Stress ulcer prophylaxis in trauma patients

INTRODUCTION: A number of issues concerning stress ulcer prophylaxis remain unresolved despite numerous randomized, controlled trials and several meta-analyses. The role of stress ulcer prophylaxis, particularly in trauma patients, is further complicated by the lack of trials utilizing clinically important bleeding as an endpoint. Given the lack of consensus regarding stress ulcer prophylaxis in trauma patients, prescribing practices at Level I trauma centers in the United States were assessed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey was developed that contained questions related to institutional prescribing and evaluation of stress ulcer prophylaxis. The survey was intended to delineate these practices at the 188 Level I trauma centers (at the time of the present survey) in the United States. RESULTS: One hundred and nineteen surveys were returned, yielding a response rate of 63%. Eighty-six percent stated that medications for stress ulcer prophylaxis are used in a vast majority of trauma patients admitted to the intensive care unit. Sixty-five percent stated that there is one preferred medication. For these institutions, histamine-2-blockers were the most popular at 71%. Thirty-nine percent stated that greater than 50% of patients remain on stress ulcer prophylaxis following discharge from the intensive care unit. CONCLUSION: The lack of consensus with regards to appropriate stress ulcer prophylaxis is apparent in this survey of Level I trauma centers. For those institutions with a preferred agent, histamine-2-blockers were most common

Key Articles and Guidelines Relative to Intensive Care Unit Pharmacology—2004

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/90189/1/phco.25.4.585.61024.pd

Key Articles and Guidelines Relative to Intensive Care Unit Pharmacotherapy: 2009 Update

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/90162/1/phco.29.10.1228.pd

Surge Capacity Logistics

Successful management of a pandemic or disaster requires implementation of preexisting plans to minimize loss of life and maintain control. Managing the expected surges in intensive care capacity requires strategic planning from a systems perspective and includes focused intensive care abilities and requirements as well as all individuals and organizations involved in hospital and regional planning. The suggestions in this article are important for all involved in a large-scale disaster or pandemic, including front-line clinicians, hospital administrators, and public health or government officials. Specifically, this article focuses on surge logistics—those elements that provide the capability to deliver mass critical care.The Surge Capacity topic panel developed 23 key questions focused on the following domains: systems issues; equipment, supplies, and pharmaceuticals; staffing; and informatics. Literature searches were conducted to identify studies upon which evidence-based recommendations could be made.This article presents 22 suggestions pertaining to surge capacity mass critical care, including requirements for equipment, supplies, and pharmaceuticals; staff preparation and organization; methods of mitigating overwhelming patient loads; the role of deployable critical care services; and the use of transportation assets to support the surge response

Expert Consensus Guidelines for Stocking of Antidotes in Hospitals That Provide Emergency Care

We provide recommendations for stocking of antidotes used in emergency departments (EDs). An expert panel representing diverse perspectives (clinical pharmacology, medical toxicology, critical care medicine, hematology/oncology, hospital pharmacy, emergency medicine, emergency medical services, pediatric emergency medicine, pediatric critical care medicine, poison centers, hospital administration, and public health) was formed to create recommendations for antidote stocking. Using a standardized summary of the medical literature, the primary reviewer for each antidote proposed guidelines for antidote stocking to the full panel. The panel used a formal iterative process to reach their recommendation for both the quantity of antidote that should be stocked and the acceptable timeframe for its delivery. The panel recommended consideration of 45 antidotes; 44 were recommended for stocking, of which 23 should be immediately available. In most hospitals, this timeframe requires that the antidote be stocked in a location that allows immediate availability. Another 14 antidotes were recommended for availability within 1 hour of the decision to administer, allowing the antidote to be stocked in the hospital pharmacy if the hospital has a mechanism for prompt delivery of antidotes. The panel recommended that each hospital perform a formal antidote hazard vulnerability assessment to determine its specific need for antidote stocking. Antidote administration is an important part of emergency care. These expert recommendations provide a tool for hospitals that offer emergency care to provide appropriate care of poisoned patients

Effects of Anacetrapib in Patients with Atherosclerotic Vascular Disease

BACKGROUND: Patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease remain at high risk for cardiovascular events despite effective statin-based treatment of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels. The inhibition of cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) by anacetrapib reduces LDL cholesterol levels and increases high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels. However, trials of other CETP inhibitors have shown neutral or adverse effects on cardiovascular outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving 30,449 adults with atherosclerotic vascular disease who were receiving intensive atorvastatin therapy and who had a mean LDL cholesterol level of 61 mg per deciliter (1.58 mmol per liter), a mean non-HDL cholesterol level of 92 mg per deciliter (2.38 mmol per liter), and a mean HDL cholesterol level of 40 mg per deciliter (1.03 mmol per liter). The patients were assigned to receive either 100 mg of anacetrapib once daily (15,225 patients) or matching placebo (15,224 patients). The primary outcome was the first major coronary event, a composite of coronary death, myocardial infarction, or coronary revascularization. RESULTS: During the median follow-up period of 4.1 years, the primary outcome occurred in significantly fewer patients in the anacetrapib group than in the placebo group (1640 of 15,225 patients [10.8%] vs. 1803 of 15,224 patients [11.8%]; rate ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.85 to 0.97; P=0.004). The relative difference in risk was similar across multiple prespecified subgroups. At the trial midpoint, the mean level of HDL cholesterol was higher by 43 mg per deciliter (1.12 mmol per liter) in the anacetrapib group than in the placebo group (a relative difference of 104%), and the mean level of non-HDL cholesterol was lower by 17 mg per deciliter (0.44 mmol per liter), a relative difference of -18%. There were no significant between-group differences in the risk of death, cancer, or other serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease who were receiving intensive statin therapy, the use of anacetrapib resulted in a lower incidence of major coronary events than the use of placebo. (Funded by Merck and others; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN48678192 ; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01252953 ; and EudraCT number, 2010-023467-18 .)