Naloxegol to Prevent Constipation in ICU Adults Receiving Opioids: A Randomized Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Pilot Trial.

Background: Constipation is frequent in critically ill adults receiving opioids. Naloxegol (N), a peripherally acting mu-receptor antagonist (PAMORA), may reduce constipation. The objective of this trial was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of N to prevent constipation in ICU adults receiving opioids. Methods and Patients. In this single-center, double-blind, randomized trial, adults admitted to a medical ICU receiving IV opioids (≥100 mcg fentanyl/day), and not having any of 17 exclusion criteria, were randomized to N (25 mg) or placebo (P) daily randomized to receive N (25mg) or placebo (P) and docusate 100 mg twice daily until ICU discharge, 10 days, or diarrhea (≥3 spontaneous bowel movement (SBM)/24 hours) or a serious adverse event related to study medication. A 4-step laxative protocol was initiated when there was no SBM ≥3 days. Results: Only 318 (20.6%) of the 1542 screened adults during the 1/17-10/19 enrolment period met all inclusion criteria. Of these, only 19/381 (4.9%) met all eligibility criteria. After 7 consent refusals, 12 patients were randomized. The study was stopped early due to enrolment futility. The N (n = 6) and P (n = 6) groups were similar. The time to first SBM (N 41.4 ± 31.7 vs. P 32.5 ± 25.4 hours, P = 0.56) was similar. The maximal daily abdominal pressure was significantly lower in the N group (N 10 ± 4 vs. P 13 ± 5, P = 0.002). The median (IQR) daily SOFA scores were higher in N (N 7 (4, 8) vs. P 4 (3, 5), P < 0.001). Laxative protocol use was similar (N 83.3% vs. P 66.6%; P = 0.51). Diarrhea prevalence was high but similar (N 66.6% vs. P 66.6%; P = 1.0). No patient experienced opioid withdrawal. Conclusions: Important recruitment challenges exist for ICU trials evaluating the use of PAMORAs for constipation prevention. Despite being underpowered, our results suggest time to first SBM with naloxegol, if different than P, may be small. The effect of naloxegol on abdominal pressure, SOFA, and the interaction between the two requires further research.

Pitfalls and Unexpected Benefits of an Electronic Hand Hygiene Monitoring System.

BACKGROUND: No single strategy is more effective than proper hand hygiene (HH) in reducing the spread of nosocomial infections. Unfortunately, health care worker compliance with HH is imperfect. We sought to improve HH compliance using an electronic hand hygiene monitoring system (EHHMS) in 2 units to collect unbiased data and provide feedback. METHODS: In this prospective, quasi-experimental study, the Hyginex EHHMS was installed in 2 units at Tufts Medical Center. Ninety-one bracelets were assigned, and electronic data were collected over 8 months. Human observations continued. We compared HH compliance as measured by human observation before, during, and after EHHMS implementation. Pre- and post-implementation surveys were distributed to staff. RESULTS: The number of electronically captured HH compliance observations was small due to infrequent bracelet use after month 2 of the intervention. HH compliance, as determined by human observation, increased by an average of 1.3 percentage points per month (P = .0005). Survey responses revealed negative attitudes about the EHHMS before and after its implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Despite poor EHHMS participation and negative attitudes toward its implementation, HH compliance, as measured by human observation, significantly improved. Hospitals considering implementing an EHHMS should look to refine the intervention to encourage health care worker participation.

A survey of critical care nurses' practices and perceptions surrounding early intravenous antibiotic initiation during septic shock.

BACKGROUND: Delays in antibiotic administration after severe sepsis recognition increases mortality. While physician and pharmacy-related barriers to early antibiotic initiation have been well evaluated, those factors that affect the speed by which critical care nurses working in either the emergency department or the intensive care unit setting initiate antibiotic therapy remains poorly characterized. AIM: To evaluate the knowledge, practices and perceptions of critical care nurses regarding antibiotic initiation in patients with newly recognised septic shock. METHODS: A validated survey was distributed to 122 critical care nurses at one 320-bed academic institution with a sepsis protocol advocating intravenous(IV) antibiotic initiation within 1hour of shock recognition. RESULTS: Among 100 (82%) critical care nurses responding, nearly all (98%) knew of the existence of the sepsis protocol. However, many critical care nurses stated they would optimise blood pressure [with either fluid (38%) or both fluid and a vasopressor (23%)] before antibiotic initiation. Communicated barriers to rapid antibiotic initiation included: excessive patient workload (74%), lack of awareness IV antibiotic(s) ordered (57%) or delivered (69%), need for administration of multiple non-antibiotic IV medications (54%) and no IV access (51%). CONCLUSIONS: Multiple nurse-related factors influence IV antibiotic(s) initiation speed and should be incorporated into sepsis quality improvement efforts.