OBJECTIVES: To determine types of potentially (PIMs) and actually inappropriate medications (AIMs), which PIMs are most likely to be considered AIMs, and risk factors for PIMs and AIMs at hospital discharge in elderly intensive care unit (ICU) survivors. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary care, academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred twenty individuals aged 60 and older who survived an ICU hospitalization. MEASUREMENTS: Potentially inappropriate medications were defined according to published criteria; a multidisciplinary panel adjudicated AIMs. Medications from before admission, ward admission, ICU admission, ICU discharge, and hospital discharge were abstracted. Poisson regression was used to examine independent risk factors for hospital discharge PIMs and AIMs. RESULTS: Of 250 PIMs prescribed at discharge, the most common were opioids (28%), anticholinergics (24%), antidepressants (12%), and drugs causing orthostasis (8%). The three most common AIMs were anticholinergics (37%), nonbenzodiazepine hypnotics (14%), and opioids (12%). Overall, 36% of discharge PIMs were classified as AIMs, but the percentage varied according to drug type. Whereas only 16% of opioids, 23% of antidepressants, and 10% of drugs causing orthostasis were classified as AIMs, 55% of anticholinergics, 71% of atypical antipyschotics, 67% of nonbenzodiazepine hypnotics and benzodiazepines, and 100% of muscle relaxants were deemed AIMs. The majority of PIMs and AIMs were first prescribed in the ICU. Preadmission PIMs, discharge to somewhere other than home, and discharge from a surgical service predicted number of discharge PIMs, but none of the factors predicted AIMs at discharge. CONCLUSION: Certain types of PIMs, which are commonly initiated in the ICU, are more frequently considered inappropriate upon clinical review. Efforts to reduce AIMs in elderly ICU survivors should target these specific classes of medications.
OBJECTIVES: To determine types of potentially (PIMs) and actually inappropriate medications (AIMs), which PIMs are most likely to be considered AIMs, and risk factors for PIMs and AIMs at hospital discharge in elderly intensive care unit (ICU) survivors. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary care, academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred twenty individuals aged 60 and older who survived an ICU hospitalization. MEASUREMENTS: Potentially inappropriate medications were defined according to published criteria; a multidisciplinary panel adjudicated AIMs. Medications from before admission, ward admission, ICU admission, ICU discharge, and hospital discharge were abstracted. Poisson regression was used to examine independent risk factors for hospital discharge PIMs and AIMs. RESULTS: Of 250 PIMs prescribed at discharge, the most common were opioids (28%), anticholinergics (24%), antidepressants (12%), and drugs causing orthostasis (8%). The three most common AIMs were anticholinergics (37%), nonbenzodiazepine hypnotics (14%), and opioids (12%). Overall, 36% of discharge PIMs were classified as AIMs, but the percentage varied according to drug type. Whereas only 16% of opioids, 23% of antidepressants, and 10% of drugs causing orthostasis were classified as AIMs, 55% of anticholinergics, 71% of atypical antipyschotics, 67% of nonbenzodiazepine hypnotics and benzodiazepines, and 100% of muscle relaxants were deemed AIMs. The majority of PIMs and AIMs were first prescribed in the ICU. Preadmission PIMs, discharge to somewhere other than home, and discharge from a surgical service predicted number of discharge PIMs, but none of the factors predicted AIMs at discharge. CONCLUSION: Certain types of PIMs, which are commonly initiated in the ICU, are more frequently considered inappropriate upon clinical review. Efforts to reduce AIMs in elderly ICU survivors should target these specific classes of medications.
Authors: J T Hanlon; K E Schmader; G P Samsa; M Weinberger; K M Uttech; I K Lewis; H J Cohen; J R Feussner Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 1992-10 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Emily R Hajjar; Joseph T Hanlon; Richard J Sloane; Catherine I Lindblad; Carl F Pieper; Christine M Ruby; Laurence C Branch; Kenneth E Schmader Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Pratik P Pandharipande; E Wesley Ely; Rakesh C Arora; Michele C Balas; Malaz A Boustani; Gabriel Heras La Calle; Colm Cunningham; John W Devlin; Julius Elefante; Jin H Han; Alasdair M MacLullich; José R Maldonado; Alessandro Morandi; Dale M Needham; Valerie J Page; Louise Rose; Jorge I F Salluh; Tarek Sharshar; Yahya Shehabi; Yoanna Skrobik; Arjen J C Slooter; Heidi A B Smith Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2017-06-13 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Carla M Sevin; Sarah L Bloom; James C Jackson; Li Wang; E Wesley Ely; Joanna L Stollings Journal: J Crit Care Date: 2018-08 Impact factor: 3.425
Authors: Catherine K Floroff; Patricia W Slattum; Spencer E Harpe; Perry Taylor; Gretchen M Brophy Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: Christopher G Hughes; Christina S Boncyk; Deborah J Culley; Lee A Fleisher; Jacqueline M Leung; David L McDonagh; Tong J Gan; Matthew D McEvoy; Timothy E Miller Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 5.108
Authors: Stephanie Parks Taylor; Shih-Hsiung Chou; Marielys Figueroa Sierra; Thomas P Shuman; Andrew D McWilliams; Brice T Taylor; Mark Russo; Susan L Evans; Whitney Rossman; Stephanie Murphy; Kyle Cunningham; Marc A Kowalkowski Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2020-01