Search

Background: Cefepime is a widely used antibiotic with neurotoxicity attributed to its ability to cross the blood-brain barrier and exhibit concentration-dependent ϒ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) antagonism. Neurotoxic symptoms include depressed consciousness, encephalopathy, aphasia, myoclonus, seizures, and coma. Data suggest that up to 15% of ICU patients treated with cefepime may experience these adverse effects. Risk factors include renal dysfunction, excessive dosing, preexisting brain injury, and elevated serum cefepime concentrations. We aimed to characterize the clinical course of cefepime neurotoxicity and response to interventions., Methods: A librarian-assisted search identified publications describing cefepime-associated neurotoxicity from January 1980 to February 2016 using the CINAHL and MEDLINE databases. Search terms included cefepime, neurotoxicity, encephalopathy, seizures, delirium, coma, non-convulsive status epilepticus, myoclonus, confusion, aphasia, agitation, and death. Two reviewers independently assessed identified articles for eligibility and used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) for data reporting., Results: Of the 123 citations identified, 37 (representing 135 patient cases) were included. Patients had a median age of 69 years, commonly had renal dysfunction (80%) and required intensive care (81% of patients with a reported location). All patients exhibited altered mental status, with reduced consciousness (47%), myoclonus (42%), and confusion (42%) being the most common symptoms. All 98 patients (73% of cohort) with electroencephalography had abnormalities, including non-convulsive status epilepticus (25%), myoclonic status epilepticus (7%), triphasic waves (40%), and focal sharp waves (39%). As per Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved dosing guidance, 48% of patients were overdosed; however, 26% experienced neurotoxicity despite appropriate dosing. Median cefepime serum and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) concentrations were 45 mg/L (n = 21) and 13 mg/L (n = 4), respectively. Symptom improvement occurred in 89% of patients, and 87% survived to hospital discharge. The median delay from starting the drug to symptom onset was 4 days, and resolution occurred a median of 2 days after the intervention, which included cefepime discontinuation, antiepileptic administration, or hemodialysis., Conclusions: Cefepime-induced neurotoxicity is challenging to recognize in the critically ill due to widely varying symptoms that are common in ICU patients. This adverse reaction can occur despite appropriate dosing, usually resolves with drug interruption, but may require additional interventions such as antiepileptic drug administration or dialysis.

Introduction: Previous studies have suggested an effect of gender on outcome after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), but the results are conflicting. We aimed to investigate the association of gender to outcome, coronary angiography (CAG) and adverse events in OHCA survivors treated with mild induced hypothermia (MIH)., Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from the International Cardiac Arrest Registry. Adult patients with a non-traumatic OHCA and treated with MIH were included. Good neurological outcome was defined as a cerebral performance category (CPC) of 1 or 2., Results: A total of 1,667 patients, 472 women (28%) and 1,195 men (72%), met the inclusion criteria. Men were more likely to receive bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation, have an initial shockable rhythm and to have a presumed cardiac cause of arrest. At hospital discharge, men had a higher survival rate (52% vs. 38%, P < 0.001) and more often a good neurological outcome (43% vs. 32%, P < 0.001) in the univariate analysis. When adjusting for baseline characteristics, male gender was associated with improved survival (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.78) but no longer with neurological outcome (OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.67). Adverse events were common; women more often had hypokalemia, hypomagnesemia and bleeding requiring transfusion, while men had more pneumonia. In a subgroup analysis of patients with a presumed cardiac cause of arrest (n = 1,361), men more often had CAG performed on admission (58% vs. 50%, P = 0.02) but this discrepancy disappeared in an adjusted analysis., Conclusions: Gender differences exist regarding cause of arrest, adverse events and outcome. Male gender was independently associated with survival but not with neurological outcome.

Introduction: We hypothesized that delirium symptoms may respond differently to antipsychotic therapy. The purpose of this paper was to retrospectively compare duration and time to first resolution of individual delirium symptoms from the database of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study comparing quetiapine (Q) or placebo (P), both with haloperidol rescue, for critically ill patients with delirium., Methods: Data for 10 delirium symptoms from the eight-domain, intensive care delirium screening checklist (ICDSC) previously collected every 12 hours were extracted for 29 study patients. Data between the Q and P groups were compared using a cut-off P-value of ≤ 0.10 for this exploratory study., Results: Baseline ICDSC scores (5 (4 to 7) (Q) vs 5 (4 to 6)) (median, interquartile range (IQR)) and % of patients with each ICDSC symptom were similar in the two groups (all P > 0.10). Among patients with the delirium symptom at baseline, use of Q may lead to a shorter time (days) to first resolution of symptom fluctuation (4 (Q) vs. 14, P = 0.004), inattention (3 vs. 8, P = .10) and disorientation (2 vs. 10, P = 0.10) but a longer time to first resolution of agitation (3 vs. 1, P = 0.04) and hyperactivity (5 vs. 1, P = 0.07). Among all patients, Q-treated patients tended to spend a smaller percent of time with inattention (47 (0 to 67) vs. 78 (43 to 100), P = 0.025), hallucinations (0 (0 to 17) vs. 28 (0 to 43), P = 0.10) and symptom fluctuation (47 (19 to 67) vs. 89 (33 to 00), P = 0.04] and there was a trend for Q-treated patients to spend a greater percent of time at an appropriate level of consciousness (26% (13 to 63%) vs. 14% (0 to 33%), P = 0.17]., Conclusions: Our exploratory analysis suggests that quetiapine may resolve several intensive care unit (ICU) delirium symptoms faster than the placebo. Individual symptom resolution appears to differ in association with the pharmacologic intervention (that is, P vs Q, both with as needed haloperidol). Future studies evaluating antipsychotics in ICU patients with delirium should measure duration and resolution of individual delirium symptoms and their relation to long-term outcomes.

Background: While nurses play a key role in identifying delirium, several authors have noted variability in their ability to recognize delirium. We sought to measure the impact of a simple educational intervention on the ability of intensive care unit (ICU) nurses to clinically identify delirium and to use a standardized delirium scale correctly., Methods: Fifty ICU nurses from two different hospitals (university medical and community teaching) evaluated an ICU patient for pain, level of sedation and presence of delirium before and after an educational intervention. The same patient was concomitantly, but independently, evaluated by a validated judge (rho = 0.98) who acted as the reference standard in all cases. The education consisted of two script concordance case scenarios, a slide presentation regarding scale-based delirium assessment, and two further cases., Results: Nurses' clinical recognition of delirium was poor in the before-education period as only 24% of nurses reported the presence or absence of delirium and only 16% were correct compared with the judge. After education, the number of nurses able to evaluate delirium using any scale (12% vs 82%, P < 0.0005) and use it correctly (8% vs 62%, P < 0.0005) increased significantly. While judge-nurse agreement (Spearman rho) for the presence of delirium was relatively high for both the before-education period (r = 0.74, P = 0.262) and after-education period (r = 0.71, P < 0.0005), the low number of nurses evaluating delirium before education lead to statistical significance only after education. Education did not alter nurses' self-reported evaluation of delirium (before 76% vs after 100%, P = 0.125)., Conclusion: A simple composite educational intervention incorporating script concordance theory improves the capacity for ICU nurses to screen for delirium nearly as well as experts. Self-reporting by nurses of completion of delirium screening may not constitute an adequate quality assurance process.