Addiction Management in Hospitalized Patients With Intravenous Drug Use-Associated Infective Endocarditis.

BACKGROUND: Infections related to intravenous drug use and opioid use disorders (OUDs) are increasing nationwide. Endocarditis is a recognized complication of intravenous drug use, and inpatient treatment typically focuses on infection management without attention to underlying addiction. OBJECTIVE: A comprehensive intervention for inpatients with infective endocarditis and intravenous drug use was implemented by a multidisciplinary team at a large midwestern hospital. The team included behavioral health/addiction medicine, infectious disease, pain medicine, cardiothoracic surgery, pharmacy, and nursing to address the OUD while managing the infection. The intervention was assessed by measuring the initiation of medication-assisted treatment and endocarditis-related readmissions. METHODS: Patients were identified from the medical records using discharge diagnosis codes for OUDs and infective endocarditis. In addition to medical management of infective endocarditis, the multidisciplinary intervention included early involvement of addiction medicine and the pain management at the time of admission. Patient interventions included education, motivational interviewing, behavioral health engagement, collaborative pain management, individual/family therapy, medication evaluation, and initiation of medication-assisted treatment. Caregivers were also educated on OUDs and ways to support patients undergoing interventions. RESULTS: Both the historical control group (N = 37) and the intervention group (N = 33) were comparable in age, gender, race, marital status, psychiatric history, and smoking but differed by employment status, religious affiliation, and use of psychiatric medications. At discharge, 18.9% of the control group and 54.5% in the intervention group were initiated on medication-assisted treatment for OUDs. No differences in readmission rates were found. CONCLUSION: Multidisciplinary teams for treating inpatients with intravenous drug use and infective endocarditis are feasible and can increase the uptake of OUD-specific treatment.

Beneficial effects of a point-of-care bleeding risk calculator on anticoagulant selection in the coronary catheterization laboratory.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To estimate periprocedural bleeding risk before elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) by using a point-of-care bleeding risk calculator and to document changes in anticoagulant use and bleeding complications after implementation of use of this calculator. DESIGN: Prospective observational pilot study with a historical control cohort. SETTING: Tertiary care medical center. PATIENTS: The pilot cohort consisted of 100 patients undergoing ad hoc PCI during elective cardiac catheterization procedures between January and May 2013, whose bleeding risk and accompanying PCI anticoagulant recommendations were determined by the use of a pre-PCI point-of-care bleeding risk calculator. The historical control cohort consisted of all patients who underwent elective PCI at the same facility between April 1, 2011, and March 31, 2012, before implementation of use of the bleeding risk calculator. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The pre-PCI bleeding risk calculator distinguished patients in the pilot cohort as high risk (score 12 or higher) or low risk (lower than 12) for bleeding after a PCI procedure. The primary outcome was bivalirudin use in the pilot cohort compared with its use in the historical control cohort. Implementation of the bleeding risk calculator significantly decreased bivalirudin use compared with bivalirudin use in the historical control cohort (87% in the control cohort vs 60% in the pilot cohort, p<0.01). Bivalirudin use remained high in patients at high bleeding risk (82.2% in the pilot cohort vs 87.4% in the control cohort, p=0.3) and its use was decreased in patients at low bleeding risk (41.8% in the pilot cohort vs 87.1% in the control cohort, p<0.01). The incidence of bleeding complications in the pilot cohort was comparable with that in the control cohort (1% vs. 0.4%, p=0.37), although this pilot study was underpowered to potentially detect a significant change in the incidence of bleeding complications. CONCLUSION: A simple bleeding risk calculator can substantially reduce overall bivalirudin use by specifically decreasing its use among patients at low bleeding risk while maintaining its use among patients at high bleeding risk. The incidence of bleeding complications remained unchanged despite decreasing bivalirudin use among patients undergoing elective coronary catheterization who were at low risk for bleeding.