Project description:IntroductionCritically ill patients and their pharmacokinetics present complexities often not considered by consensus guidelines from the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, and the Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists. Prior surveys have suggested discordance between certain guideline recommendations and reported infectious disease pharmacist practice. Vancomycin dosing practices, including institutional considerations, have not previously been well described in the critically ill patient population.ObjectivesTo evaluate critical care pharmacists' self-reported vancomycin practices in comparison to the 2009 guideline recommendations and other best practices identified by the study investigators.MethodsAn online survey developed by the Research and Scholarship Committee of the Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology (CPP) Section of the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) was sent to pharmacist members of the SCCM CPP Section practicing in adult intensive care units in the spring of 2017. This survey queried pharmacists' self-reported practices regarding vancomycin dosing and monitoring in critically ill adults.ResultsThree-hundred and sixty-four responses were received for an estimated response rate of 26%. Critical care pharmacists self-reported largely following the 2009 vancomycin dosing and monitoring guidelines. The largest deviations in guideline recommendation compliance involve consistent use of a loading dose, dosing weight in obese patients, and quality improvement efforts related to systematically monitoring vancomycin-associated nephrotoxicity. Variation exists regarding pharmacist protocols and other practices of vancomycin use in critically ill patients.ConclusionAmong critical care pharmacists, reported vancomycin practices are largely consistent with the 2009 guideline recommendations. Variations in vancomycin dosing and monitoring protocols are identified, and rationale for guideline non-adherence with loading doses elucidated.

Project description:ObjectivesEvidence to guide fluid resuscitation evidence in sepsis continues to evolve. We conducted a multicountry survey of emergency and critical care physicians to describe current stated practice and practice variation related to the quantity, rapidity and type of resuscitation fluid administered in early septic shock to inform the design of future septic shock fluid resuscitation trials.MethodsUsing a web-based survey tool, we invited critical care and emergency physicians in Canada, the UK, Scandinavia and Saudi Arabia to complete a self-administered electronic survey.ResultsA total of 1097 physicians' responses were included. 1 L was the most frequent quantity of resuscitation fluid physicians indicated they would administer at a time (46.9%, n=499). Most (63.0%, n=671) stated that they would administer the fluid challenges as quickly as possible. Overall, normal saline and Ringer's solutions were the preferred crystalloid fluids used 'often' or 'always' in 53.1% (n=556) and 60.5% (n=632) of instances, respectively. However, emergency physicians indicated that they would use normal saline 'often' or 'always' in 83.9% (n=376) of instances, while critical care physicians said that they would use saline 'often' or 'always' in 27.9% (n=150) of instances. Only 1.0% (n=10) of respondents indicated that they would use hydroxyethyl starch 'often' or 'always'; use of 5% (5.6% (n=59)) or 20-25% albumin (1.3% (n=14)) was also infrequent. The majority (88.4%, n=896) of respondents indicated that a large randomised controlled trial comparing 5% albumin to a crystalloid fluid in early septic shock was important to conduct.ConclusionsCritical care and emergency physicians stated that they rapidly infuse volumes of 500-1000 mL of resuscitation fluid in early septic shock. Colloid use, specifically the use of albumin, was infrequently reported. Our survey identifies the need to conduct a trial on the efficacy of albumin and crystalloids on 90-day mortality in patients with early septic shock.

Project description:IntroductionIt is unknown whether resources necessary to implement the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines and sepsis bundles are available in Africa. This self-reported, continent-wide survey compared the availability of these resources between African and high-income countries, and between two African regions (Sub-Sahara Africa vs. South Africa, Mauritius and the Northern African countries).MethodsThe study was conducted as an anonymous questionnaire-based, cross-sectional survey among anaesthesia providers attending a transcontinental congress. Based on the respondents' country of practice, returned questionnaires were grouped into African and high-income countries. The questionnaire contained 74 items and evaluated all material resources required to implement the most recent Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines. Group comparisons were performed with the Chi2, Fisher's Exact or Mann Whitney U test, as appropriate.ResultsThe overall response rate was 74.3% (318/428). Three-hundred-seven questionnaires were analysed (African countries, n = 263; high-income countries, n = 44). Respondents from African hospitals were less likely to have an emergency room (85.5 vs. 97.7%, P = 0.03) or intensive care unit (73.8 vs. 100%, P < 0.001) than respondents from high-income countries. Drugs, equipment, and disposable materials required to implement the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines or sepsis bundles were less frequently available in African than high-income countries. Of all African and Sub-Saharan African countries, 1.5% (4/263) and 1.2% (3/248) of respondents had the resources available to implement the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines in entirety. The percentage of implementable recommendations was lower in African than in high-income countries (72.6 (57.7 to 87.7)% vs. 100 (100 to 100)%, P < 0.001) and lower in Sub-Saharan African countries than South Africa, Mauritius, and the Northern African countries (72.6 (56.2 to 86.3)% vs. 90.4 (71.2 to 94.5)%, P = 0.02).ConclusionsThe results of this self-reported survey strongly suggest that the most recent Surviving Sepsis guidelines cannot be implemented in Africa, particularly not in Sub-Saharan Africa, due to a shortage of required hospital facilities, equipment, drugs and disposable materials. However, availability of resources to implement the majority of strong Surviving Sepsis Campaign recommendations and the sepsis bundles may allow modification of current sepsis guidelines based on available resources and implementation of a substantial number of life-saving interventions into sepsis care in Africa.

Project description:Background: Alcohol withdrawal occurs commonly but diagnosis and therapies have not been described. Objective: To characterize practices regarding the assessment and treatment of acute severe alcohol withdrawal and describe perceived barriers to therapies. Methods: A random sample of 500 US-based critical care pharmacists received the pretested, electronically distributed questionnaire. Results: 94 (20%) of 471 eligible recipients responded with diverse representation. Manifestations of alcohol withdrawal that were commonly rated as severe were seizures (91.3%), not oriented to person/place/date (84.1%), delusions (73.8%), diastolic blood pressure >110 mmHg (51.7%), inconsolable agitation (50.7%), and tachycardia (50.7%). Scoring tools were considered highly effective for assessing severity by 43 respondents (45.8%). Management protocols existed in 86 (90.5%) institutions. Sixty-eight (72.3%) respondents indicated protocols were used often/routinely for initial management but only 23 (24.5%) for adjunctive therapies (p<0.0001). Agents employed for initial and adjunctive management were benzodiazepines (92.6% and 61.7%, respectively, p<0.0001), clonidine (29.8% and 34%, respectively), haloperidol (26.6% and 33%, respectively), and barbiturates (20.2% and 24.5%, respectively). Adjunctive agents were most commonly added to reduce dosages of benzodiazepines (antipsychotics, barbiturates, alpha-2 agonists), prevent respiratory depression (alpha-2 agonists), prevent or treat autonomic symptoms (alpha-2 agonists), and prevent or treat agitation/delusions (antipsychotics, barbiturates, alpha-2 agonists). Agents with common barriers to use were dexmedetomidine (bradycardia, hypotension, cost), propofol (hypotension, tracheal intubation required), and ketamine (lack of supportive data). Conclusion: Assessment and management strategies of acute severe alcohol withdrawal vary considerably. Benzodiazepines are the mainstay of treatment. Other agents are commonly used to prevent complications from benzodiazepines or treat agitation/delusions.

Project description:IntroductionRecent evidence suggests that early, aggressive resuscitation in patients with septic shock reduces mortality. The objective of this survey was to characterize reported resuscitation practices of Canadian physicians caring for adult critically ill patients with early septic shock.MethodsA scenario-based self-administered national survey was sent out to Canadian critical care physicians. One hypothetical scenario was developed to obtain information on several aspects of resuscitation in early septic shock, including monitoring and resuscitation end-points, fluid administration, red blood cell transfusion triggers, and use of inotropes. The sampling frame was physician members of Canadian national and provincial critical care societies.ResultsThe survey response rate was 232 out of 355 (65.3%). Medicine was the most common primary specialty (60.0%), most respondents had practiced for 6 to 10 years (30.0%), and 82.0% were male. The following monitoring devices/parameters were reported as used/measured 'often' or 'always' by at least 89% of respondents: oxygen saturation (100%), Foley catheters (100%), arterial blood pressure lines (96.6%), telemetry (94.3%), and central venous pressure (89.2%). Continuous monitoring of central venous oxygen saturation was employed 'often' or 'always' by 9.8% of respondents. The two most commonly cited resuscitation end-points were urine output (96.5%) and blood pressure (91.8%). Over half of respondents used normal saline (84.5%), Ringers lactate (52.2%), and pentastarch (51.3%) 'often' or 'always' for early fluid resuscitation. In contrast, 5% and 25% albumin solutions were cited as used 'often' or 'always' by 3.9% and 1.3% of respondents, respectively. Compared with internists, surgeons and anesthesiologists (odds ratio (95% confidence interval): 9.8 (2.9 to 32.7) and 3.8 (1.7 to 8.7), respectively) reported greater use of Ringers lactate. In the setting of a low central venous oxygen saturation, 52.5% of respondents reported use of inotropic support 'often' or 'always'. Only 7.6% of physicians stated they would use a red blood cell transfusion trigger of 100 g/l to optimize oxygen delivery further.ConclusionOur survey results suggest that there is substantial practice variation in the resuscitation of adult patients with early septic shock. More randomized trials are needed to determine the optimal approach.

Dataset Information

Prescribing of Pressor Agents in Septic Shock: A Survey of Critical Care Pharmacists

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets