The Severity of Ethanol Withdrawal Scale in Scale-Driven Alcohol Withdrawal Treatment: A Quality Assurance Study

Working Toward a Gold Standard: The Severity of Ethanol Withdrawal Scale (SEWS) Versus the Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment Alcohol Scale (CIWA-Ar)

AIM

Proving the Severity of Ethanol Withdrawal Scale (SEWS) significantly reduces Alcohol Withdrawal Syndrome (AWS) treatment Time on Medication Protocol (TOMP).

METHOD

Head-to-head Quality Assurance outcome compared separate cohorts of SEWS or Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment Alcohol Scale, Revised (CIWA-Ar) data using Student's t and Wilcoxon tests.

RESULTS

SEWS-driven treatment (n = 244) reduced TOMP to 2.2 days versus 3.4 days for CIWA-Ar (n = 137); P < 0.0001.

CONCLUSION

The SEWS is the superior measure of AWS symptoms.

Correlation Between and Nursing Satisfaction With CIWA-Ar, mMINDS, and SEWS Scoring Tools for the Assessment of Severe Alcohol Withdrawal Syndrome in ICU Patients

BACKGROUND

Management of alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) requires bedside assessments of symptom severity to guide therapies. Commonly used assessment tools are the Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment for Alcohol (CIWA-Ar), the modified Minnesota Detoxification Scale (mMINDS) and the Severity of Ethanol Withdrawal Scale (SEWS).

OBJECTIVE

To determine strength of correlation between the CIWA-Ar, mMINDS, and SEWS for bedside assessment of severe AWS and to survey nurses regarding ease of use of each tool.

METHODS

A single-center prospective correlation study of the three assessment tools performed by bedside nurses on patients with AWS followed by a questionnaire assessing ease of use of each tool (1 being the easiest and 9 being the hardest).

RESULTS

A total of 66 correlation assessments were performed by 49 nurses in 21 patients with AWS. Bedside CIWA-Ar, mMINDS, and SEWS were 14 ± 8.3, 13.9 ± 6.5, and 10.1 ± 4.5, respectively. The Pearson correlation coefficients were 0.814 (95% CI, 0.714-0.881) between CIWA-Ar and mMINDS; 0.722 (95% CI, 0.585-0.820) between CIWA-Ar and SEWS; and 0.658 (95% CI, 0.498-0.775) between SEWS and mMINDS. Nurse ratings for ease of use were 4 ± 2.3 for CIWA-Ar, 2.9 ± 2 for mMINDS (p=0.0044 vs. CIWA-Ar), and 4.8 ± 2.1 for SEWS (p=0.036 vs. CIWA-Ar, p<0.0001 vs. mMINDS). Forty-six (69.7%) respondents preferred mMINDS versus 14 (21.2%) and 6 (9.1%) respondents favored CIWA-Ar and SEWS, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Correlations between the three scoring tools in severe AWS are robust. Only mMINDS was considered easy to use by nurses. It was the preferred tool.

Research Needs for Inpatient Management of Severe Alcohol Withdrawal Syndrome: An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement

Background: Severe alcohol withdrawal syndrome (SAWS) is highly morbid, costly, and common among hospitalized patients, yet minimal evidence exists to guide inpatient management. Research needs in this field are broad, spanning the translational science spectrum. Goals: This research statement aims to describe what is known about SAWS, identify knowledge gaps, and offer recommendations for research in each domain of the Institute of Medicine T0-T4 continuum to advance the care of hospitalized patients who experience SAWS. Methods: Clinicians and researchers with unique and complementary expertise in basic, clinical, and implementation research related to unhealthy alcohol consumption and alcohol withdrawal were invited to participate in a workshop at the American Thoracic Society 2019 International Conference. The committee was subdivided into four groups on the basis of interest and expertise: T0-T1 (basic science research with translation to humans), T2 (research translating to patients), T3 (research translating to clinical practice), and T4 (research translating to communities). A medical librarian conducted a pragmatic literature search to facilitate this work, and committee members reviewed and supplemented the resulting evidence, identifying key knowledge gaps. Results: The committee identified several investigative opportunities to advance the care of patients with SAWS in each domain of the translational science spectrum. Major themes included 1) the need to investigate non-γ-aminobutyric acid pathways for alcohol withdrawal syndrome treatment; 2) harnessing retrospective and electronic health record data to identify risk factors and create objective severity scoring systems, particularly for acutely ill patients with SAWS; 3) the need for more robust comparative-effectiveness data to identify optimal SAWS treatment strategies; and 4) recommendations to accelerate implementation of effective treatments into practice. Conclusions: The dearth of evidence supporting management decisions for hospitalized patients with SAWS, many of whom require critical care, represents both a call to action and an opportunity for the American Thoracic Society and larger scientific communities to improve care for a vulnerable patient population. This report highlights basic, clinical, and implementation research that diverse experts agree will have the greatest impact on improving care for hospitalized patients with SAWS.

Should the CIWA-Ar be the standard monitoring strategy for alcohol withdrawal syndrome in the intensive care unit?

BACKGROUND

The Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment for Alcohol-Revised (CIWA-Ar) is commonly used in hospitals to titrate medications for alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS), but may be difficult to apply to intensive care unit (ICU) patients who are too sick or otherwise unable to communicate.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the frequency of CIWA-Ar monitoring among ICU patients with AWS and variation in CIWA-Ar monitoring across patient demographic and clinical characteristics.

METHODS

The study included all adults admitted to an ICU in 2017 after treatment for AWS in the Emergency Department of an academic hospital that standardly uses the CIWA-Ar to assess AWS severity and response to treatment. Demographic and clinical data, including Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) assessments (an alternative measure of agitation/sedation), were obtained via chart review. Associations between patient characteristics and CIWA-Ar monitoring were tested using logistic regression.

RESULTS

After treatment for AWS, only 56% (n = 54/97) of ICU patients were evaluated using the CIWA-Ar; 94% of patients had a documented RASS assessment (n = 91/97). Patients were significantly less likely to receive CIWA-Ar monitoring if they were intubated or identified as Black.

CONCLUSIONS

CIWA-Ar monitoring was used inconsistently in ICU patients with AWS and completed less often in those who were intubated or identified as Black. These hypothesis-generating findings raise questions about the utility of the CIWA-Ar in ICU settings. Future studies should assess alternative measures for titrating AWS medications in the ICU that do not require verbal responses from patients and further explore the association of race with AWS monitoring.

Executive Summary of the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) Clinical Practice Guideline on Alcohol Withdrawal Management

: The American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) Clinical Practice Guideline on Alcohol Withdrawal Management provides guidance on the identification and management of alcohol withdrawal in adults with varying degrees of syndrome severity. The guideline addresses both ambulatory and inpatient care and considers special patient populations. The Guideline was primarily developed following the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RAM), a process to determine the appropriateness of a set of clinical procedures. This process included a review of gray and empirical literature published between January 2012 and October 2017. Nineteen existing guidelines, 112 reviews, and 150 research studies were used to develop draft guideline statements that were assessed by a panel of physicians experienced in withdrawal management and representing a diverse range of settings and patient populations. Recommendations were included in the Guideline where consensus on appropriate clinical practice was identified by the panel. Areas where additional research would provide valuable information for determining best practices were highlighted.