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

Considerations and limitations of buprenorphine prescribing for opioid use disorder in the intensive care unit setting: A narrative review

PURPOSE

The purpose of this review is to discuss important considerations when prescribing buprenorphine for opioid use disorder (OUD) in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting, recognizing the challenges of providing detailed recommendations in the setting of limited available evidence.

SUMMARY

Buprenorphine is a partial mu-opioid receptor agonist that is likely to be increasingly prescribed for OUD in the ICU setting due to the relaxation of prescribing regulations. The pharmacology and pharmacokinetics of buprenorphine are complicated by the availability of several formulations that can be given by different administration routes. There is no single optimal dosing strategy for buprenorphine induction, with regimens ranging from very low-dose to high dose regimens. Faster induction with higher doses of buprenorphine has been studied and is frequently utilized in the emergency department. In patients admitted to the ICU who were receiving opioids either medically or illicitly, analgesia will not occur until their baseline opioid requirements are covered when their preadmission opioid is either reversed or interrupted. For patients in the ICU who are not on buprenorphine at the time of admission but have possible OUD, there are no validated tools to diagnose OUD or the severity of opioid withdrawal in critically ill patients unable to provide the subjective components of instruments validated in outpatient settings. When prescribing buprenorphine in the ICU, important issues to consider include dosing, monitoring, pain management, use of adjunctive medications, and considerations to transition to outpatient therapy. Ideally, addiction and pain management specialists would be available when buprenorphine is prescribed for critically ill patients.

CONCLUSION

There are unique challenges when prescribing buprenorphine for OUD in critically ill patients, regardless of whether they were receiving buprenorphine when admitted to the ICU setting for OUD or are under consideration for buprenorphine initiation. There is a critical need for more research in this area.

Phenobarbital-Based Protocol for Alcohol Withdrawal Syndrome in a Medical ICU: Pre-Post Implementation Study

We assessed the efficacy and safety of PB compared with benzodiazepine (BZD)-based protocols in treating AWS in MICU.

DESIGN

Single-center, pre-post protocol implementation study.

SETTING

The setting is a forty-bed MICU in a tertiary-level academic medical center.

PATIENTS

We included all patients admitted to the MICU with a primary diagnosis of AWS.

INTERVENTIONS

Intravenous PB 260 mg followed by 130-mg doses every 15-30 minutes as needed up to 15 mg/kg of ideal body weight versus escalating doses of BZD, to achieve a Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment Alcohol Scale-Revised score less than 10.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS), in addition to safety measures were the main outcomes of the study. A total of 102 patients were included, 51 in the PB arm and 51 in the BZD arm. There were no differences in baseline clinical characteristics. Half the patients in each group were admitted with delirium tremens. The use of PB-based protocol was associated with 35% reduction in median ICU LOS (1.5 d [interquartile range, 1.2-2.4 d] vs 2.3 d [1.4-4.8 d]; p = 0.009) and 50% reduction in hospital LOS (3 d [2.7-4 d] vs 6 d [4-10 d]; p < 0.001). After adjustment for comorbidities and clinical factors, PB protocol decreased ICU LOS days by 40% (95% CI; 25.8-53.5%). PB group required fewer adjunctive medications to control symptoms (0.7 [0.5-1] vs 2.5 [2-3]; p < 0.001), less need for intubation (1/51 [2%] vs 10/10 [19.6%]; p = 0.023) and less need for physical restraint (19/51 [37.3%] vs 29/51 [56.9%]; p = 0.047), compared with the BZD group.

CONCLUSIONS

A protocol utilizing rapidly escalating doses of PB over a short period is an effective and safe alternative to BZD in treating AWS in MICU.

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.

Prevention of alcohol withdrawal syndrome in the surgical ICU: an American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Critical Care Committee Clinical Consensus Document

Alcohol withdrawal syndrome is a common and challenging clinical entity present in trauma and surgical intensive care unit (ICU) patients. The screening tools, assessment strategies, and pharmacological methods for preventing alcohol withdrawal have significantly changed during the past 20 years. This Clinical Consensus Document created by the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Critical Care Committee reviews the best practices for screening, monitoring, and prophylactic treatment of alcohol withdrawal in the surgical ICU.

Management of Alcohol Withdrawal Syndrome in Patients with Alcoholic Liver Disease

Alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) is a common condition that is seen in treatment-seeking patients with Alcohol use disorder (AUD) and alcoholic liver disease (ALD). AWS, which typically starts within 4-6 h of the last alcohol use, can range from mild symptoms such as insomnia, tremors, and autonomic hyperactivity to more severe symptoms such as seizures and delirium tremens. Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment Scale-Alcohol Revised (CIWA-Ar) is the most commonly used scale to assess AWS in clinical practice. The presence of moderate withdrawal as indicated by a score of more than 8 is an indication for pharmacotherapy. Lorazepam and oxazepam are preferred agents for the management of AWS in the setting of ALD. In severe ALD, benzodiazepines should be used cautiously with monitoring due to the risk of excessive sedation or precipitating hepatic encephalopathy.

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.

[Treatment of alcohol withdrawal syndrome]

Alcohol withdrawal arises in result of long-lasting or short, but massive, alcohol abuse, manifests itself with oppressive symptoms and in some cases is complicated by seizures, hallucinosis and delirium tremens that may be life-threatening for patients. The leading neurochemical factors underlying alcohol withdrawal syndrome and its complications are lack of GABA and excessive glutamate activity, which is important for therapy choice. The first-line drugs in the treatment of alcohol withdrawal syndrome and alcoholic delirium are benzodiazepines, which have the maximum pharmacological similarity with ethanol. Other medications, including barbiturates, anticonvulsants, propofol, dexmedetomidine, and antipsychotics, may be used as alternatives to and in addition to benzodiazepines, especially in the case of protracted delirium with therapeutic resistance. Certain prospects in the treatment of alcohol withdrawal syndrome are associated with ethylmethylhydroxypyridine succinate, which is a bit similar to benzodiazepines in its pharmacology.