechanisms and anti‐inflammatory properties. The purpose of this systematic review was to comprehensively evaluate the literature surrounding corticosteroid use in ARDS (non‐COVID‐19 and COVID‐19) in addition to a narrative review of clinical considerations of corticosteroid use in these patient populations. OVID Medline and EMBASE were searched. Randomized controlled trials evaluating the use of corticosteroids for COVID‐19 and non‐COVID‐19 ARDS in adult patients on mortality outcomes were included. Risk of bias was assessed with the Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. There were 388 studies identified, 15 of which met the inclusion criteria that included a total of 8877 patients. The studies included in our review reported a mortality benefit in 6/15 (40%) studies with benefit being seen at varying time points of mortality follow‐up (ICU survival, hospital, and 28 and 60 days) in the COVID‐19 and non‐COVID‐19 ARDS studies. The two non‐COVID19 trials assessing lung injury score improvements found that corticosteroids led to significant improvements with corticosteroid use. The number of mechanical ventilation‐free days significantly were found to be increased with the use of corticosteroids in all four studies that assessed this outcome. Corticosteroids are associated with improvements in mortality and ventilator‐free days in critically ill patients with both COVID‐19 and non‐COVID‐19 ARDS, and evidence suggests their use should be encouraged in these settings. However, due to substantial differences in the corticosteroid regimens utilized in these trials, questions still remain regarding the optimal corticosteroid agent, dose, and duration in patients with ARDS.

Background: Post–cardiac surgery bleeding can have devastating consequences, and it is unknown if warfarin-induced rapid international normalized ratio (INR) rise during the immediate postoperative period increases bleed risk. Objective: To determine the impact of warfarin-induced rapid-rise INR on post–cardiac surgery bleeding. Methods: This was a single-center, retrospective chart review of post–cardiac surgery patients initiated on warfarin at Mayo Clinic Hospital, Rochester. Patients were grouped based on occurrence or absence of rapid-rise INR (increase ≥1.0 within 24 hours). The primary outcome compared bleed events between groups. Secondary outcomes assessed hospital length of stay (LOS) and identified risk factors associated with bleed events and rapid rise in INR. Results: During the study period, 2342 patients were included, and 56 bleed events were evaluated. Bleed events were similar between rapid-rise (n = 752) and non–rapid-rise (n = 1590) groups in both univariate (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.22; P = 0.594) and multivariable models (HR = 1.24; P = 0.561). Those with rapid-rise INR had longer LOS after warfarin administration (discharge HR = 0.84; P = 0.0002). The most common warfarin dose immediately prior to rapid rise was 5 mg. Risk factors for rapid-rise INR were low body mass index, female gender, and cross-clamp time. Conclusion and Relevance: This represents the first report to assess warfarin-related rapid-rise INR in post–cardiac surgery patients and found correlation to hospital LOS but not bleed events. Conservative warfarin dosing may be warranted until further research can be conducted.

Objectives: Midodrine is an α1-agonist approved for orthostatic hypotension. Recently, it has received attention as an oral vasopressor to facilitate ICU discharge. The purpose of this study was to identify the incidence of continuation of newly initiated midodrine upon ICU and hospital discharge and identify risk factors associated with its occurrence. Design: Single-center retrospective study. Setting: ICU patients from January 2011 to October 2016 at Mayo Clinic, Rochester. Patients: Adult patients admitted to any ICU who received new midodrine for hypotension and survived to discharge. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: During the study period, 1,010 patients were newly started on midodrine and survived to ICU discharge. Midodrine was continued in 67% (672/1,010) of patients at ICU discharge. Admission to cardiovascular surgery ICU and mixed medical/surgical ICU was a risk factor for midodrine continuation at ICU discharge (odds ratio, 3.94 [2.50–6.21] and 2.03 [1.29–3.20], respectively). At hospital discharge, 34% (311/909) of patients were continued on midodrine therapy. History of congestive heart failure predicted midodrine continuation at hospital discharge (odds ratio, 1.49 [1.05–2.12]). Hypertension and use of mechanical ventilation were associated with a decreased odds of midodrine prescription at both ICU and hospital discharge. Of those discharged from the ICU or hospital on midodrine, 50% were concomitantly prescribed antihypertensives. Discharge from the ICU on midodrine was associated with a significantly shorter ICU length of stay (7.5 ± 8.9 vs 10.6 ± 13.4 d) and reduced risk of in-hospital mortality (hazard ratio, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.32–0.70]; p < 0.001), despite no difference in baseline severity of illness scores. In contrast, patients discharged from the hospital on midodrine had a higher risk of 1-year mortality (hazard ratio, 1.60 [95% CI, 1.26–2.04]; p < 0.001). Conclusions: This study established a high prevalence of midodrine continuation in transitions of care. The risks and benefits of this practice remain unclear. Future studies should explore the impact of this practice on patient outcomes and resource utilization. These insights could be used to model interventions for proper tapering, discontinuation, or follow-up of new start midodrine.

AbstractContinuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) is the modality of choice in critically ill patients with hemodynamic instability requiring renal replacement therapy. The goal of this review is to discuss an overview of CRRT types, components, and important considerations for nutrition support provision. Evidence basis for guidelines and our recommendations are reviewed. Nutrition support–related implications include the possibility of calorie gain with citrate‐based anticoagulation, calorie loss with glucose‐free replacement fluids and dialysate, and significant amino acid losses in effluent. We challenge nutrition support clinicians to develop a keen understanding of the specific CRRT modalities that are employed in their intensive care units and to be able to determine how the CRRT prescription may impact a patient's nutrition support prescription.