Citations

OBJECTIVES: To summarize the most impactful articles relevant to the pharmacotherapy of critically ill adult patients published in 2021. DATA SOURCE: PubMed/MEDLINE. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials, prospective studies, or systematic review/meta-analyses of adult critical care patients assessing a pharmacotherapeutic intervention and reporting clinical endpoints published between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2021. DATA EXTRACTION: Candidate articles were organized by clinical domain based on the emerging themes from all studies. A modified Delphi process was applied to obtain consensus on the most impactful publication within each clinical domain based on overall contribution to scientific knowledge and novelty to the literature. DATA SYNTHESIS: The search revealed 830 articles, of which 766 were excluded leaving 64 candidate articles for the Delphi process. These 64 articles were organized by clinical domain including: emergency/neurology, cardiopulmonary, nephrology/fluids, infectious diseases, metabolic, immunomodulation, and nutrition/gastroenterology. Each domain required the a priori defined three Delphi rounds. The resultant most impactful articles from each domain included five randomized controlled trials and two systematic review/meta-analyses. Topics studied included sedation during mechanical ventilation, anticoagulation in COVID-19, extended infusion beta-lactams, interleukin-6 antagonists in COVID-19, balanced crystalloid resuscitation, vitamin C/thiamine/hydrocortisone in sepsis, and promotility agents during enteral feeding. CONCLUSIONS: This synoptic review provides a summary and perspective of the most impactful articles relevant to the pharmacotherapy of critically ill adults published in 2021.

Background: Patients supported on mechanical circulatory support devices experience vasodilatory hypotension due to high surface area exposure to nonbiological and non-endothelialized surfaces. Angiotensin II has been studied in general settings of vasodilatory shock, however concerns exist regarding the use of this vasopressor in patients with pre-existing cardiac failure. The objective of this study was to assess the systemic and central hemodynamic effects of angiotensin II in patients with primary cardiac or respiratory failure requiring treatment with mechanical circulatory support devices. Methods: Multicenter retrospective observational study of adults supported on a mechanical circulatory support device who received angiotensin II for vasodilatory shock. The primary outcome was the intraindividual change from baseline in mean arterial pressure (MAP) and vasopressor dosage after angiotensin II. Results: Fifty patients were included with mechanical circulatory devices that were primarily used for cardiac failure (n = 41) or respiratory failure (n = 9). At angiotensin II initiation, the norepinephrine equivalent vasopressor dosage was 0.44 (0.34, 0.64) and 0.47 (0.33, 0.73) mcg/kg/min in the cardiac and respiratory groups, respectively. In the cardiac group, MAP increased from 60 to 70 mmHg (intraindividual P < .001) in the 1 h after angiotensin II initiation and the vasopressor dosage declined by 0.04 mcg/kg/min (intraindividual P < .001). By 12 h, the vasopressor dosage declined by 0.16 mcg/kg/min ( P = .001). There were no significant changes in cardiac index or mean pulmonary artery pressure throughout the 12 h following angiotensin II. In the respiratory group, similar but nonsignificant effects at 1 h on MAP (61-81 mmHg, P = .26) and vasopressor dosage (decline by 0.13 mcg/kg/min, P = .06) were observed. Conclusions: In patients requiring mechanical circulatory support for cardiac failure, angiotensin II produced beneficial systemic hemodynamic effects without negatively impacting cardiac function or pulmonary pressures. The systemic hemodynamic effects in those with respiratory failure were nonsignificant due to limited sample size.

Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with a prothrombotic state; leading to multiple sequelae. We sought to detect whether thromboelastography (TEG) parameters would be able to detect thromboembolic events in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Methods We performed a retrospective multicenter case–control study of the Collaborative Research to Understand the Sequelae of Harm in COVID (CRUSH COVID) registry of 8 tertiary care level hospitals in the United States (US). This registry contains adult patients with COVID-19 hospitalized between March 2020 and September 2020. Results A total of 277 hospitalized COVID-19 patients were analyzed to determine whether conventional coagulation TEG parameters were associated with venous thromboembolic (VTE) and thrombotic events during hospitalization. A clotting index (CI) >3 was present in 45.8% of the population, consistent with a hypercoagulable state. Eighty-three percent of the patients had clot lysis at 30 min (LY30) = 0, consistent with fibrinolysis shutdown, with a median of 0.1%. We did not find TEG parameters (LY30 area under the receiver operating characteristic [ROC] curve [AUC] = 0.55, 95% CI: 0.44-0.65, P value = .32; alpha angle [α] AUC = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.47-0.69, P value = .17; K time AUC = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.46-0.69, P value = .67; maximum amplitude (MA) AUC = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.44-0.64, P value = .47; reaction time [R time] AUC = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.42-0.65, P value = .70) to be a good discriminator for VTE. We also did not find TEG parameters (LY30 AUC = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.42-0.60, P value = .84; R time AUC = 0.57, 95%CI: 0.48-0.67, P value .07; α AUC = 0.59, 95%CI: 0.51-0.68, P value = .02; K time AUC = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.53-0.70, P value = .07; MA AUC = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.57-0.74, P value < .01) to be a good discriminator for thrombotic events. Conclusions In this retrospective multicenter cohort study, TEG in COVID-19 hospitalized patients may indicate a hypercoagulable state, however, its use in detecting VTE or thrombotic events is limited in this population.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) poses unique thrombotic and hemorrhagic risks, and the optimal anticoagulant choice is unknown. We systematically searched Ovid EBM Reviews, Ovid Embase, Ovid Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection for randomized-, crossover-, retrospective cohort-, or parallel-designed clinical studies of adult patients receiving ECMO that compared heparin recipients with bivalirudin recipients. Meta-analysis was performed with random-effects models. The ROBINS-I tool was used to assess the risk of bias. Six retrospective observational studies met the inclusion criteria for the qualitative summary. Five studies were suitable for meta-analysis. Those who received heparin were more likely to experience circuit-related thrombosis (odds ratio [OR] 2.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.25–3.37, p = 0.005, I 2 = 0%) and die (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.19–2.21, p = 0.002, I 2 = 0%) compared with those who received bivalirudin. There were no differences in major bleeding events between heparin and bivalirudin recipients (OR 1.83, 95% CI 0.55–6.09, p = 0.33, I 2 = 82.7%). In retrospective settings compared with heparin anticoagulation, bivalirudin was associated with less circuit-related thrombotic events and greater survival in adults supported on ECMO, without contributing to more bleeding complications. Prospective controlled studies comparing heparin and bivalirudin in adult ECMO patients are warranted to corroborate these findings.

Objective:To describe the current prescribing practices of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in intensive care unit (ICU) patients and the associated clinical outcomes, including the incidence of major bleeding episodes and the need for intervention (endoscopic, surgical, or interventional radiology guided). Design:Observational, retrospective chart review. Setting and Participants:Single large academic center study. Participants included patients with critical illness who were admitted to the intensive care units (ICU) at Mayo Clinic from January 1st, 2012, until May 4th, 2018. Adult ICU patients with a DOAC (apixaban, rivaroxaban, dabigatran, or edoxaban) listed as one of the active medications at the time of hospital admission were included. Results:37 249 patients in medical and surgical intensive care units were screened for the study period. After excluding patients who did not qualify, 558 unique encounters were included. The median age was 69 (IQR 59-78) years; most patients were male, white Caucasians, and had a median SOFA score of 4. After excluding the patients who had major bleeding episodes in the first 24 hours, 188 (39%) were continued on the same DOAC therapy, 204 (42%) were discontinued without transitioning to another agent, and 95 (20%) were transitioned to another agent. Finally, 410 (84%) were dismissed on DOAC therapy at the end of hospitalization. The difference in the continuation rate of the same DOAC agent beyond 24 hours, discontinuation without transition to an alternate agent, or discontinuation of DOAC with a transition to an alternate anticoagulation agent was not statistically significant ( P = .60). A total of 52 major bleeding events were identified. Gastrointestinal bleeding was the most common bleeding complication [n (%): 34 (65)], followed by intra-abdominal and peri-procedural bleeding [7 (13.5) and 7 (13.5)]. Thirty-three (65%) patients had a major bleeding complication requiring intervention. Conclusions:Our single-center retrospective study describes the current prescribing practices and preliminary outcomes in ICU patients with prehospital use of DOACs. Up to 20% of the patients were transitioned to a different agent within 24 hours of ICU admission, whereas a significant proportion of patients (42%) had anticoagulation discontinued altogether. Most patients who suffered a major bleeding episode required either endoscopic or surgical intervention to control bleeding.