Faculty Bibliography

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE/OBJECTIVE:Nationwide shortages of small-volume parenteral solutions (SVPS) compelled hospitals to develop strategies including the use of intravenous push (IVP) administration of antibiotics to reserve SVPS for absolute necessities. It is unknown if administration of beta-lactam antibiotics (BL) via IVP results in worse clinical outcomes compared to intravenous piggyback (IVPB) due to the potential inability to achieve pharmacodynamic targets. METHODS:Our health-system implemented a mandatory IVP action plan for BL from October 2017 to September 2018. This was a retrospective study of adult patients with GNB who received empiric therapy with IVPB (30 minutes) or IVP (5 minutes) cefepime (FEP) or meropenem (MEM) for at least 2 days. Endpoints included clinical response, microbiological clearance and mortality. All data are presented as n (%) or median (interquartile range). RESULTS:The final cohort included 213 patients (IVPB n = 105, IVP n = 108). The primary source of bacteremia was urinary, with Escherichia coli being the primary pathogen. Escalation of therapy was similar between groups (15 [14%] vs 11 [10%], P = .36) at a median of 3 days (P = .68). No significant differences were observed in any secondary endpoints including microbiological clearance, bacteremia recurrence, time to defervescence, WBC normalization, vasopressor duration or in-hospital mortality. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Our findings suggest no differences in clinical response with the use of IVP compared to IVPB FEP and MEM for treatment of GNB. This form of administration may be considered as a fluid conservation strategy in times of shortage.

As New York became the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic early on, clinicians were challenged to provide optimal medical and pharmaceutical care, despite the paucity of supporting literature and guidance. We sought to describe prescribing patterns and outcomes of physician response to the urgent need to treat COVID-19 patients before initiation of randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:Patients with cardiogenic shock after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) may require mechanical circulatory support (MCS). The combination of dual antiplatelet therapy with cangrelor and continuous anticoagulation required for MCS may increase the risk of bleeding. OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:The objective of the study is to describe the complications and outcomes of patients who received cangrelor during MCS following PCI. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:This is a single-center, retrospective, observational case series of 17 patients who received cangrelor while on MCS from June 2017 to September 2019. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:In a case series of 17 patients, 8 patients (47%) were supported with an Impella device and 4 patients (24%) with venoarterial (VA) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO); 5 required (29%) concomitant VA ECMO and Impella support in the setting of cardiogenic shock. All patients received triple antithrombotic therapy with aspirin, heparin, and cangrelor. Cangrelor was commonly initiated at a median dose of 0.75 (range 0.5-4) µg/kg/min. Cangrelor dose adjustments included changes in increments up to 0.25 µg/kg/min with review of P2Y12 levels. A total of 10 patients (59%) experienced a bleeding event, most commonly located at the peripheral cannulation site (40%) and in the gastrointestinal tract (30%). Seven (70%) and 3 (30%) of the bleeding complications were classified as major and minor, respectively. No patient developed in-stent thrombosis during the hospitalization; 14 (82%) patients survived their MCS course. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE/UNASSIGNED:This case series suggests that cangrelor doses less than 0.75 µg/kg/min may be beneficial. Larger studies should evaluate alternative dosing regimens.

Bleeding following cardiac surgery that warrants transfusion of blood products is associated with significant complications, including increased mortality at 1 year following surgery. Factor concentrates, such as prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC), or recombinant activated factor VII (rFVIIa) have been used off-label for bleeding in cardiac surgery that is refractory to conventional therapy. The objective of this retrospective study is to assess the hemostatic effectiveness of 4-factor PCC or rFVIIa for bleeding after a broad range of cardiac surgeries. Patients were included if they were at least 18 years of age and had undergone cardiac surgery with bleeding requiring intervention with 4-factor PCC or rFVIIa. There were no differences observed in the number of packed red blood cells (4-factor PCC: 2 units vs. rFVIIa: 2 units), fresh frozen plasma (0 units vs. 1 unit) or platelet (2 units vs. 2 units) transfusions following the administration of 4-factor PCC or rFVIIa. The patients in the rFVIIa group, required more cryoprecipitate than those in the 4-factor PCC group (4-factor PCC: 2 units (range 0-6) vs. rFVIIa: 2 units (range 0-8), p = 0.03). There were no differences in secondary outcomes of chest tube output at 2, 6, 12 and 24 hours, nor was there a difference in reexploration rates or the median length of stay in the intensive care unit. Thromboembolic complications at 30 days were similar between the two groups (4-factor PCC: 13% vs. rFVIIa 26%, p = 0.08). The total median dose requirement for 4-factor PCC was 1000 units (15 units/kg) and 2 mg (20 mcg/kg) for rFVIIa. The results demonstrate feasibility of utilizing the minimum amount of drug in order to achieve a desired effect. Both 4-factor PCC and rFVIIa appear to be safe and effective options for the management of bleeding associated with cardiac surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Increased intracranial pressure (ICP) in the setting of cerebral edema is a medical emergency in which 23.4% sodium chloride (23.4% NaCl) may be a lifesaving intervention. Recently, our institution updated the 23.4% NaCl prescriber order entry to default to IV push (IVP) over 2 or 5 minutes rather than IV piggyback (IVPB) over 30 minutes. There is limited data evaluating the safety of IVP administration of 23.4% NaCl.
METHOD(S): We performed a retrospective review of patients who received a dose of 23.4% NaCl (30 mL) at the NYU Langone Health System as either IVP or IVPB. The primary objective was to compare the incidence of adverse events (ADEs) including hypotension, bradycardia, or extravasation.
RESULT(S): Fifty patients were included in this study, with 24 (48%) receiving IVP over 2 (2,5) minutes and 26 (52%) receiving IVPB over 30 (30,30) minutes. The median age was 55 (41,66) years and 60% were female. The most common etiologies of cerebral edema were intracranial hemorrhage (20%), ischemic stroke (16%), and acute liver failure (14%). Indications for 23.4% NaCl included brain herniation (56%), acute increase in ICP (22%), or maintenance of a goal ICP or target sodium (22%). Apart from 2 doses administered peripherally, all doses were given via central access. The time from order entry of 23.4% NaCl to dose completion was significantly faster with IVP administration (IVP 31 [23,69] vs. IVPB 73 [57,126] minutes, p=0.001). No difference was observed in the incidence of ADEs between groups (IVP 7 [29%] vs. IVPB 5 [19%], p=0.411). Hypotension occurred in 6 (25%) vs. 4 (15%) patients (p=0.490) and bradycardia in 2 (8%) vs. 2 (8%) patients (p=1) in the IVP and IVPB arms, respectively. The median percent change from baseline for each hemodynamic variable was less than 3% regardless of administration rate. There were no reported extravasations.
CONCLUSION(S): We did not observe a difference in the incidence of ADEs between IVP and IVPB administration of 23.4% NaCl in patients with heterogeneous etiologies of cerebral edema. In an emergency where time is critical and may impact neurologic function, 23.4% NaCl administered as IVP may be a safe and faster alternative to IVPB administration

Background/UNASSIGNED:Ceftriaxone (CTX) and penicillin G (PCN G) are considered reasonable treatment options for viridans group streptococci (VGS) bloodstream infections, but comparisons between these agents are limited. We evaluated clinical outcomes among patients treated with these agents for complicated VGS bacteremia. Methods/UNASSIGNED:infections, treatment modification or discontinuation due to AEs from therapy, and development of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase resistance. Secondary outcomes included individual safety end points, VGS bacteremia recurrence, hospital readmission, and all-cause mortality. Results/UNASSIGNED: = .139). The driver of the composite outcome was hospital readmission due to VGS bacteremia or therapy complications. No secondary end points differed significantly between groups. On multivariate analysis, source removal was a protective factor of the primary composite safety outcome. Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:Despite potential safety concerns with the prolonged use of CTX in complicated VGS bacteremia, this study did not demonstrate higher rates of treatment failure, adverse events, or resistance.

Introduction/UNASSIGNED:Warfarin remains the preferred oral anticoagulant for the treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD). Although the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have become preferred for treatment of VTE in the general population, patients with advanced CKD were excluded from the landmark trials. Postmarketing, safety data have demonstrated oral factor Xa inhibitors (OFXais) such as apixaban and rivaroxaban to be alternatives to warfarin for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with atrial fibrillation. However, it remains unknown if these safety data can be extrapolated to the treatment of VTE and CKD. Methods/UNASSIGNED:A retrospective cohort study from January 2013 to October 2019 was performed at NYU Langone Health. All adult patients with CKD stage 4 or greater, treated with anticoagulation for VTE, were screened. The primary outcome was tolerability of anticoagulant therapy at 3 months, defined as a composite of bleeding, thromboembolic events, and/or discontinuation rates. The secondary outcomes included bleeding, discontinuations, and recurrent thromboembolism. Results/UNASSIGNED:. OFXais were better tolerated compared to warfarin for the treatment of VTE in CKD, with lower rates of bleeding, discontinuations, and recurrent thromboembolism in a small cohort. Future prospective studies are necessary to confirm these findings.

Background: Viridans group streptococci (VGS) is an infrequent yet significant cause of bloodstream infections, and complicated cases may require prolonged antibiotic therapy. Ceftriaxone (CTX) and penicillin G (PCN G) are both considered first line options for VGS infections, but comparisons between these agents are limited. We evaluated the clinical outcomes amongst patients treated with CTX and PCN G for complicated VGS bacteremia.
Method(s): This was a single-center, retrospective study of adult patients with >=1 positive VGS blood culture who were treated with either CTX or PCN G/ampicillin (both included in PCN G arm) between January 2013 and June 2019. The primary outcome was a composite of safety endpoints, including hospital readmission due to VGS or an adverse event (AE) from therapy, Clostridioides difficile infections, treatment modification or discontinuation due to an antibiotic-related AE, and development of extended-spectrum beta lactamase resistance. Secondary outcomes included the individual safety endpoints, VGS bacteremia recurrence, hospital readmission, and all-cause mortality.
Result(s): Of 328 patients screened for inclusion, 94 patients met eligibility criteria (CTX n= 64, PCN G n=34). Median age was 68 years (IQR 56-81) and 68% were male. Study patients did not present with critical illness, as reflected by a median Pitt bacteremia score of 0 in the CTX and 1 in the PCN G arms, P=0.764. Streptococcus mitis was the most common VGS isolate and infective endocarditis (IE) was the predominant source of infection. CTX was not significantly associated with increased risk of the primary outcome (14% vs. 27%; P= 0.139). The driver of the composite outcome was hospital readmission due to VGS bacteremia or therapy complications. Results were similar in the subgroup of patients with IE (12.5% vs. 23.5%). No secondary endpoints differed significantly between groups. On multivariate analysis, source removal was a protective factor of the primary outcome (OR 0.1; 95% CI 0.020-0.6771; P= 0.017).
Conclusion(s): Despite potential safety concerns with the prolonged use of CTX in complicated VGS bacteremia, this study did not demonstrate a higher rate of treatment failure, adverse events, or resistance. These findings warrant further exploration

BACKGROUND:Oral factor Xa inhibitors (OFXais) may interfere with the heparin antifactor Xa (antiXa) assay. The best method to measure heparin activity during the transition from an OFXai to intravenous (IV) unfractionated heparin (UFH) remains unknown. This study aimed to assess the safety and effectiveness of transitioning from an OFXai to UFH. METHODS:A retrospective analysis was conducted of patients with supratherapeutic antiXa levels on UFH who received either apixaban or rivaroxaban within 72 h prior to UFH initiation at NYU Langone Health (NYULH). The primary objective was to identify the incidence of interference on the heparin antiXa assay due to OFXai exposure in the previous 72 h. The secondary outcomes included the indication for transition to UFH and the rate of thromboembolic and bleeding events. RESULTS:A total of 93 patients with supratherapeutic antiXa activity levels with prior OFXai use were reviewed. Moderate renal impairment, defined as CrCl less than 49 mL/min, was present in 67 (72%) patients. The primary indication for transition from OFXai to UFH was in anticipation for a procedure, and it occurred in 37 (40%) patients. There were three major bleeding events and three clinically relevant non-major bleeding events. No thromboembolic events occurred. CONCLUSIONS:This study assessed the prevalence of supratherapeutic antiXa levels and clinical outcomes during the transition from OFXais to UFH. Healthcare systems should develop guidelines to assist clinicians in monitoring antiXa activity in patients undergoing a transition from an OFXai to UFH. It is also important to assess the patient's underlying thromboembolic and bleeding risks.