Beyond the evidence: treating pulmonary hypertension in the intensive care unit

Outcomes and prognostic factors of decompensated pulmonary hypertension in the intensive care unit

BACKGROUND

Patients with acute decompensation of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) and chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) admitted to intensive care unit (ICU) have high in-hospital mortality. We hypothesized that pulmonary hypertension (PH) severity, measured by a simplified version of European Society of Cardiology/European Respiratory Society (ESC/ERS) risk assessment, and the severity of organ dysfunction upon ICU admission, measured by sequential organ failure assessment score (SOFA) were associated with in-hospital mortality in decompensated patients with PAH and CTEPH. We also described clinical and laboratory variables during ICU stay.

METHODS

Observational study including adults with decompensated PAH or CTEPH with unplanned ICU admission between 2014 and 2019. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to evaluate the association of ESC/ERS risk assessment and SOFA score with in-hospital mortality. ESC/ERS risk assessment and SOFA score were included in a decision tree to predict in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

73 patients were included. In-hospital mortality was 41.1%. ESC/ERS high-risk group (adjusted odds ratio = 95.52) and SOFA score (adjusted odds ratio = 1.80) were associated with in-hospital mortality. The decision tree identified four groups with in-hospital mortality between 8.1% and 100%. Nonsurvivors had a lower central venous oxygen saturation, higher arterial lactate and higher brain natriuretic peptide in the end of first week in the ICU.

CONCLUSIONS

High-risk on a simplified version of ERS/ESC risk assessment and SOFA score upon ICU admission are associate with in-hospital mortality. A decision tree based on ESC/ERS risk assessment and SOFA score identifies four groups with in-hospital mortality between 8.1% and 100%.

Pulmonary arterial hypertension in the emergency department: A focus on medication management

Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is a chronic progressive incurable condition associated with a high degree of morbidity and mortality. With over five drug classes FDA approved in the last decade, the significant advancements in the pharmacologic management of PAH has improved long-term outcomes. Drug therapies have been developed to directly target the underlying pathogenesis of PAH including phosphodiesterase type-5 inhibitors (PDE-5i), endothelin-receptor antagonists (ERAs), guanylyl-cyclase inhibitors, prostacyclin analogues, and prostacyclin receptor agonists. Although these agents offer remarkable benefits, there are significant challenges with their use such as complexities in medication dosing, administration, and adverse effects. Given these consequences, PAH medications are classified as high-risk, and the transitions of care process to and from the hospital setting are a vulnerable area for medication errors in this population. Thus, it is crucial for the emergency department provider to appropriately identify, manage, and triage these patients through close collaboration with a multidisciplinary team to ensure safe and effective medication management for PAH patients in the acute care setting.

Pulmonary Hypertension in Intensive Care Units: An Updated Review

Pulmonary hypertension (PH) is a condition associated with high morbidity and mortality. Patients with PH who require critical care usually have severe right ventricular (RV) dysfunction. Although different groups of PH have different etiologies, pulmonary vascular dysfunction is common in these groups. PH can lead to increased pulmonary artery pressure, which can ultimately cause RV failure. Clinicians should be familiar with the presentations of this disease and diagnostic tools. The contributing factors, if present (e.g., sepsis), and coexisting conditions (e.g., arrhythmias) should be identified and addressed accordingly. The preload should be optimized by fluid administration, diuretics, and dialysis, if necessary. On the other hand, the RV afterload should be reduced to improve the RV function with pulmonary vasodilators, such as prostacyclins, inhaled nitric oxide, and phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors, especially in group 1 PH. Inotropes are also used to improve RV contractility, and if inadequate, use of ventricular assist devices and extracorporeal life support should be considered in suitable candidates. Moreover, vasopressors should be used to maintain systemic blood pressure, albeit cautiously, as they increase the RV afterload. Measures should be also taken to ensure adequate oxygenation. However, mechanical ventilation is avoided in RV failure. In this study, we reviewed the pathophysiology, manifestations, diagnosis, monitoring, and management strategies of PH, especially in intensive care units.

Impact of the introduction of a specialist critical care pharmacist on the level of pharmaceutical care provided to the critical care unit

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the impact of a dedicated specialist critical care pharmacist service on patient care at a UK critical care unit (CCU).

METHODS

Pharmacist intervention data was collected in two phases. Phase 1 was with the provision of a non-specialist pharmacist chart review service and Phase 2 was after the introduction of a specialist dedicated pharmacy service. Two CCUs with established critical care pharmacist services were used as controls. The impact of pharmacist interventions on optimising drug therapy or preventing harm from medication errors was rated on a 4-point scale.

KEY FINDINGS

There was an increase in the mean daily rate of pharmacist interventions after the introduction of the specialist critical care pharmacist (5.45 versus 2.69 per day, P < 0.0005). The critical care pharmacist intervened on more medication errors preventing potential harm and optimised more medications. There was no significant change to intervention rates at the control sites. Across all study sites the majority of pharmacist interventions were graded to have at least moderate impact on patient care.

CONCLUSION

The introduction of a specialist critical care pharmacist resulted in an increased rate of pharmacist interventions compared to a non-specialist pharmacist service thus improving the quality of patient care.