ABSTRACT
Purpose: This study aims to assess the efficacy and safety of a two-bag method compared with a one-bag method for the treatment of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). We hypothesize that a two-bag method will decrease the incidence of hypoglycemia, when compared with a one-bag method. Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted on patients treated for DKA at a Trinity Health institution between 2020 and 2022. A total of 1084 adult patients were included. Patients treated with the one-bag protocol were included in the pre-group, while those treated with the two-bag protocol were included in the post-group. The primary outcome was incidence of hypoglycemia (blood glucose <70 mg/dL). Secondary outcomes included time to anion gap closure, insulin infusion duration, time to HCO3 correction, and incidence of hypokalemia. Patients were excluded if they were pregnant or diagnosed with Hyperosmolar Hyperglycemic State (HHS), euglycemic DKA, or ketosis from other causes. Results: The incidence of hypoglycemia was 38% in the pre-group and 15.83% in the post-group (P < .001). Patients in the pre-group were on an insulin infusion longer than the post-group (28.37 hours vs 22.17 hours, P < .001). Patients in the pre-group had a slower time to anion gap closure (8.99 hours vs 8.52 hours, P = .021) and had a slower time to HCO3 correction (10.88 hours vs 10.69 hours, P = .004). Between-group incidence of hypokalemia was similar (66.39% vs 60%, P = .079). Conclusions: The two-bag method for the treatment of DKA resulted in improved safety and efficacy outcomes, compared with the one-bag method.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To assess the safety and efficacy of continuous infusion (CIV)-labetalol compared to -nicardipine in controlling blood pressure (BP) in the acute stroke setting. MATERIALS: Patients were eligible if they had a diagnosis of an acute stroke and were administered either CIV-labetalol or CIV-nicardipine. Study outcomes were assessed within the first 24 h of the antihypertensive infusion. RESULTS: A total of 3,093 patients were included with 3,008 patients in the CIV-nicardipine group and 85 in the CIV-labetalol group. No significant difference was observed in percent time at goal BP between the nicardipine (82%) and labetalol (85%) groups (p = 0.351). There was also no difference in BP variability between nicardipine (37%) and labetalol (39%) groups (p = 0.433). Labetalol was found to have a shorter time to goal BP as compared to nicardipine (24 min vs. 40 min; p = 0.021). While CIV-nicardipine did have a higher incidence of tachycardia compared to labetalol (17% vs. 4%; p <0.001), the incidence of hypotension (13% vs. 15%; p = 0.620) and bradycardia (24% vs. 22%; p = 0.797) were similar. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that CIV-labetalol and CIV-nicardipine are comparable in safety and efficacy in controlling BP for patients with acute stroke.
Subject(s)
Adrenergic alpha-1 Receptor Antagonists/administration & dosage , Antihypertensive Agents/administration & dosage , Blood Pressure/drug effects , Calcium Channel Blockers/administration & dosage , Hypertension/drug therapy , Labetalol/administration & dosage , Nicardipine/administration & dosage , Stroke/complications , Adrenergic alpha-1 Receptor Antagonists/adverse effects , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Antihypertensive Agents/adverse effects , Bradycardia/chemically induced , Bradycardia/physiopathology , Calcium Channel Blockers/adverse effects , Female , Heart Rate/drug effects , Humans , Hypertension/diagnosis , Hypertension/etiology , Hypertension/physiopathology , Hypotension/chemically induced , Hypotension/physiopathology , Infusions, Intravenous , Labetalol/adverse effects , Male , Middle Aged , Nicardipine/adverse effects , Retrospective Studies , Stroke/diagnosis , Time Factors , Treatment Outcome , United StatesABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The global coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has created unprecedented strains on healthcare systems around the world. Challenges surrounding an overwhelming influx of patients with COVID-19 and changes in care dynamics prompt the need for care models and processes that optimize care in this medically complex patient population. The purpose of this report is to describe our institution's strategy to deploy pharmacy resources and standardize pharmacy processes to optimize the management of patients with COVID-19. METHODS: This retrospective, descriptive report characterizes documented pharmacy interventions in the acute care of patients admitted for COVID-19 during the period April 1 to April 15, 2020. Patient monitoring, interprofessional communication, and intervention documentation by pharmacy staff was facilitated through the development of a COVID-19-specific care bundle integrated into the electronic medical record. RESULTS: A total of 1,572 pharmacist interventions were documented in 197 patients who received a total of 15,818 medication days of therapy during the study period. The average number of interventions per patient was 8. The most common interventions were regimen simplification (15.9%), timing and dosing adjustments (15.4%), and antimicrobial therapy and COVID-19 treatment adjustments (15.2%). Patients who were admitted to an intensive care unit care at any point during their hospital stay accounted for 66.7% of all interventions documented. CONCLUSION: A pharmacy department's response to the COVID-19 pandemic was optimized through standardized processes. Pharmacists intervened to address a wide scope of medication-related issues, likely contributing to improved management of COVID-19 patients. Results of our analysis demonstrate the vital role pharmacists play as members of multidisciplinary teams during times of crisis.
