Suppr超能文献

在有尖端扭转型室性心动过速潜在风险因素的危重症患者中启动 QTc 间期延长药物治疗的决策,重症监护病房临床医生和电生理心脏病专家之间的一致性:一项基于病例的对比评估。

Agreement between ICU clinicians and electrophysiology cardiologists on the decision to initiate a QTc-interval prolonging medication in critically ill patients with potential risk factors for torsade de pointes: a comparative, case-based evaluation.

机构信息

Department of Pharmacy, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

出版信息

Pharmacotherapy. 2013 Jun;33(6):589-97. doi: 10.1002/phar.1242. Epub 2013 Mar 25.

Abstract

STUDY OBJECTIVES

To measure concordance between different intensive care unit (ICU) clinicians and a consensus group of electrophysiology (EP) cardiologists for use of a common rate-corrected QT interval (QTc)-prolonging medication in cases containing different potential risk factor(s) for torsade de pointes (TdP).

DESIGN

Prospective case-based evaluation.

SETTING

Academic medical center with 320 beds.

SUBJECTS

Medical house staff (MDs) and ICU nurses (RNs) from one center and select critical care pharmacists (PHs).

INTERVENTION

Completion of a survey containing 10 hypothetical ICU cases in which patients had agitated delirium for which a psychiatrist recommended intravenous haloperidol 5 mg every 6 hours. Each case contained different potential risk factor(s) for TdP in specific combinations. A group of five EP cardiologists agreed that haloperidol use was safe in five cases and not safe in five cases.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

For each case, participants were asked to document whether they would administer haloperidol, to provide a rationale for their decision, and to state their level of confidence in that decision. Most clinicians (92 of 115 [80%]) invited to participate completed the cases. Among the five cases where EP cardiologists agreed that haloperidol was not safe, 29% of respondents felt that haloperidol was safe. Conversely, in the five cases where EP cardiologists felt haloperidol was safe, 21% of respondents believed that it was not safe. Overall respondent-EP cardiologist agreement for haloperidol use across the 10 cases was moderate (κ = 0.51). MDs and PHs were in agreement with the EP cardiologists more than RNs (p=0.03). Interprofessional variability existed for the TdP risk factors each best identified. Clinician confidence correlated with EP cardiologist concordance for MDs (p=0.002) and PHs (p=0.0002), but not for RNs (p=0.69).

CONCLUSION

When evaluating use of a QTc interval-prolonging medication, ICU clinicians often fail to identify the TdP risk factors that EP cardiologists feel should prevent its use. Clinician-EP cardiologist concordance varies by the specific risk factor(s) for TdP and the ICU professional conducting the assessment.

摘要

研究目的

测量不同重症监护病房(ICU)临床医生与共识专家组(电生理[EP]心脏病专家)在使用共同校正 QT 间期(QTc)延长药物时的一致性,这些药物用于包含尖端扭转型室性心动过速(TdP)不同潜在危险因素的病例。

设计

前瞻性基于病例的评估。

地点

拥有 320 张床位的学术医疗中心。

受试者

来自一个中心的住院医师(MDs)和重症监护病房护士(RNs),以及精选的重症监护药师(PHs)。

干预

完成一项包含 10 个假设 ICU 病例的调查,这些病例中患者出现激越性谵妄,精神科医生建议每 6 小时静脉注射氟哌啶醇 5mg。每个病例都包含 TdP 特定组合的不同潜在危险因素。一组五名 EP 心脏病专家一致认为,氟哌啶醇在五个病例中使用是安全的,而在五个病例中则不安全。

测量和主要结果

对于每个病例,参与者被要求记录他们是否会给予氟哌啶醇,提供他们决策的理由,并表示对该决策的信心程度。大多数(115 名中的 92 名[80%])受邀参加的临床医生完成了病例。在 EP 心脏病专家一致认为氟哌啶醇不安全的五个病例中,29%的受访者认为氟哌啶醇是安全的。相反,在 EP 心脏病专家认为氟哌啶醇安全的五个病例中,21%的受访者认为它不安全。总体而言,在这 10 个病例中,受访者与 EP 心脏病专家对氟哌啶醇使用的一致性为中等(κ=0.51)。MDs 和 PHs 与 EP 心脏病专家的一致性高于 RNs(p=0.03)。对于每个最佳识别的 TdP 危险因素,都存在跨专业的变异性。临床医生的信心与 EP 心脏病专家的一致性与 MDs(p=0.002)和 PHs(p=0.0002)相关,但与 RNs 无关(p=0.69)。

结论

在评估使用 QTc 间期延长药物时,重症监护病房临床医生经常无法识别 EP 心脏病专家认为应避免使用的 TdP 危险因素。临床医生与 EP 心脏病专家的一致性因 TdP 的具体危险因素以及进行评估的重症监护专业人员而异。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验