Effective combination regimens included all beta-lactam aminoglycoside regimens. Receipt of IV antibiotics within 90 days and hospital LOS greater than or equal to five days were independent risk factors for MDR isolates.

Despite propofol's pregnancy category B rating, data are lacking in humans regarding its safe use during pregnancy and long-term developmental outcomes in children after exposure to propofol in utero. The safety of propofol as a sedative agent for critically ill pregnant patients remains unknown.

The safety of parenteral nutrition (PN) administration in critically ill patients has been the subject of much controversy. Historically, PN administration has been associated with an increased risk of bacterial and fungal infections, leading to significant morbidity and mortality. Much of the data showing increased infectious complications compared with either no nutrition or enteral nutrition was derived from early studies conducted in the 1980s-2000s. Poor glucose control and hyperalimentation are confounding factors in many early studies, making it difficult to determine the true PN infection risks. While PN studies conducted during the past 10 years have failed to show the same infection rates, these risks continue to be cited as dogma. Potential reasons for such discordant results include improved glycemic control, avoidance of overfeeding, and improved sterility and central venous catheter care. Understanding the true infectious risk of PN administration in the intensive care unit is necessary to optimize patient care, as inappropriately withholding such nutrition is potentially deleterious. This review is meant to serve as a practical guide to the bedside clinician who is evaluating the risks and benefits of initiating PN in a critically ill patient. Each component of PN will be evaluated based on risk of infection, and the potential ways to mitigate risks will be discussed.

Critically ill, obese cancer patients require more calories than the current guidelines recommend, likely due to malignancy-associated metabolic variations. Our results demonstrate the need for IC studies to determine the energy requirements in these patients and for reassessment of the current recommendations.

Background Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) programs intend to improve medication safety but can add significant administrative burdens to providers and health systems. Various stakeholders have made efforts to use technology to improve REMS programs. Objectives The objective of this scoping review is to describe studies evaluating workflows, automation, or electronic data exchange related to REMS programs. Methods A literature search of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science was performed for articles published between January 2007 and July 2021. Studies were identified using the relevant Medical Subject Headings terms and related keywords. Articles must have described a workflow change and measured the impact of the workflow change. Results Of 299 citations initially identified, 7 were included in the final review after removing duplicates and articles not meeting predefined inclusion criteria. Included studies consisted of three manuscripts and four conference abstracts. Electronic health record interventions, such as customized order sets and clinical decision support alerts, were the most common strategy reported. Other strategies included developing a portal to verify REMS enrollment, requiring prescribers to contact the dispensing pharmacy, provider education, and restrictions based on the provider specialty. One study evaluated automated data exchange for REMS program processes in a mock environment. Although only three studies reported baseline metrics for comparison, all studies noted an improvement or benefit to the implemented workflow process changes. Conclusion There is limited evidence describing REMS workflows, automation, and electronic data exchange. Various strategies to address REMS program requirements were reported, but no studies described the use of data exchange standards in a real-world setting despite efforts by the Food and Drug Administration and other stakeholders. Additional efforts are needed to automate REMS programs.