American journal of therapeutics
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study Comparative Study
A double-blind, randomized, multicenter, dose-ranging study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of fospropofol disodium as an intravenous sedative for colonoscopy in high-risk populations.
Fospropofol is a sedative hypnotic with a slower onset and longer duration of action. Fospropofol has demonstrated successful dose-dependent sedation at 6.5 mg/kg. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of a lower weight-adjusted dose compared with the approved dose (4.875 or 6.5 mg/kg depending on patient subgroup) in high-risk elderly patients undergoing colonoscopy. ⋯ The rate of sedation, modified sedation, and treatment success were higher in patients administered the approved dose for all the subgroups. No clinically significant advantage was demonstrated using a lower modified dose in this study population. The approved dose is recommended in the elderly, more obese, and high-risk patients when used for moderate sedation.
-
Hospitals are subject to more economic pressures than ever before. On the one hand, cost containment or cost reduction is paramount, particularly in relation to costly branded pharmaceuticals. On the other hand, quality measures and value-based reimbursement penalizes poor patient care. ⋯ Lastly, we summarize many studies demonstrating the robust effect of IV acetaminophen on patient satisfaction. A holistic view of total hospital performance should be adopted when reviewing drugs rather than a silo mentality within the pharmacy. While IV acetaminophen adds to drug costs, the body of evidence indicates this drug has the potential to improve outcomes and hospital efficiency.
-
The objective of this study was to examine venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis use, risk reduction, and readmission in medically ill patients during hospitalization and after discharge. This 5-year retrospective study linked outpatient files from MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental databases. Patients were categorized into prophylaxis and non-prophylaxis groups based on guideline-recommended anticoagulant use from the index date to 180 days posthospital discharge and before the first VTE event date. ⋯ Among anticoagulant therapy patients, 740 patients (40.68%) received low-molecular weight heparin only and 806 patients (44.31%) received unfractionated heparin. After risk adjustment, compared with patients without VTE prophylaxis, anticoagulant prophylaxis patients had lower VTE (3.62% vs. 4.27%, P < 0.04) and readmission rates (24.22% vs. 27.95%, P < 0.02) during the 6 months post-index hospital admission. In conclusion anticoagulant prophylaxis is underutilized and is associated with reduced VTE risk and a decrease in rehospitalizations for medically ill patients.
-
Cardiogenic shock remains the leading cause of in-hospital death for patients admitted with acute myocardial infarction. For patients with refractory cardiogenic shock, early revascularization and intra-aortic balloon pump support are often inadequate to reverse the persistent circulatory collapse. We report 5 cases in which an extracorporeal oxygenator in series with the TandemHeart system was instituted emergently in patients with refractory cardiogenic shock from acute myocardial infarction. From our experience, we showed that the device can be safely and easily inserted and that it is able to reverse circulatory collapse and provide hemodynamic stability in patients who otherwise have a high mortality rate.
-
Comparative Study
Direct comparison of 20-hour IV, 36-hour oral, and 72-hour oral acetylcysteine for treatment of acute acetaminophen poisoning.
There is no general consensus among clinicians on the superior route or duration of treatment with N-acetylcysteine (NAC) for acute acetaminophen (APAP) poisoning, and head-to-head studies comparing intravenous (IV) and oral NAC have not been done. Recent 20-hour IV NAC protocol failures in the United States prompted some to question its safety. Our objective was to determine if treatment with the 20-hour IV NAC protocol results in clinical outcomes different from the longer 36-hour oral or 72-hour oral NAC protocols in cases of acute APAP poisoning. ⋯ No cases of transplant or death occurred, and secondary outcomes were rare. When administered within 8 hours of acute APAP poisoning, the 20-hour IV treatment protocol was as effective as the longer 36-hour oral and 72-hour oral treatment protocols. Further study is needed to determine outcome differences between IV and oral NAC when treatment is initiated >8 hours after overdose or in cases of coingestion with other drugs.