Risk factors for mortality in COVID-19 patients in a community teaching hospital.

As of December 2020, there were over 450,000 confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases in New York City (NYC) with approximately 25,000 deaths. Previous literature identified advanced age, higher severity of illness, elevated inflammatory biomarkers, acute organ dysfunction, comorbidities, and presentation from long-term care facility as risk factors for mortality in patients from Wuhan, China, and the United States. Additional studies conducted in NYC are warranted to confirm these findings. The objective of this study was to assess the risk factors for in-hospital mortality in patients with confirmed COVID-19 infections. This was a retrospective case-control study at The Brooklyn Hospital Center, a 464-bed community teaching hospital. Adult patients with a confirmed COVID-19 infection and who received at least 24 h of COVID-19 therapy were included. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify the risk factors for in-hospital mortality. Two-hundred and eighty four patients were included, of whom 95 (33.5%) were nonsurvivors and 189 (66.5%) patients were survivors. Multivariate analysis showed higher in-hospital mortality with advanced age (odds ratio [OR] 6.476; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.827-22.953), presentation from long-term care facility (OR 4.259; 95% CI 1.481-12.250), elevated total bilirubin (OR 4.947; 95% CI 1.048-23.350), vasopressor initiation (OR 36.262; 95% CI 5.319-247.216), and development of renal failure (OR 36.261; 95% CI 2.667-493.046). Risk factors associated with mortality for patients with COVID-19 in a community teaching hospital included advanced age, vasopressor initiation, development of renal failure, elevated total bilirubin, and presentation from long-term care facility.

Clinical and economic impact of the use of dexmedetomidine for sedation in the intensive care unit compared to propofol.

Background Despite the advantages of dexmedetomidine (DEX) over propofol (PRO) including minimal respiratory depression and the potential for preventing and/or treating intensive care unit (ICU) delirium, PRO has been the preferred agent due to its lower cost. However, the acquisition cost of DEX has considerably decreased as a generic version of DEX has recently become available. Objective To evaluate clinical and economic outcomes of DEX-based sedation compared to PRO in the ICU. Setting A retrospective cohort study of 86 ICU patients who received either DEX or PRO for a period ≥ 12 h. Method Patients were matched by age, sex, and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores in a 1:1 ratio. Main outcome measure Clinical outcomes included the duration of mechanical ventilation (MV), ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS), and requirements of concomitant sedatives and opioids. Economic outcomes included the ICU and hospital costs as well as the cost of sedatives or combined sedatives and opioids per patient. Results There were no significant differences in ICU and hospital LOS and time on MV in both groups (median ICU LOS 7 [DEX] vs. 9 [PRO] days, p = 0.07; median hospital LOS 12 [DEX] vs. 14 [PRO] days, p = 0.261; median time of MV 144 [DEX] vs. 158 [PRO] hours, p = 0.176). DEX-based sedation compared to PRO was associated with similar ICU and hospital costs (US$ 67,561 vs. 78,429, p = 0.39; US$ 71,923 vs. 71,084, p = 0.1). Conclusion The clinical outcomes and economic impact associated with DEX- and PRO-based sedation were similar.

Perceptions, Barriers, and Knowledge of Inpatient Glycemic Control: A Survey of Health Care Workers.

OBJECTIVES: To assess knowledge and perceptions of health care workers regarding optimal care for patients with hyperglycemia and identify commonly perceived barriers for the development of a hospital-wide education program. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A cross-sectional design was utilized to survey health care workers involved in managing hyperglycemia in an urban, community teaching hospital. Each health care worker received a survey specific to their health care role. RESULTS: Approximately 50% of questions about best clinical practices were answered correctly. Correct responses varied across disciplines (n, mean ± standard deviation [SD]), that is, physicians (n = 112, 53% ± 26%), nurses (n = 43, 52% ± 35%), pharmacists (n = 20, 64% ± 23%), dietitians (n = 5, 48% ± 30%), and patient care assistants (n = 12, 38% ± 34%). Most health care workers perceived hyperglycemia treatment to be very important and that sliding scale insulin was commonly used because of convenience but not efficacy. CONCLUSION: Knowledge regarding hyperglycemia management was suboptimal across a sample of health care workers when compared to clinical best practices. Hyperglycemia management was perceived to be important but convenience seemed to influence the management approach more than efficacy. Knowledge, perceptions, and barriers seem to play an important role in patient care and should be considered when developing education programs prior to implementation of optimized glycemic protocols.

Pilot and Revision of a Basal-Bolus Dosing Guideline for the Management of Hyperglycemia in Noncritically Ill Adult Patients.

The use of basal-bolus insulin (BBI) regimens for the treatment of inpatient hyperglycemia has become standard of care. The purpose of this study was to develop and evaluate a newly piloted dosing guideline and utilize the results to adjust it prior to its implementation hospital-wide. This was an institutional review board approved, prospective, and multiphase study. An interdisciplinary team was developed and created a dosing guideline, which was followed by a 3-month, single-unit pilot of the guideline in noncritically ill adult patients. The resulting data were used to revise the guideline. Forty-three patients were included. There was a significant decrease in median blood glucose (BG) with use of the guideline (219 mg/dL [162-281] vs 190 mg/dL [136-246], P < .05) in patients not utilizing it. There was also a significant increase in the number of values within the target range of 70 to 180 mg/dL (30.2% vs 41.4%, P < .05). Moreover, there was comparable hypoglycemia before and after the intervention (1.6% vs 2.4%, P = .51). Based on these results, the dosing factor used for the total daily dose of insulin was increased in certain populations. Use of a BBI dosing guideline is safe and effective in decreasing BG values in noncritically ill patients at our institution.

A real-world, multicenter assessment of drugs requiring weight-based calculations in overweight, adult critically ill patients.

Prescribing appropriate doses of drugs requiring weight-based dosing is challenging in overweight patients due to a lack of data. With 68% of the US population considered overweight and these patients being at an increased risk for hospitalization, clinicians need guidance on dosing weight-based drugs. The purpose of this study was to identify "real-world" dose ranges of high-risk medications administered via continuous infusion requiring weight-based dosing and determine the reasons for dosing changes (ineffectiveness or adverse drug reactions). A prospective, multicenter, observational study was conducted in four intensive care units at three institutions. A total of 857 medication orders representing 11 different high-risk medications in 173 patients were reviewed. It was noted that dosing did not increase in proportion to weight classification. Overall, 14 adverse drug reactions occurred in nine patients with more in overweight patients (9 of 14). A total of 75% of orders were discontinued due to ineffectiveness in groups with higher body mass indexes. Ineffectiveness leads to dosing adjustments resulting in the opportunity for medication errors. Also, the frequent dosing changes further demonstrate our lack of knowledge of appropriate dosing for this population. Given the medications' increased propensity to cause harm, institutions should aggressively monitor these medications in overweight patients.

Intravenous to oral conversion of antihypertensives: a toolkit for guideline development.

OBJECTIVE: To provide a toolkit of information for hospitals to use in developing intravenous to oral conversion protocols for antihypertensives. DATA SOURCES: Articles describing intravenous to oral conversion protocols for any therapeutic category were identified in an English-language MEDLINE search (1990-April 2010) using a wide variety of MeSH terms. References from selected articles were reviewed for additional material. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Experimental and observational English-language studies and review articles that focused on oral transition of intravenous drugs were selected. DATA SYNTHESIS: Most of the literature on conversion from intravenous to oral formulations involves antimicrobials. There is considerable evidence documenting reduced costs and improved patient flow through the health-care system following implementing these protocols with drugs like antimicrobials, histamine-2 receptor antagonists, and proton pump inhibitors. Although antihypertensives have not been studied, principles and implementation strategies used for other drug classes can be applied to antihypertensives. Guidance is provided on framing the problem, issues surrounding oral absorption principles, information pertaining to oral conversion in specific disease states, and implementation and documentation strategies. Detailed tables of oral and intravenous antihypertensives are provided. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend that hospitals consider developing protocols on conversion of intravenous to oral antihypertensives in an attempt to reduce unnecessarily prolonged intravenous therapy. Information contained in this article can be used as a toolkit to select information specific to the characteristics of individual health-care systems.