Implementation and Evaluation of Weight-Based Vasopressors in Intensive Care Units

IF 1.1 Q4 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Laurie DeMillard, Michael Thuyns
{"title":"Implementation and Evaluation of Weight-Based Vasopressors in Intensive Care Units","authors":"Laurie DeMillard, Michael Thuyns","doi":"10.1177/87551225231217905","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Vasopressors, including norepinephrine, epinephrine, and phenylephrine are commonly used to maintain mean arterial pressure (MAP) in critically ill patients. Despite their frequent use, the optimal dosing strategy for vasopressors remains understudied. Objective: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the implementation of a weight-based (WB) dosing strategy using ideal body weight compared to a non-weight-based (NWB) dosing strategy for vasopressors in critically ill patients. Methods: This is a retrospective chart review of patients admitted to intensive care units receiving vasopressor medications for greater than or equal to 4 hours. Patients received either an NWB or a WB vasopressor dosing strategy. The primary endpoint was the time to achieve goal MAP. Results: This study included 153 patients in the NWB vasopressor dosing group and 183 in the WB dosing group. The median time to achieve goal MAP in the NWB group was 24 minutes versus 21 minutes in the WB group ( P = 0.1713). There were no significant differences in secondary outcomes including number of vasoactive agents required, hospital length of stay, and duration of mechanical ventilation. Subgroup analysis of patients with extremes of body mass index did not show a difference in time to achieve goal MAP. In a subgroup analysis of patients with septic shock, a higher percentage of patients in the WB group received corticosteroids than the NWB group patients (14% vs. 54%; P ≤ 0.001). Conclusion and relevance: There was no difference in time to achieve goal MAP when using a WB or NWB vasopressor dosing approach. Institutions should employ a consistent dosing strategy for vasopressors with either an NWB or WB approach.","PeriodicalId":16796,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pharmacy Technology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pharmacy Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/87551225231217905","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Vasopressors, including norepinephrine, epinephrine, and phenylephrine are commonly used to maintain mean arterial pressure (MAP) in critically ill patients. Despite their frequent use, the optimal dosing strategy for vasopressors remains understudied. Objective: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the implementation of a weight-based (WB) dosing strategy using ideal body weight compared to a non-weight-based (NWB) dosing strategy for vasopressors in critically ill patients. Methods: This is a retrospective chart review of patients admitted to intensive care units receiving vasopressor medications for greater than or equal to 4 hours. Patients received either an NWB or a WB vasopressor dosing strategy. The primary endpoint was the time to achieve goal MAP. Results: This study included 153 patients in the NWB vasopressor dosing group and 183 in the WB dosing group. The median time to achieve goal MAP in the NWB group was 24 minutes versus 21 minutes in the WB group ( P = 0.1713). There were no significant differences in secondary outcomes including number of vasoactive agents required, hospital length of stay, and duration of mechanical ventilation. Subgroup analysis of patients with extremes of body mass index did not show a difference in time to achieve goal MAP. In a subgroup analysis of patients with septic shock, a higher percentage of patients in the WB group received corticosteroids than the NWB group patients (14% vs. 54%; P ≤ 0.001). Conclusion and relevance: There was no difference in time to achieve goal MAP when using a WB or NWB vasopressor dosing approach. Institutions should employ a consistent dosing strategy for vasopressors with either an NWB or WB approach.
在重症监护病房实施和评估基于体重的血管加压器
背景:血管加压药(包括去甲肾上腺素、肾上腺素和苯肾上腺素)常用于维持重症患者的平均动脉压(MAP)。尽管血管加压药使用频繁,但其最佳剂量策略仍未得到充分研究。研究目的本研究旨在评估重症患者使用血管加压药时,基于体重(WB)的理想体重给药策略与非基于体重(NWB)的给药策略的实施情况。方法:这是对重症监护病房收治的接受血管加压药物治疗超过或等于 4 小时的患者进行的回顾性病历审查。患者接受的是 NWB 或 WB 血管加压药剂量策略。主要终点是达到目标 MAP 的时间。研究结果该研究的 NWB 加压剂给药组和 WB 给药组分别有 153 名和 183 名患者。NWB 组达到目标 MAP 的中位时间为 24 分钟,而 WB 组为 21 分钟(P = 0.1713)。在次要结果方面,包括所需血管活性药物的数量、住院时间和机械通气持续时间,两组之间没有明显差异。对体重指数极端的患者进行的亚组分析表明,达到目标 MAP 的时间没有差异。在对脓毒性休克患者进行的亚组分析中,WB 组患者接受皮质类固醇治疗的比例高于 NWB 组患者(14% 对 54%;P ≤ 0.001)。结论和意义:使用 WB 或 NWB 血管抑制剂剂量方法时,达到目标 MAP 的时间没有差异。医疗机构应采用一致的剂量策略,使用 NWB 或 WB 法使用血管加压药。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Pharmacy Technology
Journal of Pharmacy Technology PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY-
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
49
期刊介绍: For both pharmacists and technicians, jPT provides valuable information for those interested in the entire body of pharmacy practice. jPT covers new drugs, products, and equipment; therapeutic trends; organizational, legal, and educational activities; drug distribution and administration; and includes continuing education articles.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信