Citations

ABSTRACT Introduction Patients often receive propofol for sedation and clevidipine for hypertension in the intensive care unit. Both agents are formulated as a lipid emulsion, which may increase the risk of hypertriglyceridemia and acute pancreatitis with their coadministration. We aimed to determine the incidence of hypertriglyceridemia and acute pancreatitis with concurrent administration of propofol and clevidipine and identify patient risk factors for hypertriglyceridemia. Methods This was a multicenter retrospective study of adult patients (≥ 18 years old) receiving concurrent propofol and clevidipine infusions for ≥ 6 h. The primary outcome was the frequency of triglyceride levels greater than 400 mg/dL and acute pancreatitis. The secondary outcome was risk factors associated with hypertriglyceridemia during concurrent propofol and clevidipine infusions until both infusions had been discontinued. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to assess risk factors of hypertriglyceridemia in patients receiving concurrent propofol and clevidipine infusions. Results Across 1,226 patients, the median duration of infusion overlap was 12.4 [interquartile range (IQR) 8.3, 22.7] hours. The mean age of the cohort was 59.6 [standard deviation (SD) 14.9] years, and 59.4% were male. Assuming those without a triglyceride level drawn did not have hypertriglyceridemia, hypertriglyceridemia after initiation of propofol and clevidipine infusion was found in 7.7% [95% confidence interval (CI) 6.3% to 9.3%] of the entire cohort. Twenty‐six patients (2.1%) had a diagnosis of pancreatitis after initiation of lipid infusions, of which 12 cases were possibly infusion‐related, and one case was likely infusion‐related. After calculating the Naranjo Scale, all 13 cases of pancreatitis were possibly related to propofol or clevidipine infusions. Based on a multivariable logistic regression of those with a triglyceride level available, risk factors for hypertriglyceridemia included pancreatitis within the past 5 years [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 2.77, 95% CI, 1.23 to 6.23] and statin use (aOR 1.94, 95% CI, 1.13 to 3.34). Conclusions In our cohort of patients receiving concurrent propofol and clevidipine, the frequency of hypertriglyceridemia and acute pancreatitis was low. Further comparative studies are warranted to assess the risk of pancreatitis with the addition of clevidipine to propofol.

Background/Objectives: Radiofrequency (RF) wire energy can be used for tissue ablation across many conditions. Adjusting RF generator parameters allows RF energy to puncture tissue with minimal adjacent damage. When RF energy is applied to tissue, however, microbubbles are produced, obstructing intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). Mitigation of RF-generated microbubbles has been studied for ablation but not for puncture. Methods: This paper describes an in vitro bench study using ex vivo bovine live tissue. A model was created with bovine liver tissue and an IVUS catheter submerged in a saline bath. Tissue was punctured with an RF guidewire to recreate microbubbles. Following the puncture, various methods were applied: altering the mechanical index of the IVUS, applying a VF10-5 Linear probe (Siemens), and applying a L12-3 Linear probe (Philips). Regions of interest (ROIs) were selected to track pixel brightness as a proxy for microbubbles. Results: The control increased ROI brightness by 1.5%. Altering the mechanical index of IVUS reduced ROI brightness by 1.2%. VF10-5 probe application increased ROI brightness by 1.2%. L12-3 probe application reduced ROI brightness by 33.0% (p = 0.046, n = 3, one-sample t-test). Brightness reduction was most pronounced at the site of initial RF wire puncture, where microbubbles accumulated. Tip visualization improved, allowing for more precise wire trajectory adjustments. Conclusions: External US with an L12-3 probe was able to dissipate microbubbles effectively to improve IVUS guidance following RF wire puncture in an in vitro exploratory bench model.

This study aimed to determine if extended infusion (EI; over > 3 hr) beta-lactam therapy increased IV access requirements compared with traditional dosing (TD; over 30 min). Eighty-six adult ICU patients treated with TD anti-pseudomonal beta-lactams who underwent therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) were included. Patients who transitioned from TD to EI after TDM (EI group) were matched 1:1 to patients who remained on TD. In the primary analysis, the median (interquartile range) total number of lumens in the 24 hours before TDM compared with the 48 hours after TDM were similar between groups (pre: TD 3 [2–5] vs. EI 4 [3–5]; p = 0.22 and post: TD 3 [2–4] vs. EI 4 [3–5]; p = 0.05). Delivery of beta-lactams via EI was not associated with a need for more IV access. Practical challenges such as access should not limit use of EI beta-lactams when indicated.

Background Nursing handoff is a communication activity with a high risk for loss or omission of information. Efforts to improve handoffs include standardization of the processes and content of handoff communications. Objectives To examine nurses’ perspectives on the structure and organization of change-of-shift handoffs. Methods A qualitative descriptive approach was used to conduct a secondary analysis of focus group data. Thirty-four nurses from 4 critical care units participated in focus groups. Results Three themes emerged: handoff elements are defined by practice and culture; a clear, consistent, identified structure supports handoff; and personal preferences can disrupt handoff. Conclusions A standardized approach to handoff based on unit and organizational needs will be more successful than a broad mandate of content and organization. Individual preference is prevalent and strongly influences the information conveyed and the structure of handoff communication.

AbstractBackgroundThe importance of change‐of‐shift handoffs in maintaining patient safety has been well demonstrated. Change‐of‐shift handoff is an important source of data used in surveillance, a nursing intervention aimed at identifying and preventing complications. Surveillance requires the nurse to acquire, process, and synthesize information (cues) encountered during patient care. Interruptions in handoff have been observed but there is a gap in the evidence concerning how interruptions during nurse‐to‐nurse handoff impact the change‐of‐shift handoff process.AimsTo describe registered nurses’ perceptions of interruptions experienced during change‐of‐shift handoff at the bedside in critical care units and analyze the number, type, and source of interruptions during change‐of‐shift handoff at the bedside.MethodsAn exploratory descriptive design was used. One hundred nurse‐to‐nurse handoffs were observed, and four focus groups were conducted. Observation data were analyzed with descriptive statistics and quantitative content analysis. Focus group data were analyzed with qualitative content analysis.Results and FindingsOf the 1,196 interruptions observed, 800 occurred in the communication between the two nurses involved in the handoff. Over 80% (645) of these interruptions were from the nurse receiving handoff and included questions or clarification of information received. About half of the nurses reported that interruptions occurred during handoff. Focus group findings revealed that whether or not something is an interruption is determined by the individual nurse’s appraisal of value added to their knowledge of the patient and/or plan of care at the time of handoff.Linking Evidence to ActionInterruptions during handoff are evaluated as useful or disruptive based on the value to the nurse at the time. Strict structuring or mandating of handoff elements may limit nurses’ ability to communicate information deemed most relevant to the care of a specific unique patient.