Citations

The objective of this project was to develop a standardized list of renally eliminated and potentially nephrotoxic drugs that will help inform initiatives to improve medication safety. Several available lists of medications from the published literature including original research articles and reviews, and from regulatory agencies, tertiary references, and clinical decision support systems were compiled, consolidated, and compared. Only systemically administered medications were included. Medication combinations were included if at least 1 active ingredient was considered renally dosed or potentially nephrotoxic. The medication list was reviewed for completeness and clinical appropriateness by a multidisciplinary team of individuals with expertise in critical care, nephrology, and pharmacy. An initial list of renally dosed and nephrotoxic drugs was created. After reconciliation and consensus from clinical experts, a standardized list of 681 drugs is proposed. The proposed evidence-based standardized list of renally dosed and potentially nephrotoxic drugs will be useful to harmonize epidemiologic and medication quality improvement studies. In addition, the list can be used for clinical purposes with surveillance in nephrotoxin stewardship programs. We suggest an iterative re-evaluation of the list with emerging literature and new medications on an approximately annual basis.

Abstract Aims The extravascular implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (EV ICD) has been shown to be safe and effective for patients at risk of sudden cardiac death, but little is known about EV ICD lead removal in humans. This analysis aimed to characterize the EV ICD lead removal experience thus far. Methods and results This was a retrospective analysis of lead removals from the EV ICD Pilot, Pivotal, and Continued Access Studies. Patients with a successful EV ICD implant who underwent lead removal were included. The main objective was lead removal success. Ancillary objectives included characterizing technique used, procedure complications, and reimplantation status. An EV ICD system was successfully implanted in 347 patients across the 3 studies (25.9% female; 53.4 ± 13.3 years; left ventricular ejection fraction: 39.7 ± 15.9). Of these patients, 29 (8.4%) underwent lead removal with a mean lead dwell time of 12.6 ± 14.3 months (0.2–58.4). The main reason for lead removal was lead dislodgement (n = 9, 31.0%). Lead removal was successful in 27/29 (93.1%) cases [100% (19/19) success rate <1 year and 80% (8/10) success rate >1 year post-implant]. Simple traction was used in 22/26 (84.6%) and extraction tools in 4/26 (15.4%) successful cases where technique was known. No complications were reported for any of the removal procedures. All 11 EV ICD reimplant attempts were successful. Conclusion Complete removal of the EV ICD lead was successful in 93.1% of cases, and simple traction was sufficient in most instances. Based on these results, lead removal from the substernal space was safe and achievable up to 3 years post-implant.

Blood transfusion is a common therapeutic intervention in hospitalized patients. There are numerous indications for transfusion, including anemia and coagulopathy with deficiency of single or multiple coagulation components such as platelets or coagulation factors. Nevertheless, the practice of transfusion in critically ill patients has been controversial mainly due to a lack of evidence and the need to consider the appropriate clinical context for transfusion. Further, transfusion carries many risk factors that must be balanced with benefits. Therefore, transfusion practice in ICU patients has constantly evolved, and we endeavor to present a contemporary review of transfusion practices in this population guided by clinical trials and expert guidelines.

Abstract Background Mortality prediction data may aid in identifying seriously ill transferred patients at high risk of dying and facilitate early goals-of-care discussions (GOCD); however, this is rarely evaluated. We recently developed a model for predicting 30-day inpatient mortality, which may be useful for promoting early GOCD. Objectives Our objectives were to examine the effects of sharing model-generated mortality risk with hospitalists by assessing (1) if hospitalists agreed with the mortality risk prediction, (2) if they planned to conduct GOCD or consult palliative care within 72 hours of transfer, and (3) if the communication alert affected GOCD timing and other clinical outcomes. We also aimed to measure the association between both the model-generated and hospitalists' stratified risk assessments with patient mortality. Methods This was a nonrandomized quasi-experimental pilot study with a historical control group. On the second day of hospitalization, the model-generated risk was communicated to the hospitalists. Hospitalists were asked to answer questions via a HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act)-compliant mobile communication system, and clinical outcomes were extracted via chart review. Results Eighty-four patients (42 in the control and 42 in the intervention group) were included in this study. Hospitalists agreed that all patients in the intervention group were at risk for inpatient mortality. Hospitalists were more likely to indicate a plan to conduct GOCD in the intervention group (n = 9) compared with the control group (n = 4, p < 0.001). In this subset of patients, GOCD was completed within 72 hours in 78% of intervention patients (n = 7) as compared with 50% in the control group (n = 2). The greater absolute value of the model-generated mortality risk was significantly associated with deaths (p = 0.01), similar to the hospitalists' prediction of the mortality risk (p = 0.02). Conclusion Communicating model-generated mortality risk to hospitalists is a promising approach to promote timely GOCD.

Abstract Beta-lactam antibiotics are widely used in the intensive care unit due to their favorable effectiveness and safety profiles. Beta-lactams given to patients with sepsis must be delivered as soon as possible after infection recognition (early), treat the suspected organism (appropriate), and be administered at a dose that eradicates the infection (adequate). Early and appropriate antibiotic delivery occurs in &gt;90% of patients, but less than half of patients with sepsis achieve adequate antibiotic exposure. This project aimed to address this quality gap and improve beta-lactam adequacy using the Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, and Control Lean Six Sigma quality improvement framework. A multidisciplinary steering committee was formed, which completed a stakeholder analysis to define the gap in practice. An Ishikawa cause and effect (Fishbone) diagram was used to identify the root causes and an impact/effort grid facilitated prioritization of interventions. An intervention that included bundled education with the use of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM; i.e. drug-level testing) was projected to have the highest impact relative to the amount of effort and selected to address beta-lactam inadequacy in the critically ill. The education and TDM intervention were deployed through a Plan, Do, Study, Act cycle. In the 3 months after “go-live,” 54 episodes of beta-lactam TDM occurred in 41 unique intensive care unit patients. The primary quality metric of beta-lactam adequacy was achieved in 94% of individuals after the intervention. Ninety-four percent of clinicians gauged the education provided as sufficient. The primary counterbalance of antimicrobial days of therapy, a core antimicrobial stewardship metric, was unchanged over time (favorable result; P = .73). Application of the Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, and Control Lean Six Sigma quality improvement framework effectively improved beta-lactam adequacy in critically ill patients. The approach taken in this quality improvement project is widely generalizable to other drugs, drug classes, or settings to increase the adequacy of drug exposure.

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.