Contemporary Management and Outcomes of Veterans Hospitalized With Alcohol Withdrawal: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: Few studies describe contemporary alcohol withdrawal management in hospitalized settings or review current practices considering the guidelines by the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients hospitalized with alcohol withdrawal on medical or surgical wards in 19 Veteran Health Administration (VHA) hospitals between October 1, 2018, and September 30, 2019. Demographic and comorbidity data were obtained from the Veteran Health Administration Corporate Data Warehouse. Inpatient management and hospital outcomes were obtained by chart review. Factors associated with treatment duration and complicated withdrawal were examined. RESULTS: Of the 594 patients included in this study, 51% were managed with symptom-triggered therapy alone, 26% with fixed dose plus symptom-triggered therapy, 10% with front loading regimens plus symptom-triggered therapy, and 3% with fixed dose alone. The most common medication given was lorazepam (87%) followed by chlordiazepoxide (33%), diazepam (14%), and phenobarbital (6%). Symptom-triggered therapy alone (relative risk [RR], 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57-0.80) and front loading with symptom-triggered therapy (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.62-0.92) were associated with reduced treatment duration. Lorazepam (RR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.02-1.41) and phenobarbital (RR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.06-1.54) were associated with increased treatment duration. Lorazepam (adjusted odds ratio, 4.30; 95% CI, 1.05-17.63) and phenobarbital (adjusted odds ratio, 6.51; 95% CI, 2.08-20.40) were also associated with complicated withdrawal. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, our results support guidelines by the ASAM to manage patients with long-acting benzodiazepines using symptom-triggered therapy. Health care systems that are using shorter acting benzodiazepines and fixed-dose regimens should consider updating alcohol withdrawal management pathways to follow ASAM recommendations.

Assessment of a modified MINDS-based protocol for management of alcohol withdrawal syndrome on an inpatient medical service.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if a novel symptom-based alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) protocol in a US Veterans cohort leads to significant clinical improvements in patient outcomes and safety. BACKGROUND: Prior studies of AWS management, oftentimes using the revised version of the Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment for Alcohol (CIWA-Ar) index, have demonstrated the effectiveness of symptom-triggered therapy for AWS. The Minnesota Detoxification Scale (MINDS) is an alternative to the CIWA-Ar index but remains unevaluated outside of the intensive care unit (ICU) setting. This study assesses outcomes in AWS management prior to and after the implementation of a novel MINDS-based AWS protocol (SDAWP) utilizing a revised MINDS index (MINDS-rev) in an inpatient medical ward setting. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study including encounters prior to (n = 342) and after (n = 338) the implementation of the protocol. Pre- and post-protocol encounters were selected by combinations of diagnostic codes and charting elements. Outcome measures of AWS management were obtained in both groups. The primary endpoint was median total benzodiazepine exposure. Secondary outcomes included median length of hospitalization, median duration of benzodiazepine administration, and the incidence of complications. RESULTS: The median total benzodiazepine exposure in the post-SDAWP group was significantly lower than the pre-SDAWP group (21.2 vs. 12.0 mg, p < 0.0001) and for a significantly shorter median duration of time (4.0 vs. 3.0 days, p < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in the median length of stay (4.0 vs. 4.0 days, p = 0.50). The incidence of delirium tremens (21 vs. 7, p = 0.01) and need for transfer to a higher level of care (33 vs. 12, p = 0.002) was significantly lower in the post-SDAWP group. CONCLUSION: The SDAWP has provided significant improvements in AWS management in our institution and may potentially serve as a template for wider use in other inpatient settings.

Opportunities to Improve Antibiotic Appropriateness in U.S. ICUs: A Multicenter Evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To use a standardized tool for a multicenter assessment of antibiotic appropriateness in ICUs and identify local antibiotic stewardship improvement opportunities. DESIGN: Pilot point prevalence conducted on October 5, 2016; point prevalence survey conducted on March 1, 2017. SETTING: ICUs in 12 U.S. acute care hospitals with median bed size 563. PATIENTS: Receiving antibiotics on participating units on March 1, 2017. INTERVENTIONS: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tool for the Assessment of Appropriateness of Inpatient Antibiotics was made actionable by an expert antibiotic stewardship panel and implemented across hospitals. Data were collected by antibiotic stewardship program personnel at each hospital, deidentified and submitted in aggregate for benchmarking. hospital personnel identified most salient reasons for inappropriate use by category and agent. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Forty-seven ICUs participated. Most hospitals (83%) identified as teaching with median licensed ICU beds of 70. On March 1, 2017, 362 (54%) of 667 ICU patients were on antibiotics (range, 8-81 patients); of these, 112 (31%) were identified as inappropriate and administered greater than 72 hours among all 12 hospitals (range, 9-82%). Prophylactic antibiotic regimens and PICU patients demonstrated a statistically significant risk ratio of 1.76 and 1.90 for inappropriate treatment, respectively. Reasons for inappropriate use included unnecessarily broad spectrum (29%), no infection or nonbacterial syndrome (22%), and duration longer than necessary (21%). Of patients on inappropriate antibiotic therapy in surgical ICUs, a statistically significant risk ratio of 2.59 was calculated for noninfectious or nonbacterial reasons for inappropriate therapy. CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter point prevalence study, 31% of ICU antibiotic regimens were inappropriate; prophylactic regimens were often inappropriate across different ICU types, particularly in surgical ICUs. Engaging intensivists in antibiotic stewardship program efforts is crucial to sustain the efficacy of antibiotics and quality of infectious diseases care in critical care settings. This study underscores the value of standardized assessment tools and benchmarking to be shared with local leaders for targeted antibiotic stewardship program interventions.