Ketamine in Critically Ill Patients: Use, Perceptions, and Potential Barriers

Objective: To evaluate practitioner use of ketamine and identify potential barriers to use in acutely and critically ill patients. To compare characteristics, beliefs, and practices of ketamine frequent users and non-users. Methods: An online survey developed by members of the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology Section was distributed to physician, pharmacist, nurse practitioner, physician assistant and nurse members of SCCM. The online survey queried SCCM members on self-reported practices regarding ketamine use and potential barriers in acute and critically ill patients. Results: Respondents, 341 analyzed, were mostly adult physicians, practicing in the United States at academic medical centers. Clinicians were comfortable or very comfortable using ketamine to facilitate intubation (80.0%), for analgesia (77.9%), procedural sedation (79.4%), continuous ICU sedation (65.8%), dressing changes (62.4%), or for asthma exacerbation and status epilepticus (58.8% and 40.4%). Clinicians were least comfortable with ketamine use for alcohol withdrawal and opioid detoxification (24.7% and 23.2%). Most respondents reported "never" or "infrequently" using ketamine preferentially for continuous IV analgesia (55.6%) or sedation (61%). Responses were mixed across dosing ranges and duration. The most common barriers to ketamine use were adverse effects (42.6%), other practitioners not routinely using the medication (41.5%), lack of evidence (33.5%), lack of familiarity (33.1%), and hospital/institutional policy guiding the indication for use (32.3%). Conclusion: Although most critical care practitioners report feeling comfortable using ketamine, there are many inconsistencies in practice regarding dose, duration, and reasons to avoid or limit ketamine use. Further educational tools may be targeted at practitioners to improve appropriate ketamine use.

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS® ) Society abdominal and thoracic surgery recommendations: A systematic review and comparison of guidelines for perioperative and pharmacotherapy core items

INTRODUCTION

Worldwide, ERAS® Society guidelines have ushered in a new era of perioperative care. The purpose of this systematic review is to compare published core elements and pharmacotherapy recommendations embedded within ERAS® Society abdominal and thoracic surgery (ATS) guidelines. Determining whether a consensus exists for pharmacological core items would make future guideline preparation for similar surgeries more standardized and could improve patient care by reducing unnecessary protocol variations.

METHODS

From the ERAS® Society website as of May 2023, 16 current ERAS® published ATS guidelines were included in the analysis to determine consensus and differing statements regarding each ERAS® perioperative and pharmacotherapy-related item. The aims were to (a) determine whether a consensus for each item could be derived, (b) identify gaps in ERAS® protocol development, and (c) propose potential research directions for addressing the identified gaps in the literature.

RESULTS

Core items with consensus included: preoperative smoking and alcohol cessation; avoiding bowel reparation and fasting; multimodal preanesthetic, perioperative analgesia, and postoperative nausea and vomiting regimens; low molecular weight heparins for in-hospital and at-home venous thromboembolism prophylaxis; antibiotic prophylaxis; skin preparation; goal-directed perioperative fluid management with balanced crystalloids; perioperative nutrition care; ileus prevention with peripherally-acting mu receptor antagonists; and glucose control.

CONCLUSION

While consensus was found for aspects of 21 current ERAS® guideline core items related to pharmacotherapy choice, details related to doses, regimen, timing of administration as well as unique aspects pertaining to specific surgeries remain to be researched and harmonized to promote guideline consistency and further optimize patient outcomes.

Effect of Pharmacoprophylaxis on Postoperative Outcomes in Adult Elective Colorectal Surgery: A Multi-Center Retrospective Cohort Study within an Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Framework

BACKGROUND

The application of enhanced recovery after surgery principles decreases postoperative complications (POCs), length of stay (LOS), and readmissions. Pharmacoprophylaxis decreases morbidity, but the effect of specific regimens on clinical outcomes is unclear.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Records of 476 randomly selected adult patients who underwent elective colorectal surgeries (ECRS) at 10 US hospitals were abstracted. Primary outcomes were surgical site infection (SSI), venous thromboembolism (VTE), postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), pain, and ileus rates. Secondary outcomes included LOS and 7- and 30-day readmission rates.

RESULTS

POC rates were SSI (3.4%), VTE (1.5%), PONV (47.9%), pain (58.1%), and ileus (16.1%). Cefazolin 2 g/metronidazole 500 mg and ertapenem 1 g were associated with the shortest LOS; cefotetan 2 g and cefoxitin 2 g with the longest LOS. No SSI occurred with ertapenem and cefotetan. More Caucasians than Blacks received oral antibiotics before intravenous antibiotics without impact. Enoxaparin 40 mg subcutaneously daily was the most common inpatient and discharge VTE prophylaxis. All in-hospital VTEs occurred with unfractionated heparin. Most received rescue rather than around-the-clock antiemetics. Scopolamine patches, spinal opioids, and IV lidocaine continuous infusion were associated with lower PONV. Transversus abdominis plane block with long-acting local anesthetics, celecoxib, non-anesthetic ketamine bolus, ketorolac IV, lidocaine IV, and pregabalin were associated with lower in-hospital pain severity rates. Gabapentinoids and alvimopan were associated with lower ileus rates. Acetaminophen, alvimopan, famotidine, and lidocaine patches were associated with shorter LOS.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant differences in pharmacotherapy regimens that may improve primary and secondary outcomes in ECRS were identified. In adult ECRS, cefotetan or ertapenem may be better regimens for preventing in-hospital SSI, while ertapenem or C/M may lead to shorter LOS. The value of OA to prevent SSI was not demonstrated. Inpatient enoxaparin, compared to UFH, may reduce VTE rates with a similar LOS. A minority of patients had a documented PONV risk assessment, and a majority used as-needed rather than around-the-clock strategies. Preoperative scopolamine patches continued postoperatively may lower PONV and PDNV severity and shorter LOS. Alvimopan may reduce ileus and shorten LOS. Anesthesia that includes TAP block, ketorolac IV, and pregabalin use may lead to reduced pain rates. Acetaminophen, alvimopan, famotidine, and lidocaine patches may shorten LOS. Given the challenges of pain management and the incidence of PONV/PDNV found in this study, additional studies should be conducted to determine optimal opioid-free anesthesia and the benefit of newer antiemetics on patient outcomes. Moreover, future research should identify latent pharmacotherapy variables that impact patient outcomes, correlate pertinent laboratory results, and examine the impact of order or care sets used for ECRS at study hospitals.

Norepinephrine and Vasopressin Compared With Norepinephrine and Epinephrine in Adults With Septic Shock

Background: The optimal adjuvant vasopressor to norepinephrine in septic shock remains controversial. Objective: To compare durations of shock-free survival between adjuvant vasopressin and epinephrine. Methods: A retrospective, single-center, matched cohort study of adults with septic shock refractory to norepinephrine was conducted. Patients receiving norepinephrine not at target mean arterial pressure (MAP; 65 mm Hg) were initiated on vasopressin or epinephrine to raise MAP to target. Vasopressin-exposed patients were matched to epinephrine-exposed patients using propensity scores. Mortality outcomes were examined using multivariable Poisson regression with robust variance estimation. Results: Of 166 patients, 96 (entire cohort) were included in the propensity score-matched cohort. Shock-free survival durations in the first 7 days were similar between epinephrine- and vasopressin-exposed patients in the matched cohort (median = 13.2 hours, interquartile range [IQR] = 0-121.0, vs median = 41.3 hours, IQR = 0-125.9; P = 0.51). Seven- and 28-day mortality rates were similar in the matched cohort (7-day: 47.9% vs 39.6%, P = 0.35; 28-day: 56.3% vs 58.3%, P = 0.84). Mortality rates were similar between epinephrine- and vasopressin-exposed patients in propensity score-matched regression models with and without adjustments at 7 (relative risk [RR] = 1.28, 95% CI = 0.92-1.79; RR = 1.21, 95% CI = 0.81-1.81) and 28 days (RR = 1.04, 95% CI = 0.81-1.34; RR = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.69-1.34). Conclusion and Relevance: Shock-free survival durations were similar in matched epinephrine- and vasopressin-exposed groups. Adjuvant epinephrine or vasopressin alongside norepinephrine to raise MAP to target requires further investigation.

Physician agreement on the diagnosis of sepsis in the intensive care unit: estimation of concordance and analysis of underlying factors in a multicenter cohort

Background

Differentiating sepsis from the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) in critical care patients is challenging, especially before serious organ damage is evident, and with variable clinical presentations of patients and variable training and experience of attending physicians. Our objective was to describe and quantify physician agreement in diagnosing SIRS or sepsis in critical care patients as a function of available clinical information, infection site, and hospital setting.

Methods

We conducted a post hoc analysis of previously collected data from a prospective, observational trial (N = 249 subjects) in intensive care units at seven US hospitals, in which physicians at different stages of patient care were asked to make diagnostic calls of either SIRS, sepsis, or indeterminate, based on varying amounts of available clinical information (clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02127502). The overall percent agreement and the free-marginal, inter-observer agreement statistic kappa (κ_free) were used to quantify agreement between evaluators (attending physicians, site investigators, external expert panelists). Logistic regression and machine learning techniques were used to search for significant variables that could explain heterogeneity within the indeterminate and SIRS patient subgroups.

Results

Free-marginal kappa decreased between the initial impression of the attending physician and (1) the initial impression of the site investigator (κ_free 0.68), (2) the consensus discharge diagnosis of the site investigators (κ_free 0.62), and (3) the consensus diagnosis of the external expert panel (κ_free 0.58). In contrast, agreement was greatest between the consensus discharge impression of site investigators and the consensus diagnosis of the external expert panel (κ_free 0.79). When stratified by infection site, κ_free for agreement between initial and later diagnoses had a mean value + 0.24 (range − 0.29 to + 0.39) for respiratory infections, compared to + 0.70 (range + 0.42 to + 0.88) for abdominal + urinary + other infections. Bioinformatics analysis failed to clearly resolve the indeterminate diagnoses and also failed to explain why 60% of SIRS patients were treated with antibiotics.

Conclusions

Considerable uncertainty surrounds the differential clinical diagnosis of sepsis vs. SIRS, especially before organ damage has become highly evident, and for patients presenting with respiratory clinical signs. Our findings underscore the need to provide physicians with accurate, timely diagnostic information in evaluating possible sepsis.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s40560-019-0368-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Effects From Continuous Infusions of Dexmedetomidine and Propofol on Hemodynamic Stability in Critically Ill Adult Patients With Septic Shock

PURPOSE

To compare the development of clinically significant hemodynamic event (ie, hypotension or bradycardia) in adults with septic shock receiving either propofol or dexmedetomidine.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of adults with septic shock admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) at an academic medical center between July 2013 and July 2017.

RESULTS

Patients in the propofol (n = 35) and dexmedetomidine (n = 37) groups developed a clinically significant hemodynamic event at similar frequencies (31.4 vs 29.7%, P = .99). All patients with an event experienced hypotension, whereas 2 (5.4%) patients in the dexmedetomidine group also experienced bradycardia. Most patients in both groups (70% vs 90%) received an escalating sedative dose, and almost half (42.9%) in the dexmedetomidine group had the sedative dosage increased more frequently than every 30 minutes. Patients in both groups had similar ICU (24.1 vs 24.3 days, P = .98) and hospital (37.9 vs 29.7 days, P = .29) lengths of stay. There was no difference in median time to hemodynamic event between the groups (propofol 1 hour [interquartile range, IQR: 0.5-9.9] vs dexmedetomidine 2 hours [IQR: 1.5-11.1 hours], P = .85).

CONCLUSION

Patients with septic shock receiving propofol or dexmedetomidine experienced similar rates of clinically significant hemodynamic events. Most patients did not experience an event and those who did most frequently did so in the first couple of hours of therapy.

Effects From Continuous Infusions of Dexmedetomidine and Propofol on Hemodynamic Stability in Critically Ill Adult Patients With Septic Shock

PURPOSE

To compare the development of clinically significant hemodynamic event (ie, hypotension or bradycardia) in adults with septic shock receiving either propofol or dexmedetomidine.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of adults with septic shock admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) at an academic medical center between July 2013 and July 2017.

RESULTS

Patients in the propofol (n = 35) and dexmedetomidine (n = 37) groups developed a clinically significant hemodynamic event at similar frequencies (31.4 vs 29.7%, P = .99). All patients with an event experienced hypotension, whereas 2 (5.4%) patients in the dexmedetomidine group also experienced bradycardia. Most patients in both groups (70% vs 90%) received an escalating sedative dose, and almost half (42.9%) in the dexmedetomidine group had the sedative dosage increased more frequently than every 30 minutes. Patients in both groups had similar ICU (24.1 vs 24.3 days, P = .98) and hospital (37.9 vs 29.7 days, P = .29) lengths of stay. There was no difference in median time to hemodynamic event between the groups (propofol 1 hour [interquartile range, IQR: 0.5-9.9] vs dexmedetomidine 2 hours [IQR: 1.5-11.1 hours], P = .85).

CONCLUSION

Patients with septic shock receiving propofol or dexmedetomidine experienced similar rates of clinically significant hemodynamic events. Most patients did not experience an event and those who did most frequently did so in the first couple of hours of therapy.

Therapeutic Interventions for the Treatment and Control of Influenza

Objective:

To review antiviral management of influenza and discuss recent developments in antiviral resistance.

Data Sources:

Literature retrieval was accessed through MEDLINE/PubMed (1977–February 2007) using the terms influenza, resistance, adamantanes, and neuraminidase inhibitors, treatment, and prevention. In addition, reference citations from identified publications were reviewed.

Study Selection and Data Extraction:

All articles in English identified from the data sources were evaluated.

Data Synthesis:

Infection with influenza is associated with 36,000 deaths and more than 200,000 hospitalizations in the US each year and results in a large economic burden on society. We reviewed 7 trials describing management of influenza; the results showed that 92% of influenza cases demonstrated adamantane resistance in 2005. Selection of treatment for influenza with a neuraminidase inhibitor should be based on patient preference, past medical history, and managed care restrictions since one agent has not demonstrated superiority. Early initiation of treatment, within 12 hours of symptom onset (compared with 48 h), has resulted in illness being shortened by more than 3 days. Conclusions shown in the trials reviewed here regarding the consequences of increasing incidence of influenza A resistance include: viral surveillance cultures are important, influenza has a significant global impact, and inappropriate use of antiinfective agents results in local and global resistance.

Conclusions:

Therapeutic options for the management of influenza include the neuraminidase inhibitors, zanamavir and oseltamivir. Unfortunately, new classes of antiviral drugs for influenza will not be forthcoming in the near future. Adamantane resistance is now commonly demonstrated in influenza. At this time, efforts should be made to minimize patient risk for infection.

Systemic steroids in severe sepsis and septic shock

Despite more than 5 decades of study and debate, the role of corticosteroid treatment in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock remains controversial. Data support a beneficial effect on systemic blood pressure in patients with septic shock. However, the ability of corticosteroid therapy to improve mortality in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock remains controversial, with contradictory results from recent large multicenter clinical trials. Although it appears clear that high-dose corticosteroid treatment provides no benefit and possibly harm in septic patients, the experimental design flaws and biases of recent low-dose (physiologic) steroid treatment trials limit their ability to provide adequate answers to the important questions of which septic patients should be treated, how much steroid to give, and the optimum duration of treatment. Unfortunately, the answer to these important questions is not readily evident based on the current evidence or the application of metaanalysis to the available clinical data. This concise evidence-based review highlights the strengths and weaknesses of the current data to inform the practicing clinician as to which patients are likely to derive significant benefit from corticosteroid treatment, while we await more definitive guidance from future multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled trials designed to better answer these important therapeutic questions.

Comparison of outcomes from daptomycin or linezolid treatment for vancomycin-resistant enterococcal bloodstream infection: A retrospective, multicenter, cohort study

BACKGROUND

The optimal treatment for bloodstream infections (BSIs) with vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

This study examined outcomes in patients treated with daptomycin or linezolid for VRE BSI.

METHODS

A retrospective, multicenter, cohort study was performed via chart review. Hospitalized patients treated for VRE BSI with daptomycin or linezolid from September 1, 2003, to June 30, 2007, were identified via pharmacy and microbiology reports at each institution. Patients aged <18 years or with polymicrobial bacteremia were excluded from analysis. Linezolid and daptomycin were included because the participating institutions used either of the 2 agents as first-line treatment for VRE BSI. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine the effect of drug selection on mortality and duration of BSI. Duration of BSI was defined as the amount of time from the draw date of the first positive blood culture to the draw date of the first finalized negative blood culture. Adverse events were not assessed.

RESULTS

One-hundred one patients from 3 participating US hospitals experiencing VRE BSI were identified. Sixty-seven patients were treated with daptomycin and 34 with linezolid. Baseline characteristics appeared comparable between the daptomycin- and linezolidtreated groups, with the exception of shock (P = 0.049), prior vancomycin treatment (P = 0.002), and prior linezolid treatment (P < 0.001), all of which occurred significantly more often in daptomycin-treated patients. Inpatient mortality occurred in 31 daptomycin- and 10 linezolid-treated patients (46.3% vs 29.4%; P = NS). Linear regression found that shock (P = 0.015), infective endocarditis (P = 0.021), and concurrent rifampin or gentamicin treatment (P = 0.01) were associated with prolonged duration of positive cultures. Logistic regression revealed that shock (odds ratio [OR] = 14.24; P = 0.008), infection with Enterococcus faecium (OR = 53.10; P = 0.024), previous linezolid treatment (OR = 6.63; P = 0.031), concurrent rifampin or gentamicin treatment (OR = 6.48; P = 0.046), and a nonline source of infection (OR = 6.67; P = 0.019) were associated with increased mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

In this retrospective cohort analysis, there were no significant differences in mortality of VRE BSI between patients receiving daptomycin or linezolid. Underlying comorbidities appeared to best predict outcome; however, given the retrospective nature of this study, larger, prospective, randomized, comparative studies are needed to control for potential biases and determine definitive outcome differences between these 2 antimicrobials.

Impact of the implementation of a sepsis protocol for the management of fluid-refractory septic shock: A single-center, before-and-after study

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based guidelines have been published for the acute management of severe sepsis and septic shock. Key goals of institution-driven protocols include timely fluid resuscitation and antibiotic selection, as well as source control.

OBJECTIVE

This study assessed the impact of a sepsis protocol on the timeliness of antibiotic administration, the adequacy of fluid resuscitation, and 28-day mortality in patients with fluid-refractory septic shock.

METHODS

This was a single-center, before-and-after study (18 months before July 2007 and 18 months after) with prospective data collection evaluating the outcomes of a sepsis protocol in adult patients with fluid-refractory septic shock. All patients received a fluid challenge and antibiotics; those who did not were excluded from this analysis. Preprotocol findings led to the development of the sepsis protocol, which emphasized fluid resuscitation, timely administration of antibiotic therapy, and collection of specimens for culture at the onset of septic shock. In the pre- and postprotocol phases of the study, data were collected prospectively and analyzed for demographic characteristics; Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score; appropriateness of fluid resuscitation; antibiotic use; number of vasopressor, ventilator, and intensive care unit (ICU) days; and 28-day mortality. Outcomes were measured prospectively at any time during the patient's hospital admission. The primary end points were the time to administration of antimicrobial therapy and the appropriateness of fluid resuscitation before and after implementation of the sepsis protocol.

RESULTS

A total of 118 patients were included in the analysis: 64 and 54 in the pre- and postprotocol groups, respectively. Patients in the preprotocol group were primarily women (53% [34/64]) and had a mean (SD) age of 61 (15.5) years and a mean APACHE II score of 28 (6.0). Patients in the postprotocol group were primarily men (54% [29/54]) and had a mean age of 52 (18.0) years and a mean APACHE II score of 27 (6.4). Implementation of the sepsis protocol resulted in a greater percentage of patients receiving timely antibiotic therapy (ie, within 4.5 hours of refractory shock; 85% [46/54] vs 56% [36/64]; P = 0.001) and adequate fluid resuscitation (72% [39/54] vs 31% [20/64]; P < 0.001) compared with the preprotocol group. Post hoc analysis found significant decreases in the number of vasopressor days (mean [SD], 3.8 [2.7] to 1.4 [1.5]; P < 0.001), ventilator days (9.1 [12.2] to 2.7 [4.0]; P < 0.001), and ICU days (12.3 [12.6] to 4.9 [3.9]; P < 0.001) in the postprotocol group. In-hospital mortality was not significantly different between the groups (survival 46% [28/61] before vs 54% [33/61] after the protocol). Multivariate analysis for predictors of in-hospital mortality identified an interval between shock and empiric antibiotic administration of >4.5 hours (odds ratio [OR] = 5.54; 95% CI, 1.91-16.07; P < 0.002), vasopressor duration in days (OR = 1.27; 95% CI, 1.01-1.59; P = 0.037), APACHE II score (OR = 1.14; 95% CI, 1.05-1.24; P = 0.003), and type of infection (community vs nosocomial, OR = 0.18; 95% CI, 0.05-0.61; P = 0.006) as significant predictors. The 28-day mortality decreased from 61% (39/64) to 33% (18/54) after implementation of the protocol (P = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

Implementation of a sepsis protocol emphasizing early administration of antibiotic therapy and adequate fluid resuscitation was associated with improved clinical outcomes and lower 28-day mortality in patients with fluid-refractory septic shock at this institution.

Choice of vasopressor in septic shock: does it matter?

Septic shock is a medical emergency that is associated with mortality rates of 40–70%. Prompt recognition and institution of effective therapy is required for optimal outcome. When the shock state persists after adequate fluid resuscitation, vasopressor therapy is required to improve and maintain adequate tissue/organ perfusion in an attempt to improve survival and prevent the development of multiple organ dysfunction and failure. Controversy surrounding the optimum choice of vasopressor strategy to utilize in the management of patients with septic shock continues. A recent randomized study of epinephrine compared to norepinephrine (plus dobutamine when indicated) leads to more questions than answers.

Recognition and treatment of hyponatremia in acutely ill hospitalized patients

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this paper was to discuss the diagnosis, pathophysiology, and management of hyponatremia among critically ill, hospitalized patients (eg, after surgery or in the intensive care unit).

METHODS

English-language literature published between 1967 and 2006 was searched using several key words (AVP receptor antagonists, hyponatremia, SIADH, conivaptan, tolvaptan, and lixivaptan) and by accessing MEDLINE and ScienceDirect. Meeting abstracts from scientific sessions (American Society of Nephrology Renal Week 2004 and the Endocrine Society's 87th Annual Meeting [2005]) were reviewed. The package insert for conivaptan hydrochloride injection was referenced from . Clinical trials included in this review were randomized and placebo controlled.

RESULTS

Based on the literature we researched, hyponatremia is the most common electrolyte disorder encountered in critical care and is associated with a variety of conditions, including congestive heart failure and the syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone secretion. Because hyponatremia can arise in hypervolemic, euvolemic, and hypovolemic states, clinicians may not recognize its presence and cause. Incorrect management can lead to significant morbidity and mortality. Physicians need to recognize risk factors and symptoms and use appropriate treatment guidelines for hyponatremia. Traditionally, therapy for hyponatremia has been limited by efficacy and safety concerns. Arginine vasopressin (AVP) receptor antagonists, therapeutic agents that promote aquaresis in patients with hyponatremia by targeting V(1a) receptors in the vascular smooth muscle, V(2) receptors in the kidney, or both, are under development. A dual-receptor antagonist targeting both V(1a) and V(2) receptors is now approved for the treatment of euvolemic hyponatremia in hospitalized patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Hyponatremia, an electrolyte abnormality found in critically ill patients, can be associated with significant morbidity and mortality. AVP receptor antagonists show promise as effective and tolerable treatments for patients with hyponatremia.

Gram-Negative Resistance in the Intensive Care Unit

Gram-negative resistance is an increasingly important consideration when initiating empiric antimicrobial therapy in intensive care units. Infection with a resistant organism has been associated with increased morbidity and mortality as well as increased hospital cost. Gram-negative resistance in intensive care units will likely continue to increase. Clinicians must aggressively manage infections in the intensive care unit while practicing the appropriate steps to minimize future resistance. This review article summarizes the epidemiology, risk factors, mechanisms of resistance, and management of infections due to resistant gram-negative organisms.

New treatment strategies for severe sepsis and septic shock

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Severe sepsis and septic shock are common causes of morbidity and mortality in critically ill patients. The complexities of the septic cascade continue to emerge and may identify new targets for innovative patient management. This review will highlight some of the recent advances in our management of the patient with sepsis.

RECENT FINDINGS

The early administration of adequate antibiotic therapy, effective source control, and goal-directed hemodynamic resuscitation are the cornerstone of successful management. Prevention of the complications of critical illness and maintenance of normal glucose levels are also important elements of effective management. In patients with vasopressor-dependent septic shock, evaluation for inadequate cortisol response and the provision of physiologic doses of replacement steroids for those found to be deficient may result in improved survival. Administration of drotrecogin alfa (activated), (activated protein C) has been shown to improve survival in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock who have a high risk of mortality. Because of its anticoagulant properties, caution must be exercised with the use of activated protein C in those patients who meet the contraindications for its use or who have risk factors for increased bleeding complications.

SUMMARY

Significant advances have been made in our understanding of the septic cascade and our ability to manage patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. Despite these advances, significant morbidity and mortality continue. In addition, there is also considerable impact on the financial and overall function of the patient.

Syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone-induced hyponatremia associated with amiodarone

The syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone (SIADH), the most common cause of euvolemic hyponatremia, is due to nonphysiologic release of arginine vasopressin from the posterior pituitary. Hyponatremia induced by SIADH can be caused by several conditions, such as central nervous system disorders, malignancies, various nonmalignant lung diseases, hypoadrenalism, and hypothyroidism. A 67-year-old man developed hyponatremia consistent with SIADH. Although common comorbid conditions associated with SIADH were excluded as possible causes, his medical history and drug regimen were extensive. However, he had been taking spironolactone, amiodarone, and simvastatin for less than 3 months. Amiodarone was discontinued based on a case report suggesting that this drug can cause SIADH-induced hyponatremia. The patient's serum sodium level began to rise within 3 days of discontinuation and returned to normal within 1 month. Although SIADH-induced hyponatremia occurs only rarely, it should be recognized as a possible adverse effect of amiodarone.