Cardiac complications in the intensive care unit

Geropharmacology: a primer for advanced practice acute care and critical care nurses, part I

Advanced practice nurses' challenge in managing older adults' medication regimens from an evidence base is difficult because older adults are vulnerable to medication errors and adverse drug reactions related to a number of factors. Predicting patients' responses to drugs is compounded during critical illness, adding to the heterogeneity and unpredictability of drug effects that are prevalent premorbidly. In the first part of this 2-part continuing education series, sources of medication errors and older adults' vulnerability are discussed, including normal changes of aging affecting pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, polypharmacy, self-medicating, patient-family noncompliance, and inappropriately prescribed medications. In the second part, drug classes and drugs posing particular problems for older adults and cautions for acute care and critical care nurses who manage the medications of older adults are highlighted.

Reversible myoglobinuric renal failure following rhabdomyolysis as a rare complication of cardioversion

Reversible myoglobinuric renal failure following rhabdomyolysis that was related to repeated countershocks delivered for the treatment of refractory recurrent VT and VF attacks during acute myocardial infarction is presented in this case report, in which scan with technetium-99m pyrophosphate has been used for in the diagnosis of extensive skeletal muscle damage.

Detection of adverse drug reactions in a neurological department: comparison between intensified surveillance and a computer-assisted approach

OBJECTIVES

Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) leading to hospitalisation or occurring during hospital stay contribute significantly to patient morbidity and mortality as well as representing an additional cost for healthcare systems. The aim of this study was to provide data about the type and incidence of ADRs in a neurological department and to compare two different methodological approaches to collecting information on ADRs.

METHODS

The two methods used were intensified surveillance of neurological wards by daily ward rounds and computer-assisted screening for ADRs by means of pathological laboratory parameters.

RESULTS

Of admissions to the neurological department, 2.7% were caused by an ADR and 18.7% of patients experienced at least one ADR during hospitalisation. The positive predictive values of pathological laboratory parameters ranged between 0% (eosinophil count) and 100% for increased drug serum concentrations and international normalised ratio, i.e. the latter were always accompanied by a clinically relevant ADR. However, only half of all ADR could be detected by pathological laboratory parameters, the sensitivity of this method came to 45.1% with a specificity of 78.9%.

CONCLUSION

Similar to departments of internal medicine, a high number of ADRs occur on neurological wards. The predominant ADRs were those typical of neurotropic medications such as dyskinesia and increased sedation. Due to the age of the patients involved, cardiovascular co-medication is often prescribed and represents an additional risk factor for ADRs. By measuring pathological laboratory parameters the majority of ADRs could not be detected in neurological patients.

Methods and systems to detect adverse drug reactions in hospitals

Detection of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in hospitals offers the chance to detect serious ADRs resulting in hospitalisation and ADRs occurring in hospitalised patients, i.e. patients with high comorbidity and receiving drugs that are administered only in hospitals. The most commonly applied methods involve stimulated spontaneous reporting of doctors and nurses, comprehensive collection by trained specialists and, more recently, computer-assisted approaches using routine data from hospital information systems. The different methods of ADR detection used result in different rates and types of ADRs and, consequently, in different drug classes being responsible for these ADRs. Another factor influencing the results of surveys is the interpretation of the term ADR, where some authors adhere to the strict definition of the World Health Organization and many others include intended and unintended poisoning as well as errors in prescribing and dispensing, thus referring to adverse drug events. Depending on the method used for screening of patients, a high number of possible ADRs and only few definite ADRs are found, or vice versa. These variations have to be taken into account when comparing the results of further analyses performed with these data. ADR rates and incidences in relation to the number of drugs prescribed or patients exposed have been calculated in only a few surveys and projects, and this interesting pharmacoepidemiological approach deserves further study. In addition, the pharmacoeconomic impact of ADRs, either resulting in hospitalisation or prolonging hospital stay, has been estimated using different approaches. However, a common standardised procedure for such calculations has not yet been defined. Although detection of ADRs in hospitals offers the opportunity to detect severe ADRs of newly approved drugs, these ADRs are still discovered by spontaneous reporting systems. The prospects offered by electronic hospital information systems as well as implementation of pharmacoepidemiological approaches increases the possibilities and the value of ADR detection in hospitals.