Introduction Low-molecular-weight heparins are the standard treatment for cancer-associated thrombosis. Recently, direct oral anticoagulants are a new option for thrombosis treatment; however, data supporting the use of direct oral anticoagulants for cancer-associated thrombosis are limited. Objectives The primary objective of this study was to determine the rate of recurrent cancer-associated thrombosis and major bleeding within 6 months of starting either low-molecular-weight heparin or direct oral anticoagulant for treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis. Secondary objectives were to determine the rates of clinically relevant-non-major bleeding and all-cause mortality. Patients/methods This is a retrospective cohort study including adults with cancer-associated thrombosis treated with low-molecular-weight heparin or direct oral anticoagulant between 2010 and 2016 at the Ohio State University. Medical records were reviewed for 6 months after initiation of anticoagulation or until the occurrence of recurrent cancer-associated thrombosis, major bleeding, cessation of anticoagulation of interest, or death, whichever occurred first. Results Four hundred and eighty patients were included (290 low-molecular-weight heparin and 190 direct oral anticoagulant). Patients treated with direct oral anticoagulant were found to carry "lower risk" features including cancer with lower VTE risk and lower rate of metastatic disease. After adjustment for baseline differences, there was no significant difference in the rate of recurrent cancer-associated thrombosis (7.2% low-molecular-weight heparin vs 6.3% direct oral anticoagulant, p = 0.71) or major bleeding (7.6% low-molecular-weight heparin vs 2.6% direct oral anticoagulant, p = 0.08). Conclusions Our study demonstrates that in a select population of cancer patients with VTE, direct oral anticoagulant use can be as effective and safe compared to the standard therapy with low-molecular-weight heparin.
Continuing professional development is a lifelong process that is multifaceted, holistic, self‐directed, and is not a replacement for continuing education. Through ongoing professional development, pharmacists can improve their skill set in a broad range of clinical, educational, research, and administrative activities. Not only does development of this growth benefit the individual pharmacist, but also the institution and pharmacy profession. In 2020, the American College of Clinical Pharmacy, the Society of Critical Care Medicine, and the American Society of Health‐System Pharmacists published an updated position paper on critical care pharmacy services. A new recommendation in the update was to create mechanisms for critical care pharmacists to develop their career and professional development. Herein, we describe our experience with the development and implementation of a critical care pharmacy career professional development program using peer‐to‐peer coaching within a large academic medical center. Professional development is not a one size fits all and should be individualized. We initially focused on developing research skills based on initial surveys. Afterwards professional development was varied we created new resources such as journal referee “how‐to” and teaching in a flipped classroom.
Purpose Pharmacists are integral members of the healthcare team, but interventions are not always captured due to documentation limitations. This study evaluated the impact of implementing a tracking tool to address gaps in capturing pharmacist interventions. Methods A prospective, observational study was conducted to assess pharmacist interventions between July and November 2020. Twelve critical care pharmacists captured interventions on 10 weekdays using a tracking tool (iVent—Epic®) embedded in the electronic medical record (EMR) to capture high frequency interventions not standardly captured via existing standard note documentation (e.g., renal/hepatic dose adjustment, parenteral nutrition management). Value added of the interventions is proposed. Patients' baseline demographics, interventions, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS) were collected. The primary outcome was to determine the added benefit of using a tracking tool within the EMR to capture pharmacist interventions compared to progress note documentation. Results Two thousand seven hundred and eighty‐three interventions were documented on 514 unique patients over 120 pharmacist shifts. Of these, 2363 (84.9%) interventions were captured through iVent tracking. The median SOFA score on day of intervention was 4 [interquartile range (IQR) 2–7] and ICU LOS was 3.5 days [IQR 1.5–9]. The median number of interventions per patient per day was 2 [IQR 1–3]. A significant difference was observed among days of the week and the number of iVents documented (χ2 = 13.172, p = 0.01, df = 4). The post hoc pairwise comparison revealed more documented iVents on Tuesday than Friday. Conclusion This study reveals that an iVent tracking tool increased total capture of pharmacist interventions by 563%. These interventions can be associated with value‐based programs and further work is needed in highlighting the pharmacist's role in these new payment models. This study confirms that the current standard practice at this institution of solely entering pharmacist progress notes into the patient chart misses a majority of pharmacist interventions.
Objective: To review the clinical effects of nebulized heparin and N-acetylcysteine (NAC) in patients with smoke inhalation injury (IHI) and provide recommendations for use. Data Sources: A search of PubMed, MEDLINE, and Scopus databases was completed from database inception through April 15, 2020, using terms: heparin, acetylcysteine, smoke inhalation injury, and burn injury. Study Selection and Data Extraction: All studies pertaining to efficacy and safety of nebulized heparin and/or NAC for IHI in adult patients were evaluated. Reference lists were reviewed for additional publications. Nonhuman studies, non-English, and case report publications were excluded. Data Synthesis: Eight studies were included. Four demonstrated positive outcomes, 3 demonstrated no benefit or possible harm, and 1 assessed safety. Supporting trials treated patients within 48 hours of injury with 10 000 units of nebulized heparin with NAC for 7 days or until extubation. Two trials with negative findings treated patients within 72 hours, or unspecified, with 5000 units of nebulized heparin with NAC for 7 days, while the third used 25 000 units within 36 hours but was grossly underpowered for analysis. Clinical findings include reduced duration of mechanical ventilation and improved lung function with possible increase risk of pneumonia and no evidence of increased bleeding risk. Conclusions: Nebulized heparin may improve oxygenation and reduce duration of mechanical ventilation in IHI. If nebulized heparin is used, 10 000 units every 4 hours alternating with NAC and albuterol at 4-hour intervals is recommended. Sterile technique should be emphasized. Monitoring for bronchospasm or new-onset pneumonia should be considered.
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
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.