PRODIGY study could confirm first-ever reliable predictor of OIRD in hospitalized patients
Opioid-induced respiratory depression (OIRD) is common on hospital general-care floors (med-surg), yet there is no reliable tool currently available to predict which patients are most likely to experience OIRD. In their effort to change that, researchers from 16 medical centers and seven countries are conducting a study called the PRODIGY (PRediction of Opioid-induced respiratory Depression In patients monitored by capnoGraphY). The objective is to find out if continuous cardiorespiratory monitoring may be a solution to inform early intervention, mitigating further deterioration. Additionally, the PRODIGY trial aims to help clinicians with a validated respiratory depression-risk prediction scoring tool — the first of its kind — for adult hospital patients receiving opioids. The Journal of Critical Care recently published the first manuscript, “Respiratory Depression in Low Acuity Hospital Settings — Seeking Answers from the PRODIGY Trial” with more to come over the next six months. Healthcare Purchasing News asked lead author Ashish K. Khanna, MD, FCCP, FCCM, an intensivist and anesthesiologist and Vice-Chief for Research for the Center for Critical Care at the Cleveland Clinic a couple of questions about the current state of OIRD prevention practices and what healthcare providers might ex- pect in the future.
Ashish K. Khanna
HPN: If no reliable tool exists to predict OIRD in a hospital setting, what then are clinicians doing to prevent it, and why do you consider current methods unreliable? Dr. Khanna: The problem is twofold — first and foremost is the lack of predictability and secondly is current patient monitoring protocols in our hospitals. The lack of predictability stems from the fact
that no two patients are alike. Pre-existing medical problems, pulmonary status, age, body weight, nature and duration of surgery or medical insult and inherent pharmacokinetic response to pain medi- cation, along with dosing schemes utilized and com- bination with sedatives/sleep supporting medication are just some of the many factors that are thought to play a part in the occurrence of a possible respira- tory depression event on the floor. We have seen in previous investigative work
done by our group at the Cleveland Clinic that the nature of pain medication used ( i.e., long vs. short acting medication) and the presence of obstructive sleep apnea based on a validated screening tool (the STOP-BANG score), did not alter the amount or duration of hypoxemia (a component of re- spiratory depression) in patients recovering from non-cardiac surgery. This was counter intuitive to popular belief; however this work along with previous work that had shown that hypoxemia was common and more prevalent than we thought in patients on the hospital floor, truly highlighted the nature, scope and complexity of the issue of respiratory depression in our patients in
these ‘safe’ environments. The alarming truth is that these events are truly difficult to predict, and hence there is a large “at risk” population. The other issue is monitoring. Clinicians are cur-
rently relying on ‘spot checks’ every four to six hours in general-care ward patients. This means that there are large stretches of time where patients may have respiratory depression that largely goes un- detected, essentially because we do not know that it is occurring. Here is where there is a window of opportunity. Most patients will show a pattern of change in their breathing and hemodynamic patterns, sometimes many hours before they finally have a catastrophic event. Better portable continuous monitoring solutions
in the general-care ward patient will provide an op- portunity to our bedside nurses and doctors to identify these patterns and intervene poractively, on time, and possibly save a life.
Considering how critical an issue OIRD is, why hasn’t this problem been addressed until now? Not till very recently have we really identified that this is a major safety issue for our patients. Not that we have not done anything about it — most large hospital systems have multi-disciplinary rapid re- sponse teams (RRTs) in place. These teams com- posed of physicians trained in anesthesia, critical care and emergency medicine, along with nurses and respiratory therapists are deployed around the clock to respond to the catastrophes that happen. And there is data to believe that the advent of these RRTs has made a difference. However, these actions are mostly not proactive, and occur after the occur- rence of an event. What we need are proactive ac- tions to identify a patient at risk, identify the danger signals based on continuous monitoring that can tell the clinician that this patient is going to face a life- threatening deterioration and allow these RRT teams to act before it is too late. The other part of this piece is until we truly deploy
continuous and better monitoring we will not have a real-time dynamic early-warning-sign system to base our critical interventions. Because these systems are in an infancy of their development and have not been operational or validated in major clinical trial, we know little in this area and are not currently in place to develop sound solutions. The PRODIGY trial is unique in that this is truly
the first international prospective observational trial of continuous multi-parameter cardiorepiratory moni- toring in both medical and surgical patients on the floor. To allow us to better ascertain the true nature of the problem and the predictive signals, we blinded physicians and caregivers to monitor alarms and num- bers. This meant that the data uncovered is in turn a goldmine of information across thousands of pa- tients, which will allow us to apply predictive analytics and come up with a sound solution to this problem. Our hope is to develop a novel PRODIGY score that will tell us who to monitor, how to monitor, how long to monitor and when to intervene.
20 August 2018 • HEALTHCARE PURCHASING NEWS •
hpnonline.com
OPERATING ROOM
scientists who wish to make a difference in this field of investigation.” (See PRODIGY study sidebar, at left.) Opioid safety across the continuum of
care is also a concern and is No.2 on ECRI’s Top 10 report. An NIH news release from June echoes the urgency stating that 34 percent of people who experienced an overdose were subsequently prescribed one or more prescriptions for opioid painkillers over the next 12 months, and 26 percent were prescribed benzodiazepines.7
IV dangers The majority of hospital patients receive medications and fluids through peripheral intravenous (IV) therapy, yet, several fac- tors from insertion to unique patient quali- ties can lead to complications. “Not only is this vascular access procedure among the most common invasive procedure performed in health care, it’s a clinical gateway to nearly all health care delivery,” said Susan Brown, Chief Nursing Officer, ivWatch. “This procedure has a 50 percent failure rate, where 20 percent to 23 percent of those failures are due to infiltration and extravasation. Every infiltration is a medi- cation dosing and delivery error that can impact the patient through prolonged hos- pital stays, temporary harm, or permanent injuries. Many hospitals have implemented programs such as hourly checks, visual assessments, and other internal programs. Unfortunately, harm from infiltrations and extravasations still occur.” Sometimes medication errors occur
before treatment even reaches the patient. “Despite the advancements in medication management technologies, the process of getting a medication from the pharmacy to the patient remains complex and, unfor- tunately, errors can still occur,” explained Thomas Utech, PharmD, Vice President, Solutions Management, BD. “It’s estimated that 68 percent of medication errors occur during the administration step of the medi- cation management process. In the case of IV medications, errors in the compounding process pose a significant risk downstream because the medication could be labeled correctly despite its incorrect preparation. In this situation, the nurse can do every- thing right at the bedside, yet an error can still find its way to a patient. “While advancements have been made to improve the safety and accuracy of medi- cation management technologies, many of those technologies continue to live in isolation—disconnected from each other and from the EMR,” Utech continued. “This disconnected approach requires that infor- mation is manually passed from system to system, opening up the opportunity for
Page 22
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64
