The Bard Recovery and Bard G2 filters had high prevalences of fracture and embolization, with potentially life-threatening sequelae.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Background: There are limited data regarding the incidence of adverse events associated with administering lacosamide by intravenous push (IVP) compared with IV piggyback (IVPB). Objective: The objective of this analysis was to compare the safety profile, including cardiovascular effects, sedative effects, and IV site reactions of IVP and IVPB lacosamide administration. Methods: A retrospective pre/post cohort analysis comparing patients who received lacosamide via IVP and IVPB was conducted. Safety end points included hypotension, bradycardia, medication-related sedation, and IV site reactions. The relationship between patient characteristics and the incidence of safety end points was analyzed using the Student t-test and χ2 test as appropriate. Results: Bradycardia occurred after 0.19% of IVP administrations and 1.09% of IVPB administrations assessed ( P = 0.07). Hypotension was observed in 3.16% of IVP administrations compared to 1.59% in the IVPB cohort ( P = 0.12). Post lacosamide-related sedation was noted in 11.32% and 11.68% of the IVP and IVPB cohorts, respectively ( P = 0.87). Infusion site reaction rates of 1.80% and 0.84% were documented in the IVP and IVPB cohorts, respectively ( P = 0.33). Of note, only 1 adverse event required clinical intervention. One 200-mg dose in the IVP cohort required a fluid bolus postadministration. Conclusion and Relevance: IVP lacosamide was associated with a similar incidence of cardiovascular, neurological, and infusion site–related adverse events compared with IVPB, in which nearly every adverse event was deemed clinically insignificant. Lacosamide administered via IVP may be considered a safe alternative method of administration in the acute care setting.

Objectives: The aim was to evaluate the safety of intravenous lidocaine for postoperative pain and the impact on opioid requirements and pain scores Materials and Methods: This was a single-center, retrospective, single-arm analysis of adult patients who received intravenous lidocaine for postoperative pain from January 2016 to December 2019. Patients were excluded if they received lidocaine for any indication other than pain or if lidocaine was only given intraoperatively. The primary outcome of this analysis was to determine the incidence of adverse effects (AEs) and the reason for discontinuation of lidocaine. Secondary outcomes included median daily pain scores (visual analog scale and Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool) and opioid consumption (daily morphine milligram equivalents) 24 hours before infusion and during day 1.Results: A total of 452 patients were evaluated of which 298 (65.9%) patients met inclusion criteria. Of the 154 patients excluded, 153 did not receive lidocaine postoperatively. The median duration of infusion was 34 [20:48] hours with a median initial and maintenance rate of 1 mg/kg/h dosed on ideal body weight. In our analysis, 174 (58.4%) patients had a documented AE during infusion and 38 (12.8%) had lidocaine discontinued because of an AE. The most common AE was nausea in 62 (20.8%) patients and the most common reason for discontinuation was confusion in 8 (2.7%) patients. Daily morphine milligram equivalents (P < 0.001) and visual analog scale (P < 0.001) significantly decreased when comparing 24 hours before infusion and day 1. Conclusion:Although a majority of patients receiving lidocaine for postoperative pain experienced an AE, this did not result in discontinuation in most patients.

Objective: To evaluate sedation practices following a dexmedetomidine guideline update in the ICU. Design: Single-center, retrospective chart review. Setting: Tertiary academic medical center. Patients: Patients were included in this analysis if they were admitted to the ICU and were ordered for continuous infusion sedatives or opioids from September to November 2016 (PRE) and from September to November 2017 (POST). Patients were excluded from this analysis if they met any of the following criteria: mechanical ventilation less than 12 hours, admitted with acute neurologic injury, burn of greater than 20% total body surface area, chronic tracheostomy, admitted to the neuroscience or cardiac surgery ICU, on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support, or received an infusion of neuromuscular blockers. Interventions: Patients admitted during a restricted dexmedetomidine prescribing guideline were compared with patients admitted during an expanded prescribing guideline. Measurements and Main Results: Of the 1,426 patients evaluated for inclusion, 427 patients met the criteria in this analysis. Of these, 217 patients were in the PRE and 210 patients in the POST. A majority of patients were excluded for admission to neuroscience or cardiac surgery ICU. Dexmedetomidine was used in 13.8% of encounters in the PRE and 51.9% of encounters in the POST (p < 0.001). The median duration of mechanical ventilation was 49 hours (24–110 hr) in the PRE and 47.5 hours (26–98 hr) in the POST (p = 0.8). ICU length of stay was a median of 136 and 121 hours in the PRE and POST, respectively (p = 0.2). The median hospital length of stay was 296 and 326 hours in the PRE and POST, respectively (p = 0.35). After controlling for possible confounders, ventilation time remained unchanged between the PRE and POST (p = 0.98). Conclusions: The expansion of a hospital dexmedetomidine prescribing guideline resulted in an increased use of dexmedetomidine but was not associated with a difference in length of mechanical ventilation.