No abstract

Background: Multiple publications demonstrate an association between time to initiation of corticosteroids and outcomes such as mortality and reversal of shock. However, the optimal time to initiate hydrocortisone remains unknown. Objective: To evaluate the impact of early versus late initiation of hydrocortisone in septic shock patients. Methods: A retrospective, multicentered, observational study was conducted. Adults admitted from July 1, 2014, to August 31, 2019, diagnosed with septic shock receiving vasopressors and low-dose hydrocortisone were evaluated. Participants were divided into the “early” group if hydrocortisone was initiated within 12 hours or “late” group if initiated after 12 hours of vasopressor initiation. The primary outcome was time to vasopressor discontinuation. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay (LOS), vasopressor utilization, fluids administered, and need for renal replacement therapy. Results: A total of 198 patients were identified for inclusion in this propensity score–weighted cohort: 99 in the early group and 99 in the late group. Early initiation was associated with shorter time to vasopressor discontinuation compared with late initiation (40.7 vs 60.6 hours; P = 0.0002). There was also a reduction in ICU LOS (3.6 vs 5.1 days; P = 0.0147) and hospital LOS (8.9 vs 10.9 days; P = 0.0220) seen in the early group. There was no difference in mortality between groups. Conclusion and Relevance: In this propensity-matched cohort, administration of hydrocortisone within 12 hours from the onset of septic shock was associated with improved time to vasopressor discontinuation and reduced ICU and hospital LOS.

Background Lacosamide and levetiracetam are antiseizure medications (ASMs) commonly utilized in the treatment and prevention of seizures. Historically, these agents have been administered as slow IV infusions after further dilution. Recent literature suggests that rapid administration via undiluted IV push may be safe and may increase efficiency of administration. Objective This study aimed to evaluate the safety and tolerability of undiluted IV push lacosamide and levetiracetam over 5 min. Methods This study was conducted as a single-centered, retrospective, observational cohort that analyzed the rapid administration of undiluted lacosamide and levetiracetam. Adult patients admitted from September 1st, 2019, to May 31st, 2020, receiving at least one administration of IV push lacosamide at any dose or levetiracetam at doses ≤ 1500 mg were evaluated. The primary safety outcomes were the incidence of hypotension and bradycardia. Results A total of 86 subjects were evaluated; 36 patients were administered lacosamide, and 50 patients were administered levetiracetam. Hypotension or bradycardia occurred in 6 patients in the lacosamide group (16.6%) and 6 patients in the levetiracetam group (12.0%). There were no reported infusion site reactions. Among the subjects who received lacosamide and had a 12-lead electrocardiogram (EKG), there were no reported incidences of a prolonged PR interval. Conclusions In this safety-analysis cohort, undiluted lacosamide and levetiracetam were not associated with significant adverse events when administered via IV push over 5 min. This seems to be a safe alternative method of administration to intermittent infusion. A larger, prospective cohort is needed to confirm these findings.

No abstract

Disclaimer In an effort to expedite the publication of articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic, AJHP is posting these manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time. Purpose To evaluate current evidence on the utility of hydrocortisone, ascorbic acid and thiamine (HAT) therapy for the management of septic shock. Summary The following keyword search terms were utilized in PubMed to identify relevant articles: ascorbic acid, thiamine, hydrocortisone, shock, and critical care. Articles relevant to HAT therapy in patients with septic shock were selected. Retrospective cohorts and randomized controlled trials were included in this review; case reports/series were excluded. Data from included studies illustrating the use of HAT therapy for the management of sepsis and septic shock, including data on time to HAT therapy initiation, severity of illness at baseline, duration of vasopressor therapy, progression of organ failure, and mortality, were evaluated. Conclusion The utilization of HAT therapy for the management of sepsis and septic shock remains controversial. Hemodynamic benefits have been shown to be most pronounced when HAT therapy is initiated earlier. Future studies directed at earlier initiation may be necessary to confirm this theory.