Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Previous literature has suggested that a short course of corticosteroids is similarly effective as an extended course for managing an acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD). However, there are limited data regarding the optimal corticosteroid regimen in critically ill patients and the dosing strategies remain highly variable in this population. METHODS:This retrospective cohort study evaluated patients with AECOPD admitted to the intensive care unit within a 2-year period. Patients were divided into short-course (≤5 days) or extended-course (>5 days) corticosteroid taper groups. The primary end point was treatment failure, defined as the need for intubation, reintubation, or noninvasive mechanical ventilation. Secondary end points included the duration of mechanical ventilation, hospital and intensive care unit length of stay, and adverse events. RESULTS:Of the 151 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 94 received an extended taper and 57 received a short taper. Treatment failure occurred in 3 patients, who were all in the extended taper group ( P = .17). In a propensity score-matched cohort, the hospital length of stay was 7 days in the short taper group compared to 11 days in the extended taper group ( P < .0001). No differences in adverse events were observed. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:A short-course corticosteroid taper in critically ill patients with AECOPD is associated with reduced hospital length of stay and decreased corticosteroid exposure without increased risk of treatment failure. A prospective randomized trial is warranted.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Risk stratification for acute pulmonary embolism using imaging presence of right ventricular dysfunction is essential for triage; however, comprehensive transthoracic echocardiography has limited availability. We assessed the accuracy and timeliness of Pulmonary Critical Care Medicine Fellow's performance of goal-directed echocardiograms and intensivists' interpretations for evaluating right ventricular dysfunction in acute pulmonary embolism. DESIGN/METHODS:Prospective observational study and retrospective chart review. SETTING/METHODS:Four hundred fifty bed urban teaching hospital. PATIENTS/METHODS:Adult in/outpatients diagnosed with acute pulmonary embolism. INTERVENTIONS/METHODS:Pulmonary critical care fellows performed and documented their goal-directed echocardiogram as normal or abnormal for right ventricular size and function in patients with acute pulmonary embolism. Gold standard transthoracic echocardiography was performed on schedule unless the goal-directed echocardiogram showed critical findings. Attending intensivists blinded to the clinical scenario reviewed these exams at a later date. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS/RESULTS:Two hundred eighty-seven consecutive patients were evaluated for acute PE. Pulmonary Critical Care Medicine Fellows performed 154 goal-directed echocardiograms, 110 with complete cardiology-reviewed transthoracic echocardiography within 48 hours for comparison. Pulmonary Critical Care Medicine Fellow's area under the curve for size and function was 0.83 (95% CI, 0.75-0.90) and 0.83 (95% CI, 0.75-0.90), respectively. Intensivists' 1/2 area under the curve for size and function was (1) 0.87 (95% CI, 0.82-0.94), (1) 0.87 (95% CI, 0.80-0.93) and (2) 0.88 (95% CI, 0.82-0.95), (2) 0.88 (95% CI, 0.82-0.95). Median time difference between goal-directed echocardiogram and transthoracic echocardiography was 21 hours 18 minutes. CONCLUSIONS:This is the first study to evaluate pulmonary critical care fellows' and intensivists' use of goal-directed echocardiography in diagnosing right ventricular dysfunction in acute pulmonary embolism. Pulmonary Critical Care Medicine Fellows and intensivists made a timely and accurate assessment. Screening for right ventricular dysfunction using goal-directed echocardiography can and should be performed by pulmonary critical care physicians in patients with acute pulmonary embolism.

Non-opioid analgesics are often administered to emergency department (ED) patients with musculoskeletal pain but if inadequate, opioids are given with associated potential adverse events. We tested the hypothesis that the reduction in pain scores with the combination of ibuprofen and acetaminophen would be at least 15 mm greater than with either of the agents alone. We conducted a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial of adult ED patients with acute musculoskeletal pain. Patients were randomized to oral ibuprofen 800 mg, acetaminophen 1 g, or their combination. Pain scores across the groups were compared with repeated measures analysis of variance at 20, 40, and 60 minutes. A sample of 30 patients in each group had 80% power to detect a 15 mm difference in pain scores across the groups (α = .05). Thirty patients were randomized to each study group. Mean (SD) age was 36 (15), 54% were male, 73% were white, and 13% were Hispanic. Groups were well balanced in baseline characteristics including initial pain scores (59, 61, and 62 for ibuprofen, acetaminophen, and their combination). Pain decreased over the one hour study period for all groups (P < .001) with mean (SD) scores about 20 mm lower on the Visual Analogue Scale than the mean initial score. However, there was no significant difference among treatments (P = .59). The need for rescue analgesics was similar across groups. We conclude that the combination of ibuprofen and acetaminophen did not reduce pain scores or the need for rescue analgesics compared with either agent alone in ED patients with pain secondary to acute musculoskeletal injuries.