Evaluation of Outcomes in Patients Receiving Amantadine to Improve Alertness After Traumatic Brain Injury.

Background: Amantadine has been used off-label to improve alertness after traumatic brain injury (TBI). The goal of this study is to assess the mean change at 72 hours and in course of therapy (COT) Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score after amantadine initiation and to correlate the change in GCS score with participation in physical therapy (PT) and occupational therapy (OT) among patients with TBI receiving amantadine during the first hospitalization. Methods: This single-center, retrospective, cohort study included patients ≥18 years old hospitalized for a TBI from August 2012 to February 2018 and received ≥1 dose of amantadine to increase alertness. The primary endpoint is the mean change in 72-hour GCS score after amantadine initiation. The secondary endpoint is the mean change in COT GCS score after amantadine initiation and the correlation between the change in GCS score and percent PT and OT participation at 72 hours and during the COT. Results: Seventy-nine patients were included. The mean age of patients was 41 years, and 79.8% of the patients were men. The mean change in 72-hour GCS score was +0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.09-1.42, P = .027), and the mean change in COT GCS score was +2.29 (95% CI = 1.68-2.90, P < .001). There was no significant correlation between the increase in GCS score and percent PT/OT session participation at 72 hours and during the COT, r = -0.15 (P = .24) and r = -0.02 (P = .74), respectively. The percent PT/OT session participation at 72-hour post-amantadine initiation was 61.3% compared with 65.9% during the COT. Conclusion: There were small but statistically significant increases in the mean change at 72 hours and in COT GCS score; however, they were not correlated with percent PT/OT participation. Other studies are needed to determine the appropriate time and GCS score to initiate amantadine along with the optimal dose in the inpatient setting.

Evaluation of serum calcium differences in hypertensive crises and control patients: A randomly matched case-control study.

The role of calcium in blood pressure has been widely studied among hypertensive patients; however, no study has explored the role of calcium in hypertensive crises. The primary objective of this study is to evaluate the differences in serum calcium levels between hypertensive crises patients and a 1:1 random matched controls (age-, sex-, race-, diabetes, and body mass index matched). This study is a single-center, retrospective, chart review, case-control study of patients with hypertensive crises (case group) and patients without hypertensive crises (control group). Patients were included in the case group if they were 18 years of age or older with hypertensive crises and have a documented calcium level. The control group patients were required to be 18 years of age or older, have a documented calcium level, and have no diagnosis of hypertensive crises. The primary outcome of the study was to compare the mean serum calcium in patients with hypertensive crises vs patients without hypertensive crises. Five hundred and sixty-six patients were included in the study: 283 patients in both the case group and control group. The primary outcome results showed that serum calcium concentration was not significantly different between the case group (8.99 ± 0.78 mg/dL) and control group (8.96 ± 0.75 mg/dL) (P = .606). This study found no significant difference in serum calcium levels in patients with hypertensive crises compared to a random matched control group. Larger observational or experimental studies may be useful to evaluate the effect of calcium on blood pressure in hypertensive crises.

Evaluation of serum magnesium differences in hypertensive crises and control patients: A randomly matched case-control study.

Although the role of magnesium in blood pressure has been well studied among hypertensive patients, no study has explored the role of magnesium in hypertensive crises. The primary objective of this study is to evaluate the differences in serum magnesium levels between hypertensive crises patients and matched controls (age-, sex-, race-, and diabetes-matched) in a 1:1 random match. This study is a single-center, retrospective, chart review, case-control study of patients with hypertensive crises (case group) and patients without hypertensive crises (control group). Patients were included in the case group if they were 18 years of age or older with hypertensive crises and have a documented magnesium level. The control group patients were required to be 18 years of age or older, have no diagnosis of hypertensive crises, and have a documented magnesium level. The primary outcome of the study was to compare the mean serum magnesium in patients with hypertensive crises versus patients without hypertensive crises. Three hundred and fifty-eight patients were included in the study: 179 patients in both the case group and control group. The primary outcome results showed that serum magnesium concentration was not significantly different between the case group (1.89 ± 0.29 mg/dl) and control group (1.90 ± 0.31 mg/dl) (p = .787). This study found no significant difference in serum magnesium levels in patients with hypertensive crises compared to a random matched control group. Larger observational or experimental studies may be useful to evaluate the effect of magnesium on blood pressure in hypertensive crises.

Oral Metolazone Versus Intravenous Chlorothiazide as an Adjunct to Loop Diuretics for Diuresis in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction.

Background: Thiazide diuretics are often utilized to overcome loop diuretic resistance when treating acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF). In addition to a large cost advantage, several pharmacokinetic advantages exist when administering oral metolazone (MTZ) compared with intravenous (IV) chlorothiazide (CTZ), yet many providers are reluctant to utilize an oral formulation to treat ADHF. The purpose of this study was to compare the increase in 24-hour total urine output (UOP) after adding MTZ or CTZ to IV loop diuretics (LD) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Methods and Results: From September 2013 to August 2016, 1002 patients admitted for ADHF received either MTZ or CTZ in addition to LD. Patients were excluded for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) (n = 469), <24-hour LD or UOP data prior to drug initiation (n = 129), or low dose MTZ/CTZ (n = 91). A total of 168 patients were included with 64% receiving CTZ. No significant difference was observed between the increase in 24-hour total UOP after MTZ or CTZ initiation (1458 [514, 2401] mL vs 1820 [890, 2750] mL, P = .251). Conclusions: Both MTZ and CTZ similarly increased UOP when utilized as an adjunct to IV LD. These results suggest that while thiazide agents can substantially increase UOP in ADHF patients with HFrEF, MTZ and CTZ have comparable effects.