Augmented renal clearance (ARC) has been reported in approximately 30-65% of patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) despite the presence of a normal serum creatinine concentration. In certain ICU patient populations (e.g., patients with sepsis or trauma), the incidence increases to roughly 50-85%. Risk factors for ARC include the following: age younger than 50-55 years, male sex, higher diastolic blood pressure, fewer comorbidities, and a lower Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) or modified Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score at ICU admission. In addition, patient populations with the highest reported incidence of ARC include those with major trauma, sepsis, traumatic brain injury, subarachnoid hemorrhage, and central nervous system infection. Due to the high incidence of ARC in patients with a normal serum creatinine concentration, clinicians should consider screening ICU patients deemed high risk by using the ARC scoring system or the identification and assessment algorithm provided in this review. In addition, an 8-hour continuous urine collection should be considered to assess a measured creatinine clearance for evaluating the necessity of medication dosage adjustments. There is a clear association between ARC and subtherapeutic antibiotic concentrations as well as literature suggesting worse clinical outcomes; thus, the risk of underdosing antibiotics in a patient with ARC could increase the risk of treatment failure. This review examines strategies to overcome ARC and summarizes current pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic literature in patients with ARC in an effort to provide dosing guidance for this patient population.

Objectives: To provide a multiorganizational statement to update recommendations for critical care pharmacy practice and make recommendations for future practice. A position paper outlining critical care pharmacist activities was last published in 2000. Since that time, significant changes in healthcare and critical care have occurred. Design: The Society of Critical Care Medicine, American College of Clinical Pharmacy Critical Care Practice and Research Network, and the American Society of Health-Systems Pharmacists convened a joint task force of 15 pharmacists representing a broad cross-section of critical care pharmacy practice and pharmacy administration, inclusive of geography, critical care practice setting, and roles. The Task Force chairs reviewed and organized primary literature, outlined topic domains, and prepared the methodology for group review and consensus. A modified Delphi method was used until consensus (> 66% agreement) was reached for each practice recommendation. Previous position statement recommendations were reviewed and voted to either retain, revise, or retire. Recommendations were categorized by level of ICU service to be applicable by setting and grouped into five domains: patient care, quality improvement, research and scholarship, training and education, and professional development. Main Results: There are 82 recommendation statements: 44 original recommendations and 38 new recommendation statements. Thirty-four recommendations represent the domain of patient care, primarily relating to critical care pharmacist duties and pharmacy services. In the quality improvement domain, 21 recommendations address the role of the critical care pharmacist in patient and medication safety, clinical quality programs, and analytics. Nine recommendations were made in the domain of research and scholarship. Ten recommendations were made in the domain of training and education and eight recommendations regarding professional development. Conclusions: Critical care pharmacists are essential members of the multiprofessional critical care team. The statements recommended by this taskforce delineate the activities of a critical care pharmacist and the scope of pharmacy services within the ICU. Effort should be made from all stakeholders to implement the recommendations provided, with continuous effort toward improving the delivery of care for critically ill patients.

DEX demonstrated a BZD-sparing effect in the treatment of AWS; however, this surrogate end point should be interpreted with caution. Although this study cannot disprove the possibility of a protective effect of DEX in preventing the requirement for endotracheal intubation in patients with AWS, an increased rate of adverse drug events and increased study drug costs were observed. If DEX is used in clinical practice, it should only be used as adjunctive therapy with BZDs that have a proven benefit in AWS.

Acute pulmonary embolism represents a major complication of venous thromboembolism that is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Guidelines recommend the rapid initiation of anticoagulation and consideration of thrombolytic therapy in select patients, including those with hypotension or at high risk of developing hypotension. Evaluation for thrombolytic therapy should only be considered after assessment of contraindications and risk for major bleeding. The objective of this perspective article is to evaluate the bleeding risk associated with systemic thrombolytic therapy in the management of acute pulmonary embolism and discuss strategies to minimize this risk. Risk stratification of acute pulmonary embolism will be discussed to identify patient populations that warrant specific consideration of risk for major bleeding with thrombolytic therapy. In addition, the incidence, patient-specific risk factors, and pharmacologic characteristics, including concurrent anticoagulation and thrombolytic therapy, will be evaluated in the context of risk for major hemorrhage. Finally, supporting evidence for strategies to minimize risk of hemorrhage, including evaluation of contraindications, weight adjusted dosing, infusion strategy and catheter-directed thrombolytic administration will be evaluated. Despite published guidelines and review articles, select aspects to thrombolytic therapy for the management of pulmonary embolism remain controversial and under recognized, including risk of major hemorrhage. When making decisions about the role of thrombolytic therapy in pulmonary embolism, clinicians must be knowledgeable about the associated risks of thrombolytic therapy and individually evaluate patient risk factors prior to determining appropriate candidacy for thrombolytic therapy. For patients considered to be at high risk of major bleeding, strategies to minimize risk should be considered, including weight-adjusted doses and catheter directed therapy. Additional research is needed specific to the acute pulmonary embolism setting to validate risk factors and strategies to minimize major hemorrhage.