Assessing the impact of CKD on outcomes in septic shock patients receiving standard Vs reduced initial fluid volume.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if following fluid resuscitation recommendations in the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines affects hospital length of stay (LOS) in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients who present to the emergency department with sepsis-induced hypotension or septic shock. DESIGN: Retrospective, single center, cohort study. SETTING: 433-bed community hospital with a 35-bed emergency department in central Kentucky. PATIENTS: Adults (≥18 years of age) who presented to the emergency department with severe sepsis or septic shock, as defined by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), with documented CKD and at least one episode of hypotension within 6 h of presentation. A total of 106 patients were included in the study. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Patients were stratified into two groups based on the total volume of weight-based crystalloid fluid bolus initiated within the first three hours of hypotension onset (<27 mL/kg and ≥ 27 mL/kg). There was a statistically significant reduction in the primary outcome of median LOS among patients who received less than 27 mL/kg of a crystalloid fluid bolus (5.1 vs 7.7 days, p = .003). Likewise, there was a statistically significant reduction in the secondary outcome of total cost per case in the reduced fluid volume cohort (p = .019. No significant differences were found in other secondary outcomes, including vasopressor requirements, ICU admission rate, and normalization of MAP at 6 h. CONCLUSION: The results of this single-center, retrospective study indicate that CKD patients who receive guideline-directed fluid resuscitation (≥27 mL/kg) for sepsis-induced hypotension or septic shock experience a longer hospital LOS compared to those who receive a reduced initial fluid volume.

Pharmacy-Driven Dexmedetomidine Stewardship and Appropriate Use Guidelines in a Community Hospital Setting.

BACKGROUND: Dexmedetomidine is a widely utilized agent in the intensive care unit (ICU) because it does not suppress respiratory drive and may be associated with less delirium than midazolam or propofol. Cost of dexmedetomidine therapy and debate as to the proper duration of use has brought its use to the forefront of discussion. OBJECTIVE: To validate the efficacy and cost savings associated with pharmacy-driven dexmedetomidine appropriate use guidelines and stewardship in mechanically ventilated patients. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of adult patients who received dexmedetomidine for ICU sedation while on mechanical ventilation at a 433-bed not-for-profit community hospital. Included patients were divided into pre-enactment (PRE) and postenactment (POST) of dexmedetomidine guideline groups. RESULTS: A total of 100 patients (50 PRE and 50 POST) were included in the analysis. A significant difference in duration of mechanical ventilation (11.1 vs 6.2 days, P = 0.006) and incidence of reintubation (36% vs 18% of patients, P = 0.043) was seen in the POST group. Aggregate use of dexmedetomidine 200-µg vials (37.1 vs 18.4 vials, P = 0.010) and infusion days (5.4 vs 2.5 days, P = 0.006) were significantly lower in the POST group. Dexmedetomidine acquisition cost savings were calculated at $374 456.15 in the POST group. There was no difference between the PRE and POST groups with regard to ICU length of stay, expected mortality, and observed mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacy-driven dexmedetomidine appropriate use guidelines decreased the use of dexmedetomidine and increased cost savings at a community hospital without adversely affecting clinical outcomes.