Adverse cardiac events during catecholamine vasopressor therapy: a prospective observational study

PURPOSE: To determine the incidence of and risk factors for adverse cardiac events during catecholamine vasopressor therapy in surgical intensive care unit patients with cardiovascular failure. METHODS: The occurrence of any of seven predefined adverse cardiac events (prolonged elevated heart rate, tachyarrhythmia, myocardial cell damage, acute cardiac arrest or death, pulmonary hypertension-induced right heart dysfunction, reduction of systemic blood flow) was prospectively recorded during catecholamine vasopressor therapy lasting at least 12 h. RESULTS: Fifty-four of 112 study patients developed a total of 114 adverse cardiac events, an incidence of 48.2 % (95 % CI, 38.8-57.6 %). New-onset tachyarrhythmia (49.1 %), prolonged elevated heart rate (23.7 %), and myocardial cell damage (17.5 %) occurred most frequently. Aside from chronic liver diseases, factors independently associated with the occurrence of adverse cardiac events included need for renal replacement therapy, disease severity (assessed by the Simplified Acute Physiology Score II), number of catecholamine vasopressors (OR, 1.73; 95 % CI, 1.08-2.77; p = 0.02) and duration of catecholamine vasopressor therapy (OR, 1.01; 95 % CI, 1-1.01; p = 0.002). Patients developing adverse cardiac events were on catecholamine vasopressors (p < 0.001) and mechanical ventilation (p < 0.001) for longer and had longer intensive care unit stays (p < 0.001) and greater mortality (25.9 vs. 1.7 %; p < 0.001) than patients who did not. CONCLUSIONS: Adverse cardiac events occurred in 48.2 % of surgical intensive care unit patients with cardiovascular failure and were related to morbidity and mortality. The extent and duration of catecholamine vasopressor therapy were independently associated with and may contribute to the pathogenesis of adverse cardiac events.

NKp46+ cells express granulysin in multiple cutaneous adverse drug reactions

The spectrum of cutaneous adverse drug reactions (cADRs) ranges from benign presentations to severe life-threatening forms such as toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN). In TEN, granulysin has been shown to be the key cytotoxic molecule. Still, little is known about the expression of granulysin in other cADRs. As an important source of granulysin, natural killer (NK) cells are of major interest in cADRs. Recently, NKp46 has been identified as the most selective NK-cell marker. However, the role of NKp46(+) cells in cADRs and their contribution to granulysin expression remain to be elucidated.

[Pharmacotherapy of hyperthyreosis--adverse drug reactions]

The antithyroid drugs mainly include thioimidazole (carbimazole, methimazole=thiamazole) and propylthiouracil. After absorption, carbimazole is rapidly metabolized to methimazole and thus switching between these two drugs should not be considered in case of side effects. Furthermore, in case of side effects, sometimes even cross reactions between thioimidazoles and propylthiouracil occur. Common and typical adverse reactions of antithyroid drugs include dose dependent hypothyroidism and thus thyroid function should be repeatedly checked while the patient is on antithyroid drugs. Furthermore, pruritus and rash may develop. In this case, one might try to switch from thioimidazoles to propylthiouracil or vice versa. Antithyroid drugs may cause mild dose dependent neutropenia or severe allergy-mediated agranulocytosis, which typically occurs during the first three months of treatment, has an incidence of 3 per 10,000 patients and cross reactivity between thioimidazoles to propylthiouracil may occur. Rarely, antithyroid drugs can cause aplastic anemia. Mainly propylthiouracil, but sometimes also methimazole may lead to an asymptomatic transient increase in liver enzymes or to severe, even lethal liver injury of cholestatic or hepatocellular pattern. Since propylthiouracil associated liver injury was observed increasingly among children and adolescent, it has been suggested to prefer thioimidazoles for these patients. Because of these potential serious adverse effects, physicians should advise patients to immediately seek medical help if they get a fever or sore throat or malaise, abdominal complaints or jaundice, respectively. Furthermore, arthralgias may develop in 1-5% of patients under both antithyroid drugs. Since arthralgias may be the first symptom of more serious immunologic side effects, it is recommended to stop the antithyroid drug in this case. Drug induced polyarthritis mainly develops during the first month of therapy, whereas ANCA-positive vasculitis is generally observed only after long term exposure to propylthiouracil or very rarely with the thioimidazoles. The teratogenic risk of the thioimidazoles is somewhat higher (Aplasia cutis congenita), that is why one generally recommends preferring propylthiouracil during pregnancy. During breast feeding both, thioimidazoles or propylthiouracil, may be administered. Nowadays, perchlorate is only used short term in case of latent hyperthyroidism before administering iodine-containing contrast agents. Therefore, the known side effects, which usually are only observed after long term treatment, are not an issue any more.

Potential drug-drug interactions and adverse drug reactions in patients with liver cirrhosis

Patients with liver cirrhosis may be at risk for potential drug-drug interactions (pDDIs) and/or adverse drug reactions (ADRs) due to the severity of their disease and comorbidities associated with polypharmacy.

Etiology and pathogenesis of adverse drug reactions

In clinical routine, adverse drug reactions (ADR) are common, and they should be included in the differential diagnosis in all patients undergoing drug treatment. Only part of those ADR are immune-mediated hypersensitivity reactions and thus true drug allergies. Far more common are non-immune-mediated ADR, e.g. due to the pharmacological properties of the drug or to the individual predisposition of the patient (enzymopathies, cytokine dysbalance, mast cell hyperreactivity). In true drug allergiesT cell- and immunoglobulin E (lgE)-mediated reactions dominate the clinical presentation. T cell-mediated ADR usually have a delayed appearance and include skin eruptions in most cases. Nevertheless, it should not be forgotten that they may involve systemic T cell activation and thus take a severe, sometimes lethal turn. Clinical danger signs are involvement of mucosal surfaces, blistering within the exanthematous skin areas and systemic symptoms, e.g. fever or malaise. Drug presentation via antigen-presenting cells to T cells can either involve the classical pathway of haptenization of endogenous proteins or be directly mediated via noncovalent binding to immune receptors (MHC molecules or T cell receptors), the so-called p-i concept. Flare-up reactions during the acute phase of T cell-mediated ADR should not be mistaken for true drug allergies, as they only occur in the setting of a highly activated T cell pool. IgE-mediated ADR are less frequent and involve mast cells and/or basophils as peripheral effector cells. Recent data suggest that certain patients with drug allergy have a preexistent sensitization although they have never been exposed to the culprit drug, probably due to cross-reactivity. Thus, allergic drug reactions on first encounter are possible. In general, the extent of cross-reactivity is higher in IgE-compared to T cell-mediated ADR. Based on a specific ethnic background and only for severe T cell-mediated ADR to certain drugs, a strong HLA association has been established recently.

Dose adjustment in patients with liver cirrhosis: impact on adverse drug reactions and hospitalizations

To assess drug-related problems in patients with liver cirrhosis by investigating the prevalence of inadequately dosed drugs and their association with adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and hospitalizations.

Systematic review of medication safety assessment methods

Purpose The accuracy, efficiency, and efficacy of four commonly recommended medication safety assessment methodologies were systematically reviewed. Methods Medical literature databases were systematically searched for any comparative study conducted between January 2000 and October 2009 in which at least two of the four methodologies—incident report review, direct observation, chart review, and trigger tool—were compared with one another. Any study that compared two or more methodologies for quantitative accuracy (adequacy of the assessment of medication errors and adverse drug events) efficiency (effort and cost), and efficacy and that provided numerical data was included in the analysis. Results Twenty-eight studies were included in this review. Of these, 22 compared two of the methodologies, and 6 compared three methods. Direct observation identified the greatest number of reports of drug-related problems (DRPs), while incident report review identified the fewest. However, incident report review generally showed a higher specificity compared to the other methods and most effectively captured severe DRPs. In contrast, the sensitivity of incident report review was lower when compared with trigger tool. While trigger tool was the least labor-intensive of the four methodologies, incident report review appeared to be the least expensive, but only when linked with concomitant automated reporting systems and targeted follow-up. Conclusion All four medication safety assessment techniques—incident report review, chart review, direct observation, and trigger tool—have different strengths and weaknesses. Overlap between different methods in identifying DRPs is minimal. While trigger tool appeared to be the most effective and labor-efficient method, incident report review best identified high-severity DRPs.

Communication barriers in counselling foreign-language patients in public pharmacies: threats to patient safety?

Foreign-language (FL) patients are at increased risk for adverse drug events. Evidence regarding communication barriers and the safety of pharmaceutical care of FL patients in European countries is scarce despite large migrant populations.

Impact of stent overlap on angiographic and long-term clinical outcome in patients undergoing drug-eluting stent implantation

Objectives We compared the angiographic and long-term clinical outcomes of patients with and without overlap of drug-eluting stents (DES). Background DES overlap has been associated with delayed healing and increased inflammation in experimental studies, but its impact on clinical outcome is not well established. Methods We analyzed the angiographic and clinical outcomes of 1,012 patients treated with DES in the SIRTAX (Sirolimus-Eluting Versus Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents for Coronary Revascularization) trial according to the presence or absence of stent overlap and the number of stents per vessel: 134 (13.2%) patients with multiple DES in a vessel with overlap, 199 (19.7%) patients with multiple DES in a vessel without overlap, and 679 (67.1%) patients with 1 DES per vessel. Results Angiographic follow-up at 8 months showed an increased late loss in DES overlap patients (0.33 ± 0.61 mm) compared with the other groups (0.18 ± 0.43 mm and 0.15 ± 0.38 mm, p < 0.01). The smallest minimal lumen diameter was located at the zone of stent overlap in 17 (68%) of 25 patients with stent overlap who underwent target lesion revascularization. Major adverse cardiac events were more common in patients with DES overlap (34 events, 25.4%) than in the other groups (42 events, 21.1% and 95 events, 14.0%) at 3 years (p < 0.01). Both the risk of target lesion revascularization (20.2% vs. 16.1% vs. 9.7%, p < 0.01) and the composite of death or myocardial infarction (17.2% vs. 14.1% vs. 9.1%, p = 0.01) were increased in patients with DES overlap compared with the other groups. Conclusions DES overlap occurs in >10% of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in routine clinical practice and is associated with impaired angiographic and long-term clinical outcome, including death or myocardial infarction. (Sirolimus-Eluting Versus Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents for Coronary Revascularization; NCT00297661).

Longest available clinical outcomes after drug-eluting stent implantation for unprotected left main coronary artery disease: the DELFT (Drug Eluting stent for LeFT main) Registry

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to investigate the long-term safety and efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation for unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease. BACKGROUND: Long-term clinical outcomes after DES implantation for ULMCA disease have not yet been ascertained. METHODS: From April 2002 to April 2004, 358 consecutive patients who underwent PCI with DES implantation for de novo lesions on ULMCA were retrospectively selected and analyzed in 7 European and U.S. tertiary care centers. No patients were excluded from the analysis, and all patients had a minimum follow-up of 3 years. RESULTS: Technical success rate was 100%. Procedural success rate was 89.6%. After 3 years, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE)-free survival in the whole population was 73.5%. According to the Academic Research Consortium definitions, cardiac death occurred in 9.2% of patients, and reinfarction, target lesion revascularization (TLR), and target vessel revascularization (TVR) occurred in 8.6%, 5.8%, and 14.2% of patients, respectively. Definite stent thrombosis occurred in 2 patients (specifically at 0 and 439 days). In elective patients, the 3-year MACE-free survival was 74.2%, with mortality, reinfarction, TLR, and TVR rates of 6.2%, 8.3%, 6.6%, and 16%, respectively. In the emergent group the 3-year MACE-free survival was 68.2%, with mortality, reinfarction, TLR, and TVR rates of 21.4%, 10%, 2.8%, and 7.1%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Routine DES implantation in ULMCA disease seems encouraging, with favorable long-term clinical results.

Diabetic patients treated for unprotected left main coronary artery disease with drug eluting stents: a 3-year clinical outcome study. The diabetes and drug eluting stent for LeFT main registry (D-DELFT)

AIMS: Diabetes mellitus (DM) plays an important role in the development of coronary artery disease. Although previous studies have associated drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation in diabetic patients with favourable clinical and angiographic outcomes, the very long-term efficacy of these devices in diabetic patients undergoing PCI for significant unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease has not been established yet. METHODS AND RESULTS: Consecutive diabetic patients (n=100), who underwent elective PCI with DES for de novo lesions in an ULMCA between April 2002 and April 2004 in seven tertiary health care centres, were identified retrospectively and analysed. Consecutive non-diabetic patients (n=193), who underwent elective DES implantation for unprotected ULMCA disease, were selected as a control group. All patients were followed for at least 36 months. At 3-years follow-up, freedom from cardiac death ; myocardial infarction (CDMI), target lesion revascularisation (TLR) and target vessel revascularisation (TVR) did not differ significantly between groups. The adjusted freedom from major adverse cardiac events (MACE, defined as the occurrence of CD, MI or TVR) was 63.4% in the DM group and 77.6% in the controls (p<0.001). When divided into IDDM and NIDDM sub-groups, insulin-dependent DM (IDDM) but not non IDDM (NIDDM) patients had significantly lower freedom from CDMI, TLR, TVR and MACE compared to controls. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that major improvements in DES technology and pharmacotherapy are still required to improve clinical outcome and that the decision to perform percutaneous revascularisation in this subset of patients should be taken cautiously and on a case by case basis.

Clinical outcomes after zotarolimus and everolimus drug eluting stent implantation in coronary artery bifurcation lesions: insights from the RESOLUTE All Comers Trial

OBJECTIVE We investigated clinical outcomes after treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions with second generation drug eluting stents (DES). DESIGN Post hoc analysis of a randomised, multicentre, non-inferiority trial. SETTING Multicentre study. PATIENTS All comers study with minimal exclusion criteria. INTERVENTIONS Patients were treated with either zotarolimus or everolimus eluting stents. The patient population was divided according to treatment of bifurcation or non-bifurcation lesions and clinical outcomes were compared between groups. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES Clinical outcomes within 2-year follow-up. RESULTS A total of 2265 patients were included in the present analysis. Two-year follow-up data were available in 2223 patients: 1838 patients in the non-bifurcation group and 385 patients in the bifurcation group. At 2-year follow-up the bifurcation and the non-bifurcation lesion groups showed no significant differences in terms of cardiac death (2.3 vs 2.1, p=0.273), target lesion failure (9.7% vs 13.8%, p=0.255), major adverse cardiac events (11.5% vs 15.1%, p=0.305), target lesion revascularisation (4.7% vs 6.0%, p=0.569), and definite or probable stent thrombosis (1.6% vs 1.8%, p=0.419). CONCLUSIONS The use of second generation DES for the treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions was associated with similar long term mortality and clinical outcomes compared with non-bifurcation lesions.

Impact of overlapping newer generation drug-eluting stents on clinical and angiographic outcomes: pooled analysis of five trials from the international Global RESOLUTE Program

BACKGROUND Overlapping first generation sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents are associated with persistent inflammation, fibrin deposition and delayed endothelialisation in preclinical models, and adverse angiographic and clinical outcomes--including death and myocardial infarction (MI)--in clinical studies. OBJECTIVES To establish as to whether there are any safety concerns with newer generation drug-eluting stents (DES). DESIGN Propensity score adjustment of baseline anatomical and clinical characteristics were used to compare clinical outcomes (Kaplan-Meier estimates) between patients implanted with overlapping DES (Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stent (R-ZES) or R-ZES/other DES) against no overlapping DES. Additionally, angiographic outcomes for overlapping R-ZES and everolimus-eluting stents were evaluated in the randomised RESOLUTE All-Comers Trial. SETTING Patient level data from five controlled studies of the RESOLUTE Global Clinical Program evaluating the R-ZES were pooled. Enrollment criteria were generally unrestrictive. PATIENTS 5130 patients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES 2-year clinical outcomes and 13-month angiographic outcomes. RESULTS 644 of 5130 patients (12.6%) in the RESOLUTE Global Clinical Program underwent overlapping DES implantation. Implantation of overlapping DES was associated with an increased frequency of MI and more complex/calcified lesion types at baseline. Adjusted in-hospital, 30-day and 2-year clinical outcomes indicated comparable cardiac death (2-year overlap vs non-overlap: 3.0% vs 2.1%, p=0.36), major adverse cardiac events (13.3% vs 10.7%, p=0.19), target-vessel MI (3.9% vs 3.4%, p=0.40), clinically driven target vessel revascularisation (7.7% vs 6.5%, p=0.32), and definite/probable stent thrombosis (1.4% vs 0.9%, p=0.28). 13-month adjusted angiographic outcomes were comparable between overlapping and non-overlapping DES. CONCLUSIONS Overlapping newer generation DES are safe and effective, with comparable angiographic and clinical outcomes--including repeat revascularisation--to non-overlapping DES.

Stent Thrombosis in Drug-Eluting or Bare-Metal Stents in Patients Receiving Dual Antiplatelet Therapy

OBJECTIVES This study sought to compare rates of stent thrombosis and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) (composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) after coronary stenting with drug-eluting stents (DES) versus bare-metal stents (BMS) in patients who participated in the DAPT (Dual Antiplatelet Therapy) study, an international multicenter randomized trial comparing 30 versus 12 months of dual antiplatelet therapy in subjects undergoing coronary stenting with either DES or BMS. BACKGROUND Despite antirestenotic efficacy of coronary DES compared with BMS, the relative risk of stent thrombosis and adverse cardiovascular events is unclear. Many clinicians perceive BMS to be associated with fewer adverse ischemic events and to require shorter-duration dual antiplatelet therapy than DES. METHODS Prospective propensity-matched analysis of subjects enrolled into a randomized trial of dual antiplatelet therapy duration was performed. DES- and BMS-treated subjects were propensity-score matched in a many-to-one fashion. The study design was observational for all subjects 0 to 12 months following stenting. A subset of eligible subjects without major ischemic or bleeding events were randomized at 12 months to continued thienopyridine versus placebo; all subjects were followed through 33 months. RESULTS Among 10,026 propensity-matched subjects, DES-treated subjects (n = 8,308) had a lower rate of stent thrombosis through 33 months compared with BMS-treated subjects (n = 1,718, 1.7% vs. 2.6%; weighted risk difference -1.1%, p = 0.01) and a noninferior rate of MACCE (11.4% vs. 13.2%, respectively, weighted risk difference -1.8%, p = 0.053, noninferiority p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS DES-treated subjects have long-term rates of stent thrombosis that are lower than BMS-treated subjects. (The Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Study [DAPT study]; NCT00977938).