Frequency of "on-label" use of intravenous diltiazem for rate control in patients with acute-onset atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter.

PURPOSE: The study was designed to characterize "on-label" use of i.v. diltiazem in patients with acute atrial fibrillation or flutter (AFF). METHODS: An IRB-approved, single-center, retrospective, observational design was used. Eligible patients had acute AFF with heart rate >120 bpm and received i.v. diltiazem from June 1, 2012, to June 30, 2014. The primary outcome was frequency of on-label use of i.v. diltiazem, defined as use of at least one FDA-approved weight-based bolus dose followed by an infusion, if appropriate, in the absence of contraindications. RESULTS: A total of 300 patients were screened; 97 patients were included for analysis. I.V. diltiazem was used on-label in only 14 patients (14%). Of the 96 patients who received an initial diltiazem bolus injection, the median dose was significantly higher in patients for whom the diltiazem dose was on-label, as follows: 17.5 mg (interquartile range [IQR]), 10-20 mg vs. 10.0 mg (IQR, 10-20 mg), p < 0.02). Twenty-nine patients (35%) in the off-label group had a therapeutic response to diltiazem alone compared with 8 patients (57%) in the on-label group (p = 0.11). More patients treated with off-label diltiazem bolus injection required additional rate control medications (41% vs. 7%, p < 0.04). CONCLUSION: In most patients, i.v. diltiazem was not used in accordance with FDA labeling. For most, i.v. diltiazem doses were lower than recommended and many of these patients required additional rate control medications to achieve a therapeutic response.

Impact of Clinical Pharmacist Interventions on 30-Day Readmission Rate in Hospitalized Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction.

Background: Limited literature exists on the positive impact of pharmacists specifically on hospital readmission of patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Objective: To evaluate the overall effect of clinical pharmacist interventions on preventing hospital readmissions and improving the health of patients with AMI. Secondary objectives include identifying trends in the demographic characteristics of AMI patients, identifying potential barriers to adherence, and assessing the average time spent by a pharmacist counseling AMI patients. Methods: This prospective, nonrandomized, single-center study was approved by the institutional review board. The hospital's 30-day AMI readmission rate prior to study initiation was used as the control group. An AMI report was generated daily to identify patients admitted to the hospital diagnosed with either non-ST or ST segment elevation myocardial infarction. The clinical pharmacist then counseled the included patient prior to discharge and provided a follow-up phone call 48 hours after discharge. The primary outcome was the all-cause 30-day readmission rate for AMI patients. Results: Out of 71 patients screened, 50 patients were included in the study. Only 3 of the 50 patients included were readmitted (6.0%). The prestudy rate from October 2012 to October 2013 was 11.6%, or 58 readmissions out of 498 AMI admissions. Although the study group was much smaller in size, a 6% readmission rate is encouraging and offers potential for a future intervention. Conclusion: Clinical pharmacist services for AMI patients, including counseling, interventions, and a follow-up phone call after discharge, may benefit decreasing the 30-day AMI readmission rate; however, further studies are needed.