scholarly journals Risk-Stratified Management Offers a Safe Approach to Removing Low-Risk Penicillin Allergy Labels in the Intensive Care Unit

2020 ◽  
Vol 145 (2) ◽  
pp. AB94 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cosby Stone ◽  
Christopher Lindsell ◽  
Joanna Stollings ◽  
Mary Lynn Dear ◽  
Reagan Buie ◽  
...  
2010 ◽  
Vol 6 (S2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Philippe Bégin ◽  
Matthieu Picard ◽  
Hugues Bouchard ◽  
Jonathan Cloutier ◽  
Émilie Daoust ◽  
...  

Medical Care ◽  
1983 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 425-434 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas P. Wagner ◽  
William A. Knaus ◽  
Elizabeth A. Draper ◽  
Jack E. Zimmerman

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 2702-2702
Author(s):  
Nicola Sgherza ◽  
Paola Curci ◽  
Rita Rizzi ◽  
Silvio Tafuri ◽  
Pasquale Stefanizzi ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction. Monoclonal Gammopathy of Undetermined Significance (MGUS) is a pre-malignant plasma cell disorder reported in approximately 3% of individuals aged > 50 years, characterized by a low risk (about 1% per year) of evolution into "overt" myeloma or other lymphoproliferative diseases. It is classified as IgM-MGUS (15%) and non-IgM-MGUS (80-85%). MGUS is usually asymptomatic, but a higher risk of deep venous thrombosis and infection has been reported. In March 2020, "Coronavirus Disease 2019" (COVID-19) outbreak has been declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization. Regarding outcome of COVID-19 in patients with plasma cell dyscrasia, many papers have been published about multiple myeloma (MM), reporting a higher fatality rate respect to general population, while few data are available about the outcome of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with MGUS. Methods. We collected clinical data on MGUS Apulian patients with SARS- CoV-2 infection, tested by RT-PCR on nasopharyngeal swabs between March 1st, 2020 and April 30st, 2021. Among 1454 MGUS patients followed at our center, 91 were found SARS-CoV-2 positive, enrolled in this observational, retrospective study and compared with 182 age and sex-matched normal controls. Clinical data collected regarded: symptoms, hospitalization, hospitalization in intensive care unit, death. Calculations were carried out using Stata MP17. Results. Mean age of whole group (n. 273) was 65,3+/-13,3 years (range: 29-89), with no statistically-significant differences (p=0,734) observed between MGUS-group (65,6+/-13,3; range: 29-89 years) and controls-group (65,2+/- 13,4; range: 29-89 years). Mean number of comorbidities in the whole group was 1,2+/-1,2 (range: 0-5) and no statistically-significant differences (p=0,844) were found between MGUS-group (1,3+/-1,3; range: 0-5) and control group (1,2+/- 0,9; range: 0-3). About MGUS-subtypes, the most frequent was IgG-kappa (n=36; 39,6%), followed by IgG-lambda (n=27; 29,7%) and IgM-kappa (n=6; 6,6%). Regarding MGUS risk-stratification, application of Mayo Clinic model identified 22 patients (24,2%) with low risk, 22 (24,2%) with low-intermediate risk, and 3 (3,3%) with high-intermediate risk; in 44 patients (48,3%) this data was missing. Immunoparesis was present in 13 cases (14,3%) and absent in 55 (60,4%), missing in 23 (25,3%). No patient developed MM or a lymphoproliferative disease progression during and immediately after COVID-19. Rates of symptoms (59,3% vs 56%), hospitalization (20,9% vs 14,3%), hospitalization in intensive care unit (11% vs 8,8%) and death (8,8% vs 5,5%) were slightly higher in MGUS group than controls (Table 1), but these differences were not statistically significant. A statistically significant association (p<0,05), was observed between higher age and death in both groups. Lastly, incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in MGUS patients (6,2%) was not statistically significant different from that observed in the population of the Puglia region (5,8%) in the same period. Conclusions. To our knowledge, this report is the largest study of patients with MGUS and SARS-CoV-2 infection to date. In our study patients with MGUS did not show an increased incidence of this infection compared to the general population and did not appear to represent a risk factor for poor outcome in COVID-19. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 208-215
Author(s):  
Donald Stewart ◽  
John Kinsella ◽  
Joanne McPeake ◽  
Tara Quasim ◽  
Alex Puxty

Purpose Patients with alcohol-related disease constitute an increasing proportion of those admitted to intensive care unit. There is currently limited evidence regarding the impact of alcohol use on levels of agitation, delirium and sedative requirements in intensive care unit. This study aimed to determine whether intensive care unit-admitted alcohol-abuse patients have different sedative requirements, agitation and delirium levels compared to patients with no alcohol issues. Methods This retrospective analysis of a prospectively acquired database (June 2012–May 2013) included 257 patients. Subjects were stratified into three risk categories: alcohol dependency (n = 69), at risk (n = 60) and low risk (n = 128) according to Fast Alcohol Screening Test scores and World Health Organisation criteria for alcohol-related disease. Data on agitation and delirium were collected using validated retrospective chart-screening methods and sedation data were extracted and then log-transformed to fit the regression model. Results Incidence of agitation (p = 0.034) and delirium (p = 0.041) was significantly higher amongst alcohol-dependent patients compared to low-risk patients as was likelihood of adverse events (p = 0.007). In contrast, at-risk patients were at no higher risk of these outcomes compared to the low-risk group. Alcohol-dependent patients experienced suboptimal sedation levels more frequently and received a wider range of sedatives (p = 0.019) but did not receive higher daily doses of any sedatives. Conclusions Our analysis demonstrates that when admitted to intensive care unit, it is those who abuse alcohol most severely, alcohol-dependent patients, rather than at-risk drinkers who have a significantly increased risk of agitation, delirium and suboptimal sedation. These patients may require closer assessment and monitoring for these outcomes whilst admitted.


1982 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 225 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas P. Wagner ◽  
William A. Knaus ◽  
Elizabeth A. Draper ◽  
Jack E. Zimmerman

2020 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 33-43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica Spiegelberg ◽  
Huaxin Song ◽  
Brenda Pun ◽  
Paula Webb ◽  
Leanne M. Boehm

Background Delirium has long-term consequences for intensive care unit patients. The project site, an urban academic hospital, did not previously use a validated delirium screening tool, and patients commonly received sedative medications to treat agitation. Objective To minimize the risk of delirium by implementing the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) as the standard-of-care delirium assessment tool in the intensive care unit and by decreasing use of high-risk medications (ie, opioids and benzodiazepines). Methods An observational pretest-posttest design was used to analyze deidentified patient data from electronic health records. The evidence-based practice intervention focused on educating nurses on high-risk medications and CAM-ICU implementation. Control charts, χ2 tests, and mixed regression models were used to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention in reducing delirium risk by decreasing use of high-risk medications. Results High-risk medication use significantly decreased after intervention among patients at low risk for delirium (before intervention, 7.37%; after intervention, 3.92%; P < .001) and at high risk for delirium (before intervention, 4.73%; after intervention, 2.99%; P < .001). Hospital stays were significantly shorter in patients at low risk than at high risk for delirium (P < .001) but increased by a mean of 0.13 days with each additional high-risk medication used (P < .001). Conclusions The variation of high-risk medication use was significantly controlled with the implementation of CAM-ICU and education. Nurses felt that hands-on training with the CAM-ICU increased their comfort in identifying patients at risk for delirium. Future work will focus on assessment accuracy.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document