Double Trouble: Patients With Both True and False Arrhythmia Alarms

2020 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 14-23
Author(s):  
Stella Chiu Nguyen ◽  
Sukardi Suba ◽  
Xiao Hu ◽  
Michele M. Pelter
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Secondary Analysis ◽  
Altered Mental Status ◽  
False Alarms ◽  
Number Of False Alarms ◽  
Academic Medical ◽  
Using Data

Background Patients with both true and false arrhythmia alarms pose a challenge because true alarms might be buried among a large number of false alarms, leading to missed true events. Objective To determine (1) the frequency of patients with both true and false arrhythmia alarms; (2) patient, clinical, and electrocardiographic characteristics associated with both true and false alarms; and (3) the frequency and types of true and false arrhythmia alarms. Methods This was a secondary analysis using data from an alarm study conducted at a tertiary academic medical center. Results Of 461 intensive care unit patients, 211 (46%) had no arrhythmia alarms, 12 (3%) had only true alarms, 167 (36%) had only false alarms, and 71 (15%) had both true and false alarms. Ventricular pacemaker, altered mental status, mechanical ventilation, and cardiac intensive care unit admission were present more often in patients with both true and false alarms than among other patients (P < .001). Intensive care unit stays were longer in patients with only false alarms (mean [SD], 106 [162] hours) and those with both true and false alarms (mean [SD], 208 [333] hours) than in other patients. Accelerated ventricular rhythm was the most common alarm type (37%). Conclusions An awareness of factors associated with arrhythmia alarms might aid in developing solutions to decrease alarm fatigue. To improve detection of true alarms, further research is needed to build and test electrocardiographic algorithms that adjust for clinical and electrocardiographic characteristics associated with false alarms.

Hemodynamic Effects of Ketamine Compared With Propofol or Dexmedetomidine as Continuous ICU Sedation

2021 ◽  
pp. 106002802110510
Author(s):  
Evan Atchley ◽  
Eljim Tesoro ◽  
Robert Meyer ◽  
Alexia Bauer ◽  
Mark Pulver ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical ◽  
Clinically Significant ◽  
Critically Ill Adults ◽  
Icu Sedation ◽  
Ill Adults ◽  
Positive Effect

Background Ketamine has seen increased use for sedation in the intensive care unit. In contrast to propofol or dexmedetomidine, ketamine may provide a positive effect on hemodynamics. Objective The objective of this study was to compare the development of clinically significant hypotension or bradycardia (ie, negative hemodynamic event) between critically ill adults receiving sedation with ketamine and either propofol or dexmedetomidine. Methods This was a retrospective cohort study of adults admitted to an intensive care unit at an academic medical center between January 2016 and January 2021. Results Patients in the ketamine group (n = 78) had significantly less clinically significant hypotension or bradycardia compared with those receiving propofol or dexmedetomidine (n = 156) (34.6% vs 63.5%; P < 0.001). Patients receiving ketamine also experienced smaller degree of hypotension observed by percent decrease in mean arterial pressure (25.3% [17.4] vs 33.8% [14.5]; P < 0.001) and absolute reduction in systolic blood pressure (26.5 [23.8] vs 42.0 [37.8] mm Hg; P < 0.001) and bradycardia (15.5 [24.3] vs 32.0 [23.0] reduction in beats per minute; P < 0.001). In multivariate logistic regression modeling, receipt of propofol or dexmedetomidine was the only independent predictor of a negative hemodynamic event (odds ratio [OR]: 3.3, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.7 to 6.1; P < 0.001). Conclusion and Relevance Ketamine was associated with less clinically relevant hypotension or bradycardia when compared with propofol or dexmedetomidine, in addition to a smaller absolute decrease in hemodynamic parameters. The clinical significance of these findings requires further investigation.

scholarly journals 2424. Shedding of Viable Clostridiodes difficile in Patients Admitted to a Medical Intensive Care Unit

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. S837-S838
Author(s):  
Vincent B Young ◽  
Micah Keidan ◽  
Rachel D Yelin ◽  
Thelma E Dangana ◽  
Pamela B Bell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Secondary Analysis ◽  
Icu Patients ◽  
Specific Pcr ◽  
Patient Admissions ◽  
Academic Medical ◽  
Healthcare Associated ◽  
Record Review

Abstract Background Hospitalized patients are at risk of colonization with a range of healthcare-associated bacterial pathogens, including C. difficile. In patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs), in whom C. difficile infection (CDI) is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. To understand the risk for acquisition of C. difficile and development of CDI, we monitored ICU patients daily for shedding of C. difficile by culture. Methods We conducted a secondary analysis of daily rectal/fecal swab samples collected from medical ICU patients of a 720-bed academic medical center in Chicago, IL. Selective culture for C. difficile was performed on swab samples from patients who had 2 or more samples obtained using selective media. Confirmation of putative C. difficile isolates was done by specific PCR assays for the 16S rRNA-encoding gene and the toxin genes tcdA, tcdB, cdtA and cdtB. Clinical testing for CDI was performed using the Xpert® C. difficile PCR assay (Cepheid). Clinical and demographic metadata were collected at bedside and by electronic medical record review. Results Culture was attempted on 2106 swab samples from 451 patients (486 ICU admissions) (Figure 1). A mean of 4.33 samples was obtained from each patient. C. difficile was isolated from 211 (10%) samples from 79 patients (Table 1). The first sample was positive by culture for 48 (9.9%) of patient admissions to the ICU. 31 (6.4%) patients who were initially negative by culture had a subsequent sample from which C. difficile was isolated. Persistence of culture-positivity varied from patient to patient (Figure 2). Of 80 patients who were tested for CDI based on physician suspicion, 12 patients had a positive Cepheid PCR test; 9 had diarrhea and were treated for CDI. Conclusion Surveillance for shedding of C. difficile by daily culture reveals that patients admitted to the ICU can shed the pathogen intermittently without attributable disease. This can be in the form patients who are admitted carrying the organism as well as those who appear to acquire the organism during their stay. It is unclear whether patient or microbiome factors underlie the differences seen in patterns of shedding. Furthermore, intermittent shedding may reflect multiple episodes of exposure to C. difficile spores and asymptomatic shedding without stable colonization. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

scholarly journals Determining Inappropriate Medication Alerts from “Inaccurate Warning” Overrides in the Intensive Care Unit

2018 ◽  
Vol 09 (02) ◽  
pp. 268-274 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine Rehr ◽  
Adrian Wong ◽  
Diane Seger ◽  
David Bates
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Drug Allergy ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Inappropriate Medication ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Patient Characteristics ◽  
Valuable Resource ◽  
Provider Behavior ◽  
Academic Medical

Objective This article aims to understand provider behavior around the use of the override reason “Inaccurate warning,” specifically whether it is an effective way of identifying unhelpful medication alerts. Materials and Methods We analyzed alert overrides that occurred in the intensive care units (ICUs) of a major academic medical center between June and November 2016, focused on the following high-significance alert types: dose, drug-allergy alerts, and drug–drug interactions (DDI). Override appropriateness was analyzed by two independent reviewers using predetermined criteria. Results A total of 268 of 26,501 ICU overrides (1.0%) used the reason “Inaccurate warning,” with 93 of these overrides associated with our included alert types. Sixty-one of these overrides (66%) were identified to be appropriate. Twenty-one of 30 (70%) dose alert overrides were appropriate. Forty of 48 drug-allergy alert overrides (83%) were appropriate, for reasons ranging from prior tolerance (n = 30) to inaccurate ingredient matches (n = 5). None of the 15 DDI overrides were appropriate. Conclusion The “Inaccurate warning” reason was selectively used by a small proportion of providers and overrides using this reason identified important opportunities to reduce excess alerts. Potential opportunities include improved evaluation of dosing mechanisms based on patient characteristics, inclusion of institutional dosing protocols to alert logic, and evaluation of a patient's prior tolerance to a medication that they have a documented allergy for. This resource is not yet routinely used for alert tailoring at our institution but may prove to be a valuable resource to evaluate available alerts.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document