RESUMEN
Vasopressor medications for circulatory shock have historically been administered through central venous catheters due to concern for extravasation injury when given peripherally. However, recent studies have demonstrated the safety of peripheral administration of vasopressor medications at lower doses and for a limited duration. Peripheral use of vasopressors is appealing to both patients and providers, as obtaining central access is an invasive procedure associated with the risk of pneumothorax, bleeding, and infection. Furthermore, waiting to initiate these medications until central access is obtained can lead to delays in care. Conversely, valid concerns remain regarding the risk of tissue extravasation associated with peripheral vasopressors, which can be life and limb threatening. We discuss the guidelines and data for optimal dose, duration, intravenous line (IV) size, IV location, and nursing IV site monitoring for peripheral vasopressors. We then explore adverse events associated with peripheral vasopressors. Finally, we describe how this practice change may impact hospital medicine providers.
Asunto(s)
Choque , Vasoconstrictores , Humanos , Vasoconstrictores/uso terapéutico , Vasoconstrictores/efectos adversos , Choque/tratamiento farmacológico , Medicina Hospitalar , Cateterismo Periférico/efectos adversos , Guías de Práctica Clínica como AsuntoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) pneumonia is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Recently, MRSA testing by nasal swab has been utilized to "exclude" pneumonia caused by MRSA, given its high negative-predictive value (NPV). We present, however, a case of MRSA pneumonia diagnosed by endotracheal aspirate culture (EAC) in a patient with a negative MRSA nasal swab. CASE REPORT A 58-year-old woman presented with septic shock and respiratory failure. Chest X-ray (CXR) on admission was unrevealing; however, computed tomography (CT) revealed multifocal pneumonia. Intensive Care Unit (ICU)-level care was required for mechanical ventilation and vasopressors. She initially improved with treatment of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and was extubated on hospital day 6; however, she then developed a fever, tachycardia, and respiratory distress necessitating re-intubation later that day. Repeat CXR demonstrated a new left lower lobe infiltrate. Blood cultures were drawn and vancomycin and cefepime were started to cover for ventilator-associated pathogens. An EAC and nasal swab were collected to test for MRSA. The next day (day 7), the MRSA nasal swab returned negative, and vancomycin was discontinued. Our patient continued to experience fevers, worsening leukocytosis, and ongoing vasopressor need. On hospital day 9, the EAC results were obtained, and were positive for MRSA. Vancomycin was restarted and our patient recovered. CONCLUSIONS Negative MRSA nasal screening may be considered grounds to de-escalate empiric MRSA antibiotics if MRSA prevalence is low. However, in critically ill patients with high risk and suspicion for MRSA pneumonia, discontinuing empiric MRSA coverage should be done with caution or clinicians should wait until respiratory culture results are obtained before de-escalating antibiotics.