Brian L Erstad

PMID: 10772439;Abstract:

OBJECTIVE: To review the controversies surrounding the use of nutritional interventions, particularly enteral support, in patients with acute pancreatitis. DATA SOURCES: Articles were obtained through a MEDLINE search (1966-June 1999). Additionally, several textbooks containing information on the diagnosis and management of acute pancreatitis were reviewed. The bibliographies of retrieved publications and textbooks were reviewed for additional references. STUDY SELECTION: All original investigations in humans pertaining to the use of enteral nutritional support in acute pancreatitis were reviewed for inclusion. Studies that investigated parenteral nutrition in acute pancreatitis were also reviewed, with preference given to controlled comparisons with enteral regimens or no nutritional support. DATA EXTRACTION: The primary outcomes extracted from the literature were time to oral feeding tolerance, complications (e.g., infection) associated with nutritional support, and length of stay. DATA SYNTHESIS: The duration of pancreatitis and time to oral feedings is similar whether patients receive enteral (i.e., jejunal tube feedings) or parenteral nutrition. Additionally, complications, length of stay, and costs are either similar or decreased with enteral versus parenteral nutrition. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence suggests that the enteral rather than parenteral route should be used to provide nutrition to patients with acute pancreatitis. Parenteral nutrition should be reserved for patients in whom nasojejunal feeding is not possible.

To provide recommendations for the initial evaluation and management of dyspepsia.

PMID: 14966258;Abstract:

OBJECTIVE: To discuss the controversies regarding the use of epoetin alfa (EPO) for reducing red blood cell (RBC) transfusions in critically ill patients with anemia. DATA SOURCES: A MEDLINE search (1966-July 2003) was conducted using the search terms anemia; critical illness; erythropoietin; epoetin alfa; and erythropoietin, recombinant. References of selected articles were reviewed for studies that may have been missed by the computerized search. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Studies pertaining to the use of EPO for anemia of critical illness with an emphasis on data obtained from controlled trials. DATA SYNTHESIS: Anemia is a common complication in patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Two prospective, randomized studies have demonstrated decreased transfusion requirements associated with EPO administration in medical/surgical patients who were in the ICU for at least 3 days and had hematocrit concentrations 38%. No differences were found in length of stay or mortality. A multicenter trial found that a restrictive strategy of RBC transfusion (hemoglobin goal 7-9 g/dL) was associated with in-hospital mortality lower than that with a more liberal approach, which calls into question the 38% hematocrit goal in the EPO trials. Furthermore, preliminary results from an economic analysis of EPO use in the ICU setting have demonstrated that EPO is not cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Given the controversies surrounding EPO administration in critically ill patients, institutions are encouraged to develop EPO guidelines to help ensure the most appropriate use of this expensive product. Additional studies regarding patients most likely to benefit from EPO therapy, the most effective dosing regimen, and use of adjunctive therapies are needed.

Abstract:

The pharmacological methods used to achieve systemic hemostasis have generated much discussion due to concerns of serious adverse effects (e.g., thromboembolic complications) and costs of therapy in addition to efficacy considerations. There are a limited number of well-controlled trials involving pharmacological hemostasis for spine surgery. In the largest doubleblinded randomized controlled trial to date involving spine surgery, there was a trend toward reduced homologous transfusion in patients receiving aprotinin, but the only statistically significant result (p0.001) was a reduction in autologous red cell donations. The findings of this trial are important, since the investigators used a number of restrictive transfusion strategies (e.g., autologous donation, low hematocrit trigger for transfusion, blood-salvaging procedures with the exception of no cell saver) that were not always employed in earlier trials involving hemostatic agents. Smaller studies involving antifibrinolytic agents other than aprotinin have demonstrated reductions in blood loss and transfusion requirements in patients undergoing spine surgery, although the results were not always statistically significant. A very large randomized trial would be required to address comparative medication- and transfusion-related adverse events; such a trial involving patients undergoing cardiac surgery is currently being performed. Additionally, cost-effectiveness analyses are needed to help define the role of these agents based on the data that is available. © 2005 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.

PMID: 16424723;Abstract:

Objective: To determine the incidence and preventability of medication errors and potential/actual adverse drug events. To evaluate system failures leading to error occurrence. Design: Prospective, direct observation study. Setting: Tertiary care academic medical center. Patients: Patients in a medical/surgical intensive care unit. Interventions: Observers would intervene only in the event that the medication error would cause substantial patient harm or discomfort. Measurements and Main Results: The observers identified 185 incidents during a pilot period and four phases totaling 16.5 days (33 12-hr shifts). Two independent evaluators concluded that 13 of 35 (37%) actual adverse drug events were nonpreventable (i.e., not medication errors). An additional 40 of the remaining 172 medication errors were judged not to be clinically important. Of the 132 medication errors classified as clinically important, 110 (83%) led to potential adverse drug events and 22 (17%) led to actual, preventable adverse drug events. There was one error (i.e., resulting in a potential or actual, preventable adverse drug event) for every five doses of medication administered. The potential adverse drug events mostly occurred in the administration and dispensing stages of the medication use process (34% in each); all of the actual, preventable adverse drug events occurred in the prescribing (77%) and administration (23%) stages. Errors of omission accounted for the majority of potential and actual, preventable adverse drug events (23%), followed by errors due to wrong dose (20%), wrong drug (16%), wrong administration technique (15%), and drug-drug interaction (10%). Conclusions: Using a direct observation approach, we found a higher incidence of potential and actual, preventable adverse drug events and an increased ratio of potential to actual, preventable adverse drug events compared with studies that used chart reviews and solicited incident reporting. All of the potential adverse drug events and approximately two thirds of the actual adverse drug events were judged to be preventable. There was one preventable error for every five doses of medication administered; most errors were due to dose omission, wrong dose, wrong drug, wrong technique, or interactions. Copyright © 2006 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.