Inappropriate medications in elderly ICU survivors: Where to intervene?
Center for Quality Aging, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee 37212, USA. Archives of internal medicine
(Impact Factor: 17.33).
06/2011; 171(11):1032-4. DOI: 10.1001/archinternmed.2011.233
Available from: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- "Clonidine itself should not be discontinued quickly due to the risk of rebound hypertension, and a gradual weaning plan should be in place prior to patient discharge from the ICU.78 The need for this planning is highlighted by the fact that, in some ICU cohorts, 85% of patients discharged from the hospital had potentially inappropriate medications on their discharge list, with 50% of these initially being prescribed in the ICU.79 "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Critically ill patients are routinely provided analgesia and sedation to prevent pain and anxiety, permit invasive procedures, reduce stress and oxygen consumption, and improve synchrony with mechanical ventilation. Regional preferences, patient history, institutional bias, and individual patient and practitioner variability, however, create a wide discrepancy in the approach to sedation of critically ill patients. Untreated pain and agitation increase the sympathetic stress response, potentially leading to negative acute and long-term consequences. Oversedation, however, occurs commonly and is associated with worse clinical outcomes, including longer time on mechanical ventilation, prolonged stay in the intensive care unit, and increased brain dysfunction (delirium and coma). Modifying sedation delivery by incorporating analgesia and sedation protocols, targeted arousal goals, daily interruption of sedation, linked spontaneous awakening and breathing trials, and early mobilization of patients have all been associated with improvements in patient outcomes and should be incorporated into the clinical management of critically ill patients. To improve outcomes, including time on mechanical ventilation and development of acute brain dysfunction, conventional sedation paradigms should be altered by providing necessary analgesia, incorporating propofol or dexmedetomidine to reach arousal targets, and reducing benzodiazepine exposure.
Clinical Pharmacology: Advances and Applications 10/2012; 4(1):53-63. DOI:10.2147/CPAA.S26582
Available from: Mary Jo Pugh
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To describe the prevalence of unplanned hospitalizations caused by adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in older veterans and to examine the association between this outcome and polypharmacy after controlling for comorbidities and other patient characteristics.
Veterans Affairs Medical Centers.
Six hundred seventy-eight randomly selected unplanned hospitalizations of older (aged ≥ 65) veterans between October 1, 2003, and September 30, 2006.
Naranjo ADR algorithm, ADR preventability, and polypharmacy (0-4, 5-8, and ≥9 scheduled medications).
Seventy ADRs involving 113 drugs were found in 68 (10%) hospitalizations of older veterans, of which 25 (36.8%) were preventable. Extrapolating to the population of more than 2.4 million older veterans receiving care during the study period, 8,000 hospitalizations may have been unnecessary. The most common ADRs that occurred were bradycardia (n = 6; beta-blockers, digoxin), hypoglycemia (n = 6; sulfonylureas, insulin), falls (n = 6; antidepressants, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors), and mental status changes (n = 6; anticonvulsants, benzodiazepines). Overall, 44.8% of veterans took nine or more outpatient medications and 35.4% took five to eight. Using multivariable logistic regression and controlling for demographic, health-status, and access-to-care variables, polypharmacy (≥9 and 5-8) was associated with greater risk of ADR-related hospitalization (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 3.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.43-10.61 and AOR = 2.85, 95% CI = 1.03-7.85, respectively).
ADRs, determined using a validated causality algorithm, are a common cause of unplanned hospitalization in older veterans, are frequently preventable, and are associated with polypharmacy.
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 12/2011; 60(1):34-41. DOI:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2011.03772.x · 4.57 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Balanced and safe prescribing is difficult to achieve in frail older adults with multiple comorbid diseases. For this reason, great efforts have been made in the search for interventions to improve efficacy, safety and appropriateness of prescriptions in this vulnerable population. Among these interventions, the avoidance of medications that are considered to be inappropriate, i.e. potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs), has been considered a valuable treatment option. The aim of the present review was to summarize evidence about the use of explicit criteria for PIMs to reduce the risk of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in older people. A PIM is a drug in which the risk of an adverse event outweighs its clinical benefit, particularly when there is evidence in favour of a safer or more effective alternative therapy for the same condition. Explicit criteria have been developed to identify PIMs, and among these, the Beers criteria have been the most frequently applied until recently. However, evidence suggests that such criteria can not easily be applied in European countries: several drugs listed in the 2003 Beers criteria were rarely prescribed or were not available in Europe and 2003 Beers-listed PIMs were not associated with ADRs in some studies. In the past few years, START/STOPP criteria have been developed and applied in several different studies and populations showing a greater ability to predict ADRs with respect to Beers criteria and to prevent potentially inappropriate prescribing. In 2012, Beers criteria have been updated using an evidence-based approach and future studies will investigate the impact of these and other criteria coming from ongoing studies on clinical outcomes relevant to geriatric populations.
Drug Safety 12/2012; 35 Suppl 1(S1):21-8. DOI:10.1007/BF03319100 · 2.82 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.