Brian L Erstad

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.

Abstract:

Objective: To compare possible differences in the proportion of medication errors associated with high-risk medications that were avoided by the use of automated infusion device (AID) technology in pediatric and adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients. A secondary purpose was to investigate the number of serious adverse drug events (ADEs) identified by root-cause analyses (RCA).Method: The study included pediatric and adult patients receiving high-risk medications by continuous infusion in an academic medical center with mixed medical-surgical ICUs. A retrospective evaluation of 1 year's data collected prospectively in an AID database was used to compare the proportion of medication errors avoided based on reprogramming events (2.5 times limit as a low threshold) and overrides (10 times limit as high). Information obtained from RCAs was used to compare the proportion of serious ADEs that occurred during the 5-year periods before and after AID implementation.Results: The pediatric population was 1.68 times (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18 to 2.38) more likely to require a reprogramming event than the adult acute care population for all high-risk medications combined. Significantly more reprogramming events occurred in the pediatric patients with potassium (relative risk [RR], 2.77; 95% CI, 1.15 to 6.68) and insulin (RR, 2.73; 95% CI, 1.15 to 6.45) infusions. Additionally, there were more overrides in the pediatric compared to the adult population for the high-risk medications (RR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.32 to 2.53). The number of serious adverse or sentinel events as identified in RCAs decreased from six before (four deemed preventable by AID technology) to three (zero preventable) after AID implementation.Conclusions: This study demonstrates that AID technology when properly used leads to reductions in medication errors and possibly serious ADEs in critically ill patients receiving high-risk medications. The technology appears to be particularly beneficial in pediatric patients with weight-based dosing strategies. However, the potential for clinicians to override the alerts remains a concern. © 2010 Thomas Land Publishers, Inc.

PMID: 10485509;Abstract:

The purpose of this economic analysis was to develop an economic model using intra-institutional cost data for acute, oliguric renal insufficiency treated with either an albumin-furosemide complex or albumin followed by furosemide (sequential therapy). The perspective of this study was from the standpoint of the institution (University Medical Center, a teaching hospital). The decision tree and sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the albumin-furosemide complex would be more effective and less costly than sequential therapy for a range of outcome probabilities. Using effectiveness assumptions from published literature, the complex could avoid dialysis in 27% of patients compared with 8% of patients receiving sequential therapy. The complex would also be less costly ($7778 vs $8748). In terms of cost- effectiveness, the complex is $28,807 per averted dialysis compared with $109,350 for sequential therapy.