Objective: This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of adjunctive dexmedetomidine for alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) treatment compared to symptom-triggered benzodiazepine therapy. Methods: This single-center, retrospective, cohort study evaluated patients admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) with AWS. Patients were divided into 2 groups: adjunctive dexmedetomidine or symptom-triggered therapy (control). Primary outcome was change in Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment for Alcohol (CIWA-Ar) score. Secondary outcomes assessed cumulative ICU benzodiazepine requirement and ICU/hospital length of stay (LOS). Safety outcomes evaluated incidence of adverse events, new onset seizures, and intubation. Propensity matching was performed to minimize differences between study groups. Results: Overall, 147 patients were included, 56 in the dexmedetomidine group and 91 in the control group. Patient demographics were similar, however baseline CIWA-Ar score was statistically higher in the dexmedetomidine group. Following propensity matching, 55 patients were included in each group. No significant difference was noted for change in CIWA-Ar score (median, IQR) [3.8 (-0.4-12.3) dexmedetomidine vs. 5.4 (1.4-12.9) control, p = 0.223]. Secondary endpoints revealed increased benzodiazepine requirements (p = 0.001), prolonged ICU LOS (p = 0.050), and more frequent use of physical restraints (p = 0.001) in the dexmedetomidine group. While not statistically significant, the development of new onset seizures (p = 0.775) and intubation (p = 0.294) occurred more frequently in the dexmedetomidine group. Conclusion: The addition of dexmedetomidine to symptom-triggered benzodiazepines for AWS did not produce a significant change in CIWA-Ar scores from baseline compared to symptom-triggered therapy alone. The increased rate of new onset seizures and intubation warrant further investigation into the safety of dexmedetomidine in AWS.

Epoprostenol, a pulmonary vasodilator, is used to reduce pulmonary artery pressure. Its inhaled administration results in ventilation and perfusion matching with oxygenation improvement. Epoprostenol is used as treatment for various conditions, particularly acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and pulmonary arterial hypertension. In 2018, Baylor University Medical Center implemented a policy for inhaled epoprostenol utilization aimed at standardizing clinical practice. This study analyzed epoprostenol utilization patterns in patients with ARDS after implementation of this administration policy. Drug responders and nonresponders were compared for clinical outcomes and physiologic changes before and after use, and policy compliance was evaluated. Of 79 eligible patients, 30 fulfilled inclusion criteria: 14 (47%) had ARDS and 16 (53%) had non-ARDS. In all patients with ARDS, epoprostenol was a second rescue agent after neuromuscular blockade, prone positioning, corticosteroids, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Epoprostenol was associated with statistically significant improvement of oxygenation before and after utilization in patients with ARDS (ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen 70 vs 140, respectively; P ¼ 0.04). Overall, 10 (71%) ARDS patients were epoprostenol responders; 9 (56%) were deemed responders among subjects with non-ARDS. Comparison of outcomes between responders and nonresponders showed no statistically significant variations. Policy compliance was obtained in 24 (80%) patients.

Background: Epidemiology and risk factors for bacteremia in pediatric and adolescent patients have not been fully elucidated. Objective: The purpose of this study was to identify primary causative agents of bacteremia in pediatric and adolescent patients and associated risk factors. We hypothesized that these would be different than those seen in adults. Patients and Methods: This retrospective cohort, epidemiologic evaluation included patients admitted to a tertiary referral center from January 01, 2013, to December 31, 2015. Patients <18 years old with a confirmed positive blood culture were included; the first positive culture per organism per patient was analyzed. The primary outcome was to determine the most frequent causative organisms of bacteremia; the secondary outcome was an evaluation of risk factors for acquiring staphylococcal bacteremia. Results: A total of 913 isolates were evaluated, including 92 unique organisms. The most frequently identified were Staphylococcus epidermidis (238/913, 26.1%), followed by Staphylococcus aureus (136/913, 14.9%). Methicillin resistance was observed in 60.3% of S aureus. Two hundred thirty-six patients were included in the risk factor analysis. Prematurity, previous antibiotics, and intubation/ventilation were more likely associated with S epidermidis ( P < .001, P < .001, and P = .032, respectively). Patients with a recent or previous hospitalization and those with dermatitis/eczema were statistically more likely to grow S aureus ( P < .001, P = .029, respectively). Conclusions: Although epidemiology of organisms associated with pediatric and adolescent bacteremia was similar to adults, risk factors were different than seen in that population. Further understanding of these risk factors may be helpful in developing preemptive infection control strategies in patients at risk.

No abstract

No abstract