Nurses were satisfied with multiple aspects of insulin pens compared with vials/syringes. Implementation of insulin pen devices does not increase nursing time spent to teach patients to self-inject insulin and does not increase insulin-related needlestick injuries.
Increased patient satisfaction and continuation of the method of insulin administration used in the hospital at home were reported by patients who received insulin pens compared with patients who received conventional vials and syringes during hospitalization. A substantial cost saving was projected for patients in the insulin pen group if insulin pens had been dispensed during their entire hospital stay.
Postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) is a frequent complication of cardiac surgery that increases patient morbidity, length of stay, and hospital costs. A substantial body of evidence exists evaluating various pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic methods to decrease the occurrence of POAF in an effort to decrease its burden on the health care system. Evidence-based guidelines support the use of beta-blockers as standard prophylaxis of POAF in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Traditional prophylactic therapy for POAF targets the sympathetic nervous system, refractory period, and atrial conduction. However, associations between the development of POAF and the inflammatory process, oxidative stress, and atrial remodeling have prompted the investigation of novel therapies targeting these processes. To evaluate the role of pharmacologic strategies beyond beta-blockers in the prevention of POAF, we conducted a search of the PubMed database to identify studies published from 1950-February 2009. Emphasis was placed on how these therapies could be used in patients intolerant to beta-blockers or as additive therapy in high-risk patients. We found that sufficient evidence exists to recommend the use of amiodarone, sotalol, and possibly magnesium as monotherapy in patients unable to take beta-blockers or as add-on therapy for the prevention of POAF. Currently, available evidence does not support the use of propafenone, procainamide, digoxin, thiazolidinediones, triiodothyronine, or calcium channel blockers in the prevention of POAF. Preliminary evidence suggests that dofetilide, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors (statins), nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, corticosteroids, omega-3 fatty acids, ascorbic acid, N-acetylcysteine, and sodium nitroprusside may be effective in preventing POAF. Additional large-scale, adequately powered clinical studies are needed to determine the benefit of these agents before they can be considered for routine use.
Thrombosis is an underlying cause of many cardiovascular disorders, and generation of thrombi in the arterial circulation can lead to unstable angina, myocardial infarction, or ischemic stroke. Antithrombotic therapy is widely used, with proven benefit to prevent ischemic stroke and thromboembolic events in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) or to prevent further ischemic complications in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Traditional anticoagulants (including unfractionated heparin, low-molecular-weight heparin, and warfarin) and antiplatelet agents (including aspirin, clopidogrel, and prasugrel) are typically used for these indications. Limitations to their use include variable pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles, inability to inhibit fibrin-bound thrombin, risk of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, delayed onset of action, numerous drug interactions, need for substantial laboratory monitoring and dosage titrations, hyporesponsiveness or resistance, hypersensitivity, adverse events, and bleeding. To overcome some of the limitations of traditional agents, new antithrombotic agents under development are highly selective for specific coagulation factors blocking the synthesis of thrombin. Clinicians must have an understanding of the new anticoagulants to aid in the selection of appropriate therapies for patients. We describe the most relevant phases II and III clinical trials that evaluated several recent emerging anticoagulant drugs for use in patients with AF or ACS. The advantages of many new agents include predictable pharmaco-dynamic response and pharmacokinetic parameters, allowing for fixed oral dosing with no need for laboratory monitoring. For patients with AF, dabigatran is already approved for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism, rivaroxaban appears to be an effective alternative to warfarin in high-risk patients, and apixaban may also be an effective alternative to aspirin in patients unable to take warfarin. Otamixaban shows promise as an intravenous alternative for patients with ACS in the acute care setting. Likewise, rivaroxaban, dabigatran, and darexaban with or without dual antiplatelet therapy may be beneficial for secondary prevention of ischemic events in patients with ACS.
ESRD patients receiving hemodialysis (HD) were excluded from landmark trials evaluating direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in atrial fibrillation (AF). The objective was to evaluate prescribing and bleeding with DOACs compared to warfarin in AF patients with chronic HD. A retrospective, observational study of patients receiving warfarin or DOAC from April 2010-April 2016 from area health system hospitals and Dialysis Clinics, Inc. records. Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics, ANOVA, and chi-square. Ninety-one patients were included with warfarin as the initial OAC in most patients (n = 76) at average dose of 29 mg/week. Fifteen patients were initially prescribed apixaban (n = 12) or dabigatran (n = 3). Most switches in OAC therapy were to apixaban. When the initial OAC was a DOAC, it was not dosed appropriately in five with one bleed, two dosed appropriately had bleeds. When initial warfarin was switched to a DOAC, it was not dosed appropriately in seven with five bleeds. More bleeds occurred with warfarin alone (n = 18) vs. those on warfarin switched to DOAC (n = 5) vs. DOAC alone (n = 3), p = 0.022. All but four patients that bled had HAS-BLED scores three or higher. Warfarin was most often prescribed and associated with a higher incidence of bleeding compared to DOACs in this population of patients at high risk for bleeding. Larger studies should be conducted to analyze the impact of DOAC dose appropriateness on safety and clinical outcomes.
Objective: Hyperglycemia is common among hospitalized patients, affecting approximately 40% of patients at the time of hospital admission, despite the fact that 1 in every 8 patients has no previous diagnosis of diabetes. Hyperglycemia has been associated with poor patient outcomes, including higher rates of morbidity and mortality across a range of conditions. This review discusses options for the effective management of hyperglycemia with a focus on the use of disposable insulin pens in the hospital. Methods: Literature, including guidelines for hospital management of hyperglycemia, and information regarding methods of insulin administration were reviewed. Results: Appropriate glucose control via administration of insulin within hospitals has been acknowledged as an important goal and is consistent with achieving patient safety. Insulin may be administered subcutaneously using a pen or vial and syringe or infused intravenously. Levels of patient and provider satisfaction are higher with pen administration than with vial and syringe. Insulin pens have many safety and convenience features including enhanced dose accuracy and autocover/autoshield pen needles. Conclusion: Use of insulin pens instead of vials and syringes can provide several advantages for hospitalized patients, including greater satisfaction among them and health care providers, improved safety, and reduced costs. These advantages can continue following patient discharge.
BackgroundA paucity of data exists to examine nurses’ satisfaction with the use of insulin pens with safety needles in hospitalized patients with diabetes. We investigated major determinants of nurses’ preference of the method of insulin administration in the context of a General Hospital in Northern Italy.MethodsConsecutive patients admitted to three hospital units of different care intensity requiring insulin received insulin therapy through either the vial/syringe method (October to December 2012) or pen/safety needles with dual-ended protection method (January to March 2013). Before the implementation of insulin pens, floor nurses received a specific training program for proper insulin pen injection technique including individual testing of the devices (pen/safety needles). At the end of the study, nurses completed the Nursing Satisfaction Survey Questionnaire. Cronbach’s alpha was used to determine the internal consistency and reliability of the questionnaire. Major determinants of satisfaction were investigated through an exploratory factor analysis. The association between each retained factor and time spent to teach patients how to self-inject insulin with pen devices was also investigated.ResultsFifty-three out of 60 nurses (mean age ± SD 36.2 ± 8.5 years, 85 % women, 57 % with 10+ years of working experience) returned the questionnaire. Internal consistency of the questionnaire was satisfactory (Cronbach’s alpha > 0.9). Three months after their introduction, about 92 % of nurses considered pen devices an “improvement” over the vial/syringe method. Two factors explained 85 % of nurses’ satisfaction, one related to convenience and ease of use, and the other to satisfaction/time spent for dose preparation and administration. The latter factor was inversely correlated with time spent on patients’ training tasks.ConclusionsNurses’ satisfaction with pen devices was higher than previously reported, possibly reinforced by safety needles with dual-ended protection. Perceived workload was a major determinant of nurse satisfaction using pen devices with safety needles. To facilitate the introduction of insulin pens in the hospital setting, it should be specifically addressed during training programs in the switch-over period.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
334 Leonard St
Brooklyn, NY 11211
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.