Search

Bromocriptine is a dopamine receptor agonist used for central hyperthermia with limited data. We describe our single-center experience utilizing bromocriptine for central hyperthermia, including the population treated, most common dosing regimens, adverse events, and discontinuation reasons. A retrospective study was conducted screening patients who were admitted to intensive care units for acute neurological insults and administered bromocriptine for central hyperthermia between April 2016 and September 2022. Baseline characteristics, disease severity markers, and bromocriptine doses were collected. Body temperatures prior to the first dose of bromocriptine, at the time of dose, and after each dose were recorded. Co-administration of additional hyperthermia management therapies was noted. Thirty patients were included. The most common diagnosis was traumatic brain injury (TBI) (N = 14). The most common reason for discontinuation was resolution of indication (N = 14). Discontinuation due to mild adverse effects occurred in four patients; hepatotoxicity was the most common. There was a paired mean difference of −0.37°C (p = 0.005) between temperatures before and after bromocriptine initiation. Bromocriptine is a potential therapy for the management of central hyperthermia in patients with severe acute neurologic insults who have failed other therapies. Bromocriptine was well tolerated and associated with a low incidence of adverse events. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Myocardial bridges (MBs) are prevalent and can be associated with acute and chronic ischemic syndromes. We sought to determine the substrates for ischemia in patients with angina with nonobstructive coronary arteries and a MB in the left anterior descending artery. METHODS: Patients with angina with nonobstructive coronary arteries underwent the acquisition of intracoronary pressure and flow during rest, supine bicycle exercise, and adenosine infusion. Coronary wave intensity analysis was performed, with perfusion efficiency defined as accelerating wave energy/total wave energy (%). Epicardial endothelial dysfunction was defined as a reduction in epicardial vessel diameter ≥20% in response to intracoronary acetylcholine infusion. Patients with angina with nonobstructive coronary arteries and a MB were compared with 2 angina with nonobstructive coronary arteries groups with no MB: 1 with coronary microvascular disease (CMD: coronary flow reserve, <2.5) and 1 with normal coronary flow reserve (reference: coronary flow reserve, ≥2.5). RESULTS: Ninety-two patients were enrolled in the study (30 MB, 33 CMD, and 29 reference). Fractional flow reserve in these 3 groups was 0.86±0.05, 0.92±0.04, and 0.94±0.05; coronary flow reserve was 2.5±0.5, 2.0±0.3, and 3.2±0.6. Perfusion efficiency increased numerically during exercise in the reference group (65±9%–69±13%; P=0.063) but decreased in the CMD (68±10%–50±10%; P<0.001) and MB (66±9%–55±9%; P<0.001) groups. The reduction in perfusion efficiency had distinct causes: in CMD, this was driven by microcirculation-derived energy in early diastole, whereas in MB, this was driven by diminished accelerating wave energy, due to the upstream bridge, in early systole. Epicardial endothelial dysfunction was more common in the MB group (54% versus 29% reference and 38% CMD). Overall, 93% of patients with a MB had an identifiable ischemic substrate. CONCLUSIONS: MBs led to impaired coronary perfusion efficiency during exercise, which was due to diminished accelerating wave energy in early systole compared with the reference group. Additionally, there was a high prevalence of endothelial and microvascular dysfunction. These ischemic mechanisms may represent distinct treatment targets. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective Methods Results Significance Intravenous (IV) push (IVP) is an alternative administration method for levetiracetam, but evidence evaluating it compared to IV piggyback (IVPB) for loading doses in acutely seizing patients is limited, particularly in patients with status epilepticus (SE). This study aimed to compare the efficiency and safety of IVP versus IVPB levetiracetam loading doses.This was a single‐center sequential retrospective study conducted in adult (≥18 years) patients who received an IV levetiracetam loading dose (>2000 mg or ≥20 mg/kg) for acute or suspected seizure. The primary outcome was time to administration, compared between doses given as IVP versus IVPB. Secondary outcomes included rates of adverse events (AEs), rescue benzodiazepine or antiseizure medication administration, intubation, and intensive care unit (ICU) admission between groups.A total of 246 patients were included; 116 received IVP and 130 received IVPB loading doses. Median age was 56 years; most patients were male (62%) and White (60%) and had witnessed seizures (67%). Doses were administered for SE in 32 (27.5%) and 46 (35.4%) patients in the IVP and IVPB arms, respectively. Median time to administration was shorter in the IVP group (12 vs. 38 min, p < .001). Bradycardia (1.7% vs. 2.3%, p = .99), hypotension (7.8% vs. 12%, p = .30), sedation (6% vs. 12.3%, p = .09), intubation (10% vs. 8%, p = .37), ICU admission (32% vs. 39%, p = .31), and rescue medication administration (8.6% vs. 14.6% p = .10) were similar between groups. In SE patients, IVP was associated with shorter time to administration (12 vs. 44 min, p = .003) and lower odds of ICU admission after adjustment for age, dose, Status Epilepticus Severity Score, and seizure history (adjusted odds ratio = .23, 95% confidence interval = .06–.81).IVP reduced time to levetiracetam administration versus IVPB and was not associated with more AEs. Rescue agent use, intubation, and ICU admission were similar between arms, but IVP may reduce ICU admissions in SE patients. Prospective studies should assess the effectiveness of IVP versus IVPB. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]