Background: Damage biomarkers are helpful in early identification of patients who are at risk of developing acute kidney injury (AKI). Investigations are ongoing to identify the optimal role of stress/damage biomarkers in clinical practice regarding AKI risk prediction, surveillance, diagnosis, and prognosis. Objective: To determine the impact of utilizing a clinical decision support system (CDSS) to guide stress biomarker testing in intensive care unit (ICU) patients at risk for drug-induced acute kidney injury (D-AKI). Methods: A protocol was designed utilizing a clinical decision support system (CDSS) alert to identify patients that were ordered 3 or more potentially nephrotoxic medications, suggesting risk for progressing to AKI from nephrotoxic burden. Once alerted to these high-risk patients, the pharmacist determined if action was needed by ordering a stress biomarker test, tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase-2-insulin-like growth factor-binding protein 7 (TIMP-2•IGFBP7). If the biomarker test result was elevated, the pharmacist provided nephrotoxin stewardship recommendations to the team. Pharmacists recorded the response to the clinical decision support alert, ordering, and interpreting the TIMP-2•IGFBP7, and information regarding clinical interventions. An alert in conjunction with TIMP-2•IGFBP7 as a strategy for AKI risk prediction and stimulant for patient care management was assessed. In addition, barriers and solutions to protocol implementation were evaluated. Results: There were 394 total activities recorded by pharmacists for 345 unique patients. Ninety-three (93/394; 23.6%) actionable alerts resulted in a TIMP-2•IGFBP7 test being ordered. Thirty-one TIMP-2•IGFBP7 results were >0.3 (31/81; 38.3%), suggesting a high-risk of progression to AKI, which prompted 191 pharmacist/team interventions. On average, there were 1.64 interventions per patient in the low-risk patients, 3.43 in high-risk patients, and 3.75 in the highest-risk patients. Conclusion and Relevance: Stress biomarkers can be used in conjunction with CDSS alerts to affect therapeutic decisions in ICU patients at high-risk for D-AKI.
Background: Reducing central venous catheter (CVC) utilization can reduce complications in the intensive care unit (ICU). While norepinephrine (NE) is traditionally administered via a CVC, lower concentrations may be safely administered via peripheral intravenous (PIV) lines. Objective: We aimed to describe the implementation of a pilot protocol utilizing PIVs to administer a low-dose and lower-concentration NE, review the number of CVCs avoided, and evaluate any adverse events. Methods: In a quaternary medical intensive care unit (MICU), from March 1, 2019, to February 29, 2020, we reviewed charts for CVC placement and adverse events from the pNE infusion. We also measured unit-level CVC utilization in all MICU patients and assessed the change in utilization associated with the peripheral norepinephrine (pNE) protocol. Results: Over a 1-year period, 87 patients received a pNE infusion. Overall, 44 patients (51%) never required CVC placement during their MICU stay. Three patients (3%) experienced adverse events, none of which were documented as serious and or required antidote for treatment. Implementation of the protocol was associated with a decrease in the number of patients at the unit level who received CVCs, even if they did not receive pNE. Conclusion and Relevance: In this small pilot study, we pragmatically demonstrated that pNE is safe and may reduce the need for CVC placement. This information can be used to aid in pNE protocol development and implementation at other institutions, but further research should be done to confirm the safety of routine use of pNE in clinical practice.
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.