Discussing and conducting research on end-of-life issues is often difficult. However, it is important to initiate a dialogue about various topics surrounding death and dying. This paper looks at the available scientific literature relating to oxygen use at the end of life, describes associated attitudes and beliefs, and presents some brief examples of institutional practices. The aim is to stimulate thoughtful reflection and encourage research on this important topic. There is limited research regarding oxygen use at the end of life, and many questions remain. Despite the difficulty with research in this area, there is a need to expand the data and awareness in this field. Several authors have questioned the use of oxygen in end-of-life care, and the evidence that oxygen use may not always be indicated is growing.

Objective: We sought to determine the value of an audit-and-feedback monitoring method in facilitating meaningful practice changes to improve vancomycin dosing and monitoring. Design: Retrospective, multicenter, before-and-after implementation observational quality assurance initiative. Setting: The study was conducted in 7 not-for-profit, acute-care hospitals within a health system in southern Florida. Methods: The preimplementation period (September 1, 2019, through August 31, 2020) was compared to the postimplementation period (September 1, 2020, through May 31, 2022). All vancomycin serum-level results were screened for inclusion. The primary end point was the rate of fallout, defined as vancomycin serum level ≥25 µg/mL with acute kidney injury (AKI) and off-protocol dosing and monitoring. Secondary end points included the rate of fallout with respect to AKI severity, rate of vancomycin serum levels ≥25 µg/mL, and average number of serum-level evaluations per unique vancomycin patient. Results: In total, 27,611 vancomycin levels were analyzed from 13,910 unique patients. There were 2,209 vancomycin serum levels ≥25 µg/mL (8%) among 1,652 unique patients (11.9%). AKI was identified in 379 unique patients (23%) with a vancomycin levels ≥25 µg/mL. In total, 60 fallouts (35.2%) occurred in the 12-month preimplementation period (∼5 per month) and 41 fallouts (19.6%) occurred in the 21-month postimplementation period (∼2 per month; P = .0006). Failure was the most common AKI severity in both periods (risk: 35% vs 24.3%, P = .25; injury: 28.3% vs 19.5%, P = .30; failure: 36.7% vs 56%, P = .053). Overall, the number of evaluations of vancomycin serum levels per unique patient remained consistent throughout both periods (2 vs 2; P = .53). Conclusions: Implementation of a monthly quality assurance tool for elevated outlier vancomycin levels can improve dosing and monitoring practices resulting in enhanced patient safety.

Background: A number of corticosteroids are commonly used to treat COVID-19 infection. The aim of this retrospective study was to compare various hospital outcomes among mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients in an ICU, who were administered either dexamethasone or methylprednisolone. Methods: A total of 121 mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients from the ICU were included in the analysis, of which 43.8% (n = 53) received methylprednisolone, while 56.2% (n = 68) received dexamethasone. Results: In-hospital mortality (p = 0.381) and hospital length of stay (p = 0.307) were lower among the methylprednisolone group, compared to the dexamethasone group, though not significantly. Survival analysis showed that there were no significant differences between the methylprednisolone and dexamethasone groups (p = 0.978). A Cox proportional regression analysis showed that in-hospital mortality was lower among COVID-19 patients receiving methylprednisolone, compared to the dexamethasone group, though not significantly (hazard ratio (HR), 0.64; 95% CI: 0.35–3.17). Conclusion: Our study showed that in-hospital mortality was lower and hospital length of stay was higher among COVID-19 patients receiving methylprednisolone, compared to dexamethasone. These findings could have been due to the small sample size and limited scope of the study. Therefore, future large-scale studies should evaluate and confirm the findings in this study.

Invasive candidiasis is one of the common infections in solid organ transplant recipients. Guidelines recommend echinocandins or liposomal amphotericin with consideration of flucytosine (5‐fluorocytosine; 5‐FC) as synergistic therapy for treatment of select deep‐seated Candida infections, including complex endovascular infections. Flucytosine undergoes extensive renal elimination; however, optimal dosing in patients with renal impairment, or those requiring renal replacement therapy (RRT), is not well‐established. We describe a case of a 60‐year old female who underwent orthotopic heart transplant complicated by Candida parapsilosis complex fungemia with mediastinitis and development of end‐stage renal disease requiring RRT. Flucytosine therapeutic drug monitoring was performed on continuous veno‐venous hemofiltration (CVVH) and intermittent hemodialysis (iHD) to guide appropriate dosing. Our results support 5‐FC doses of 25 mg/kg daily while undergoing CVVH with a low fluid replacement rate and 21 mg/kg post‐iHD or 17 mg/kg daily while receiving thrice weekly iHD.

BackgroundThere is a paucity of evidence surrounding optimal prescribing practices for the treatment of Gram-negative bloodstream infections (GNBSI). This study aimed to assess the appropriateness of IV-to-PO step-down therapy in the treatment of GNBSI.MethodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted at the University of Cincinnati Medical Center and West Chest Hospital and included subject’s ≥18 years of age with GNBSI caused by Enterobacteriaceae spp. or Pseudomonas aeruginosa. The primary objective was to compare clinical cure rates between IV-only and IV-to-PO therapy, and to further assess differences in clinical cure rates amongst oral antibiotics of high, moderate, and low bioavailability. The study also aimed to identify factors associated with clinical cure, hospital length of stay, and emergence of multi-drug-resistant organisms (MDRO).ResultsAmongst 215 subjects screened, 99 subjects were included and 64 subjects met criteria for clinical cure. In the univariate analysis, the IV-to-PO group had a higher percentage of clinical cure than IV only therapy (82% vs. 48%, P = 0.001). Of note, the two study groups were significantly different in regards to intensive care status, Pitt bacteremia score, and primary site of infection. Upon further analysis, data from the multivariate logistic regression revealed that critical illness was the only significant factor that negatively impacted clinical cure (OR = 0.208; 95% CI 0.04–0.99; P = 0.049). A total of 49 subjects received oral antibiotics. Majority of patients (82%) in the IV-to-PO group received a moderately bioavailable oral antibiotic. No difference in respect to clinical cure rate was found between the three PO antibiotic bioavailability groups (P = 0.346). The median duration of hospital stay was shorter in the IV-to-PO compared with IV alone group (4 days vs. 9.5 days, respectively, P ≤ 0.001). There was a trend in emergence of MDROs with IV therapy compared with IV-to-PO therapy (10% vs. 2%, P = 0.204).ConclusionIV-to-PO stepdown therapy compared with IV therapy alone was noninferior in clinical cure rates in the treatment of GNBSI and may result in fewer hospital days and less emergence of multidrug-resistant organisms. These conclusions are limited by significant differences in severity of illness between groups in this study.Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.