Nearly half of cases represented colonization, yet the majority were treated with broad-spectrum antibiotics. Determining infection versus colonization is a critical first step in managing patients with carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae. The risk of not treating apparent colonization appears low.
Lurasidone for the treatment of delirium in critically ill patients did not differ in the time to delirium resolution when compared to quetiapine. Additionally, the incidence of QTc prolongation between agents does not appear to be different. Future randomized trials should evaluate dose escalation schemes and a larger proportion of patients to evaluate differences in mortality, efficacy, and life-threatening arrhythmias associated with atypical antipsychotic use.
IMPORTANCE: Opioids are the mainstay of pain management and sedation in critically ill patients, which can lead to the development of physiologic tolerance and dependency. The prevalence of iatrogenic opioid withdrawal syndrome (IWS) is reported as 17–32% in the ICU; however, limited evidence exists for the medical ICU patient population. OBJECTIVES: To identify the and risk factors for IWS in adult patients admitted to critical care medicine services who received greater than or equal to 24 hours of continuous opioid infusion therapy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A prospective, observational study was conducted in a tertiary care hospital in adult medical ICU patients. Ninety-two patients who received greater than or equal to 24 hours of continuous opioid infusions were included in the study. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASUREMENTS: Patients were assessed daily after opioid infusion discontinuation using the Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale (COWS) and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V) opioid withdrawal criteria for a maximum of 5 days. The primary outcome was the prevalence of IWS of moderate severity or greater using COWS. Secondary outcomes included the prevalence of IWS diagnosis of any severity based on COWS, the prevalence of IWS diagnosis based on a positive DSM-V score, and the identification of potential risk factors for developing IWS of any severity. RESULTS: Four hundred forty-seven patients received greater than or equal to 24 hours of continuous opioid therapy. Of these, 385 were excluded, leaving 92 patients included in the final analysis. Except for a higher prevalence of psychiatric history in the IWS-positive group, baseline characteristics were similar. Overall, 11 patients (12%) developed IWS of moderate severity or greater, based on COWS. The IWS-positive group also had longer durations of opioid infusions, higher cumulative opioid infusion doses, higher mean daily doses, and higher infusion rates at any given time. The concomitant use of dexmedetomidine (38.3 vs 15.6%, p = 0.014) and benzodiazepines (63.8 vs 37.8%, p = 0.021) during or after the opioid infusion were significantly higher in the IWS-positive group compared with the IWS-negative group. No significant differences were found between the two groups for scheduled or as needed opioids after cessation of the opioid infusion. Continuous opioid infusions greater than or equal to 72 hours and total daily dose greater than or equal to 1,200 μg were found to be independent predictors for the development of iatrogenic opioid withdrawal via logistic regression. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Approximately one in every eight patients receiving continuous infusion opioid for greater than 24 hours while mechanically ventilated in the medical ICU will develop IWS of moderate severity or greater; this increases to one in three patients diagnosed with DSM-V criteria or any level of IWS severity. Patients receiving opioid infusions greater than or equal to 72 hours, or a total daily fentanyl dose of greater than...
Objective Twice/day dosing of insulin glargine has been used to treat hyperglycemia in clinical practice; however, data supporting its use in the critically ill population are lacking. This study was designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of twice/day insulin glargine in critically ill patients. Methods A retrospective study was conducted in adult patients admitted to the intensive care units between February 2013 and June 2017 who received insulin glargine twice/day or 40 units or more once/day for 48 hours or longer. Post cardiovascular surgery patients were excluded. Data were collected for up to 14 patient‐days. The efficacy outcomes included the incidence of hyperglycemia (blood glucose [BG] above 180 mg/dl), predose hyperglycemia rate (BG above 180 mg/dl within 4 hrs before the dose), and BG variability (standard deviation). The safety outcome was assessed by the development of hypoglycemia (BG below 70 mg/dl). Results A total of 58 patients (twice/day = 23; once/day = 35) were included in the analysis. Demographics were similar between the groups including history of diabetes mellitus, baseline hemoglobin A1C, and home insulin use. No difference was observed between the twice/day and once/day groups in the mean BG (153 vs 154 mg/dl, p=0.95, respectively), and BG variability (46 vs 44 mg/dl, p=0.29, respectively). Although the overall incidence of hyperglycemia was similar between twice/day and once/day groups (96% vs 97%, p=1.00, respectively), the twice/day group had a significantly lower predose hyperglycemia rate (twice/day 0.27 vs once/day 0.43, p=0.02). Additionally, the twice/day group did not experience an increased incidence of hypoglycemia (twice/day 23% vs once/day 34%, p=0.57) or hypoglycemia without having anything by mouth (twice/day 0% vs once/day 9%, p=0.27). Conclusions This is the first study demonstrating that twice/day insulin glargine reduced the rate of predose hyperglycemia without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia in critically ill patients. A large randomized study is needed to confirm the safety and efficacy of twice/day glargine in the critically ill.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.