Effect of Etomidate on Pneumonia Development in Critically Ill, Nontrauma Patients.

PURPOSE:: To determine whether etomidate use before intubation increased development of hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) in critically ill, nontrauma patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS:: A single-center, retrospective, cohort study of critically ill, nontrauma patients admitted to the medical intensive care unit (ICU) from 2012 to 2015 and intubated with or without etomidate was conducted. Demographics, comorbidities, primary diagnosis, critical illness scores, concomitant medications, and outcomes were obtained from medical records. Student t, chi-square, and Fisher exact tests were performed as appropriate. Relevant characteristics were modeled using logistic regression techniques to determine whether any predicted HAP independently. RESULTS:: Of the 174 patients, 94 (54%) received etomidate and 80 (46%) did not. There was no difference in HAP between etomidate and no etomidate groups (13.8% vs 23.7%, P = .092). Duration of mechanical ventilation (4.4 vs 4.6 days, P = .845), ICU length of stay (7.4 vs 6.9 days, P = .547), ICU mortality (14.9% vs 12.5%, P = .648), and hospital mortality (17% vs 16.2%, P = .892) were similar between the groups. For each 1-day increase in mechanical ventilation duration, the likelihood of HAP development increased by 21%. Patients who received etomidate but no neuromuscular-blocking drug were 80% less likely to develop HAP than those who did not receive etomidate or a neuromuscular-blocking drug (odds ratio: 0.202, 95% confidence interval: 0.045-0.908). CONCLUSION:: Etomidate use was not associated with a difference in HAP development in critically ill, nontrauma patients.

Air Ambulance Delivery and Administration of Four-factor Prothrombin Complex Concentrate Is Feasible and Decreases Time to Anticoagulation Reversal.

OBJECTIVES: The objective was to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and preliminary efficacy of four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (4-factor PCC) administration by an air ambulance service prior to or during transfer of patients with warfarin-associated major hemorrhage to a tertiary care center for definitive management (interventional arm) compared to patients receiving 4-factor PCC following transfer by air ambulance or ground without 4-factor PCC treatment (conventional arm). METHODS: This was a retrospective chart review of patients presenting to a large academic medical center. All patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) treated with 4-factor PCC from April 1, 2014, through June 30, 2016, were identified. For this study, only transfer patients with an International Normalized Ratio (INR) > 1.5 actively treated with warfarin were included. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with an INR ≤ 1.5 upon tertiary care hospital arrival, and the secondary efficacy outcome was difference in time to achievement of INR ≤ 1.5. Additional safety and efficacy objectives included difference in thromboembolic complications, length of stay, intensive care unit length of stay, and inpatient mortality between groups. RESULTS: Of the 72 included patients, a higher proportion of patients in the interventional group had an INR ≤ 1.5 on ED arrival (proportion difference = 0.82, 95% confidence interval = 0.64-0.92, p < 0.0001) and significantly reduced time to observed INR ≤ 1.5 (181 minutes vs. 541 minutes, p = 0.001). No differences were observed in thromboembolic complications or patient-centered outcomes with the exception of mortality, which was significantly higher in patients in the interventional group. This group was also observed to have lower Glasgow Coma Scale score and higher intubation rates prior to transfer and treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Dispatch of an air ambulance carrying 4-factor PCC with administration prior to transfer is feasible and leads to more rapid improvement in INR among patients with warfarin-associated major hemorrhage.