"Should We Phenobarb-it-All?" A Phenobarbital-Based Protocol for Non-Intensive Care Unit Trauma Patients at High Risk of or Experiencing Alcohol Withdrawal.

Michelle Wang, C. Falank, Vincent Simboli, Julianne B. Ontengco, Brandi Spurling, Joseph Rappold, Bruce Chung, Kathryn E Smith
{"title":"\"Should We Phenobarb-it-All?\" A Phenobarbital-Based Protocol for Non-Intensive Care Unit Trauma Patients at High Risk of or Experiencing Alcohol Withdrawal.","authors":"Michelle Wang, C. Falank, Vincent Simboli, Julianne B. Ontengco, Brandi Spurling, Joseph Rappold, Bruce Chung, Kathryn E Smith","doi":"10.1177/00031348241244639","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\nAlcohol use is frequent in trauma patients and alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) is associated with significant morbidity. Benzodiazepines are commonly used for AWS, but may cause neurologic and respiratory adverse events (AEs). The objective was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of a phenobarbital-based protocol for the treatment of AWS in non-intensive care unit (ICU) trauma patients.\n\n\nMETHODS\nAdult non-ICU trauma patients at high risk of or experiencing AWS PRE and POST implementation of a phenobarbital-based protocol were included. Outcomes were AWS-related complications (AWS-RC), benzodiazepine use, adjunctive medication use, hospital length of stay (HLOS), and medication-related AEs. Subgroup analyses were performed on patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI), rib fractures, and at high risk of severe AWS.\n\n\nRESULTS\nOverall, 110 patients were included (51 PRE, 59 POST). AWS-RC developed in 17 PRE patients compared to 10 POST patients (33% vs 17%; P = .05). PRE patients were more likely to receive benzodiazepines (88% vs 42%, P < .0001) and higher total dose (11 vs 4 mg lorazepam equivalent; P = .001). No difference noted in HLOS (8 vs 8 days, P = .27), adjunctive medication use (49% vs 54%, P = .60), or AEs (57% vs 39%, P = .06). There was no difference in AWS-RC in the TBI subgroup (P = .19), less AEs in the rib fracture POST subgroup (P = .04), and less AWS-RC in the high risk of severe AWS POST subgroup (P = .03).\n\n\nDISCUSSION\nA phenobarbital-based protocol in trauma patients is effective in preventing AWS-RC and decreasing benzodiazepine use without increasing AEs.","PeriodicalId":325363,"journal":{"name":"The American Surgeon","volume":"13 29","pages":"31348241244639"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The American Surgeon","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00031348241244639","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BACKGROUND Alcohol use is frequent in trauma patients and alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) is associated with significant morbidity. Benzodiazepines are commonly used for AWS, but may cause neurologic and respiratory adverse events (AEs). The objective was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of a phenobarbital-based protocol for the treatment of AWS in non-intensive care unit (ICU) trauma patients. METHODS Adult non-ICU trauma patients at high risk of or experiencing AWS PRE and POST implementation of a phenobarbital-based protocol were included. Outcomes were AWS-related complications (AWS-RC), benzodiazepine use, adjunctive medication use, hospital length of stay (HLOS), and medication-related AEs. Subgroup analyses were performed on patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI), rib fractures, and at high risk of severe AWS. RESULTS Overall, 110 patients were included (51 PRE, 59 POST). AWS-RC developed in 17 PRE patients compared to 10 POST patients (33% vs 17%; P = .05). PRE patients were more likely to receive benzodiazepines (88% vs 42%, P < .0001) and higher total dose (11 vs 4 mg lorazepam equivalent; P = .001). No difference noted in HLOS (8 vs 8 days, P = .27), adjunctive medication use (49% vs 54%, P = .60), or AEs (57% vs 39%, P = .06). There was no difference in AWS-RC in the TBI subgroup (P = .19), less AEs in the rib fracture POST subgroup (P = .04), and less AWS-RC in the high risk of severe AWS POST subgroup (P = .03). DISCUSSION A phenobarbital-based protocol in trauma patients is effective in preventing AWS-RC and decreasing benzodiazepine use without increasing AEs.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
"我们是否应该全部使用苯巴比妥?基于苯巴比妥的非重症监护病房创伤患者酒精戒断高风险或经历方案。
背景创伤患者经常饮酒,而酒精戒断综合征(AWS)与严重的发病率有关。苯二氮卓类药物是治疗戒酒综合征的常用药物,但可能导致神经和呼吸系统不良事件(AEs)。研究目的是评估苯巴比妥方案治疗非重症监护室(ICU)创伤患者 AWS 的有效性和安全性。方法纳入了在苯巴比妥方案实施前和实施后有 AWS 高风险或正在经历 AWS 的非重症监护室成人创伤患者。研究结果包括 AWS 相关并发症 (AWS-RC)、苯二氮卓类药物使用情况、辅助药物使用情况、住院时间 (HLOS) 以及药物相关 AEs。对脑外伤 (TBI)、肋骨骨折和严重 AWS 高危患者进行了分组分析。结果共纳入 110 名患者(51 名 PRE,59 名 POST)。17 名 PRE 患者出现 AWS-RC 症状,10 名 POST 患者出现 AWS-RC 症状(33% vs 17%; P = .05)。预处理患者更有可能接受苯二氮卓类药物治疗(88% 对 42%,P < .0001),且总剂量更高(11 毫克对 4 毫克劳拉西泮当量;P = .001)。在 HLOS(8 天 vs 8 天,P = .27)、辅助用药(49% vs 54%,P = .60)或 AEs(57% vs 39%,P = .06)方面没有发现差异。创伤性脑损伤亚组的 AWS-RC 无差异(P = .19),肋骨骨折 POST 亚组的 AEs 较少(P = .04),高风险严重 AWS POST 亚组的 AWS-RC 较少(P = .03)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Bile Duct Injuries During Urgent Cholecystectomy at a Safety Net Teaching Hospital: Attending Experience and Time of Day May Matter. From Bytes to Best Practices: Tracing ChatGPT-3.5's Evolution and Alignment With the National Comprehensive Cancer Network® Guidelines in Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma Management. The USCENTCOM Walking Blood Bank Performance Benchmark and Anticipated Benefit of Universal Low Titer Type O Screening. Contemporary Outcomes and Patterns of Injury Associated With Parachuting Accidents. To Drain or Not: Drainage Procedures Remain a Central Tenet of Management of Infected Collections in Acute Pancreatitis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1