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 potential differences in days on mechanical ventilation for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) based on route of administration of analgesic and sedative medications: intravenous (IV) alone vs IV + enteral (EN). Summary This institutional review board–approved study evaluated ventilation time and fentanyl or midazolam requirements with or without concurrent EN hydromorphone and lorazepam. Patients were included in the study if they were 18 to 89 years old and were admitted to the intensive care unit with a positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 reverse transcription and polymerase chain reaction or antigen test and respiratory failure requiring invasive mechanical ventilation for more than 72 hours. In total, 100 patients were evaluated, 60 in the IV-only group and 40 in the IV + EN group. There was not a significant difference in ventilation time between the groups (mean [SD], 19.6 [12.8] days for IV + EN vs 15.6 [11.2] days for IV only; P = 0.104). However, fentanyl (2,064 [847] μg vs 2,443 [779] μg; P < 0.001) and midazolam (137 [72] mg vs 158 [70] mg; P = 0.004) requirements on day 3 were significantly higher in the IV-only group, and the increase in fentanyl requirements from day 1 to day 3 was greater in the IV-only group than in the IV + EN group (378 [625] μg vs 34 [971] μg; P = 0.033). Conclusion Addition of EN analgesic and sedative medications to those administered by the IV route did not change the duration of mechanical ventilation in patients with COVID-19, but the combination may reduce IV opioid requirements, decreasing the impact of IV medication shortages.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine if intravenous push (IVP) administration of piperacillin-tazobactam reduced the time to antibiotic administration compared to intravenous piggyback (IVPB) in emergency department (ED) patients who present with sepsis. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with sepsis who received piperacillin-tazobactam before and after implementation of an IVPB to IVP conversion protocol. Results: A total of 486 charts were reviewed and the final analysis included 127 patients in each group. The mean time to administration of piperacillin-tazobactam was 67 (± 48) minutes and 58 (± 36) minutes in the IVPB and IVP cohorts, respectively (P = NS). The time to administration of secondary antibiotics was reduced by 38 minutes in patients who received piperacillin-tazobactam by IVP (105 min ±69 vs 67 min ±37; P < .001). Nurse administration time was reduced by 11 min for piperacillin-tazobactam (54 min ±46 vs 43 min ±33; P = .034) and 40 min for secondary antibiotics (90 min ±67 vs 50 min ±32; P = < .001) in the IVP group. There was no difference in hypersensitivity reactions, hospital length of stay, or mortality. Conclusion: Conversion from piperacillin-tazobactam IVPB to IVP was associated with a reduction in time to piperacillin-tazobactam and secondary antibiotic administration in emergency department patients with sepsis. Further prospective research is needed to evaluate clinical outcomes associated with IVP administration.