Variation in Fluid and Vasopressor Use in Shock With and Without Physiologic Assessment: A Multicenter Observational Study

ObjectivesTo characterize the association between the use of physiologic assessment (central venous pressure, pulmonary artery occlusion pressure, stroke volume variation, pulse pressure variation, passive leg raise test, and critical care ultrasound) with fluid and vasopressor administration 24 hours after shock onset and with in-hospital mortality.DesignMulticenter prospective cohort study between September 2017 and February 2018.SettingsThirty-four hospitals in the United States and Jordan.PatientsConsecutive adult patients requiring admission to the ICU with systolic blood pressure less than or equal to 90 mm Hg, mean arterial blood pressure less than or equal to 65 mm Hg, or need for vasopressor.InterventionsNone.Measurement and main resultsOf 1,639 patients enrolled, 39% had physiologic assessments. Use of physiologic assessment was not associated with cumulative fluid administered within 24 hours of shock onset, after accounting for baseline characteristics, etiology and location of shock, ICU types, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation III, and hospital (beta coefficient, 0.04; 95% CI, -0.07 to 0.15). In multivariate analysis, the use of physiologic assessment was associated with a higher likelihood of vasopressor use (adjusted odds ratio, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.45-2.71) and higher 24-hour cumulative vasopressor dosing as norepinephrine equivalent (beta coefficient, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.19-0.55). The use of vasopressor was associated with increased odds of in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.27-2.78). In-hospital mortality was not associated with the use of physiologic assessment (adjusted odds ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.63-1.18).ConclusionsThe use of physiologic assessment in the 24 hours after shock onset is associated with increased use of vasopressor but not with fluid administration

PHarmacist Avoidance or Reductions in Medical Costs in Patients Presenting the EMergency Department: PHARM-EM Study

Objectives:. To comprehensively classify interventions performed by emergency medicine clinical pharmacists and quantify cost avoidance generated through their accepted interventions. Design:. A multicenter, prospective, observational study was performed between August 2018 and January 2019. Setting:. Community and academic hospitals in the United States. Participants:. Emergency medicine clinical pharmacists. Interventions:. Recommendations classified into one of 38 intervention categories associated with cost avoidance. Measurements and Main Results:. Eighty-eight emergency medicine pharmacists at 49 centers performed 13,984 interventions during 917 shifts that were accepted on 8,602 patients and generated $7,531,862 of cost avoidance. The quantity of accepted interventions and cost avoidance generated in six established categories were as follows: adverse drug event prevention (1,631 interventions;$2,225,049 cost avoidance), resource utilization (628; $310,582), individualization of patient care (6,122;$1,787,170), prophylaxis (24; $22,804), hands-on care (3,533;$2,836,811), and administrative/supportive tasks (2,046; $342,881). Mean cost avoidance was$538.61 per intervention, $875.60 per patient, and$8,213.59 per emergency medicine pharmacist shift. The annualized cost avoidance from an emergency medicine pharmacist was $1,971,262. The monetary cost avoidance to pharmacist salary ratio was between$1.4:1 and $10.6:1. Conclusions:. Pharmacist involvement in the care of patients presenting to the emergency department results in significant avoidance of healthcare costs, particularly in the areas of hands-on care and adverse drug event prevention. The potential monetary benefit-to-cost ratio for emergency medicine pharmacists is between$1.4:1 and $10.6:1