Brian L Erstad

PMID: 15061430;Abstract:

Purpose. The implications of recent studies for guidelines that pertain to stress ulcer prophylaxis in the postoperative period are discussed. Summary. The therapeutic guidelines on stress ulcer prophylaxis published by the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) provided clinicians with recommendations regarding appropriate candidates for stress ulcer prophylaxis and selection of a pharmacologic agent. Since these guidelines were published in 1999, additional research has been completed to resolve some of the controversial issues surrounding stress ulcer prophylaxis. The frequency of stress-induced bleeding in recent investigations continues to be highly variable, depending on the definition used to describe bleeding. In general, investigations that evaluate overt bleeding or bleeding without hemodynamic changes or blood transfusion report higher frequencies of bleeding than those that evaluate clinically important bleeding. Similar to that reported in the initial ASHP guidelines, the frequency of clinically important bleeding in recent investigations is low. In addition, the majority of recently published prospective studies and a meta-analysis have been unable to demonstrate a reduction in clinically important bleeding with pharmacologic agents. As a result, some experts have suggested that advances in critical care are more influential in the development of stress-induced bleeding than the use of pharmacologic agents. Recently published investigations support the effectiveness of institution-specific guidelines to help clinicians identify appropriate candidates for stress ulcer prophylaxis. The selection of an optimal pharmacologic agent for stress ulcer prophylaxis continues to be debated. The majority of recent studies have involved the administration of proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs). In general, these studies have demonstrated that PPIs are at least as effective as histamine H2-receptor antagonists at increasing gastric pH, but adequately powered studies investigating the endpoint of clinically important bleeding are needed. Similar to the initial ASHP guidelines, the development of institution-specific guidelines is recommended to identify the most appropriate pharmacologic treatment. Conclusion. The frequency of clinically important bleeding reported in recent studies is low. The majority of recently published prospective studies and meta-analyses found little significant reduction in bleeding with pharmacologic prophylaxis.

PMID: 19820588;Abstract:

Background: Vancomycin has been recommended as the treatment of choice for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) pneumonia with a desired trough concentration of 15 to 20 mg/L. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the initial dosing of vancomycin for MRSA pneumonia in critically ill adult trauma patients. Methods: Critically ill adult trauma patients were retrospectively identified for inclusion into the study. Patients initiated at a dose of 1 g intravenously (i.v.) every 8 hours were compared with patients initiated at a dose of 1 g i.v. every 12 hours. Baseline continuous demographic variables and steady-state vancomycin trough concentrations were compared between the two groups using a Student's t test (α = 0.05). Results: There were 36 patients who satisfied criteria for inclusion, 17 patients in the 1 g every 8 hour group and 19 patients in the 1 g every 12 hour group. The mean steady-state trough concentration was higher in the 1 g every 8 hour group versus the 1 g every 12 hour group (11.1 vs. 6.8 mg/L, p = 0.014). A steady-state trough concentration greater than 15 mg/L was achieved in 23.5% of the patients in the 1 g every 8 hour group and none of the patients in the 1 g every 12 hour group. Conclusion: A vancomycin regimen of 1 g i.v. every 12 hours in critically ill trauma patients with MRSA pneumonia and normal renal function is unlikely to achieve trough concentrations of 15 to 20 mg/L. Doses of at least 1 g i.v. every 8 hours are needed. coypright © 2009 by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

PMID: 10171510;Abstract:

Objective: To determine the number and profile of surgical patients receiving epidural, intrathecal, and patient-controlled analgesia. Design: Two-month audit of epidural, intrathecal, and patient-controlled analgesia. Setting: A 300-bed, tertiary care, university medical center. Patients: All patients undergoing surgery and receiving epidural, intrathecal, or patient- controlled analgesia. Results: Of 1123 operations performed during the two- month audit, 185 patients (16 percent) received one of the three forms of analgesia studied. Sixty-three percent of the 185 patients received patient- controlled analgesia and 33 percent received epidural injections for pain control. The most common types of surgery associated with the use of these specialized pain-control techniques were obstetric/gynecologic, orthopedic, general, urologic, and cardiothoracic. Conclusions: Specialized forms of analgesia are becoming increasingly common. Our audit defined the number of patients receiving such therapies according to type of surgery. Collection of such information by other institutions should allow for targeted evaluations of cost-effectiveness (e.g., drug use evaluations).

Under consideration - Revisions submitted 10/2016

PMID: 7849343;Abstract:

OBJECTIVE: To discuss the limitations of conventional monitoring techniques of shock and examine more recent monitoring techniques that are used to titrate therapies to attain supranormal oxygen transport goals. DATA SOURCES: Review articles and investigations published since 1973. STUDY SELECTION: Articles were selected if they examined the monitoring or treatment of shock. Emphasis was placed on finding investigations involving humans that used innovative methods to assess and treat inadequate tissue perfusion. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted primarily from original investigations and review articles published in or translated into English. DATA SYNTHESIS: The conventional monitoring of shock often fails to detect inadequate tissue perfusion, which may lead to inadequate resuscitation of patients, resulting in increased morbidity and mortality. Attainment of supranormal values for oxygen transport variables has been associated with improved outcomes, especially in patients with hypovolemic shock or septic shock. Additionally, interventions used to increase these variables to supranormal values have resulted in improved survival in high-risk preoperative patients with hypovolemic or septic shock, but not in severely ill postoperative patients with multiple complications. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts to increase oxygen transport variables to supranormal values cannot be recommended routinely for all critically ill patients. Preoperative patients in early stages of hypovolemic or septic shock may benefit from therapies titrated to achieve supranormal goals, but patients in later stages of illnesses may be harmed by such attempts. Questions remain regarding how quickly and how long the oxygen transport variables should be elevated. The most effective and least toxic therapeutic interventions for increasing the variables need to be determined.