Hospital Medicine

In contrast to stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD),¹ acute exacerbations of COPD pose special management challenges and can significantly increase the risk of morbidity and death and the cost of care.

This review addresses the definition and diagnosis of COPD exacerbations, disease burden and costs, etiology and pathogenesis, and management and prevention strategies.

DEFINITIONS ARE PROBLEMATIC

The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) defines a COPD exacer­bation as “an acute event characterized by a worsening of the patient’s respiratory symptoms that is beyond normal day-to-day variations and leads to a change in medication.”² It further categorizes acute exacerbations by severity:

• Mild—treated with increased frequency of doses of existing medications
• Moderate—treated with corticosteroids or antibiotics, or both
• Severe—requires hospital utilization (either emergency room treatment or admission).

Although descriptive and useful for retrospective analyses, this current definition poses ambiguities for clinicians. Day-to-day variation in symptoms is not routinely assessed, so deviations from baseline may be difficult to detect. Although clinical tools are available for assessing symptoms in stable and exacerbated states (eg, the COPD assessment test³ and the Exacerbations of Chronic Pulmonary Disease Tool [EXACT]⁴), they have not been widely adopted in daily practice. Also, according to the current definition, the severity of an exacerbation can be classified only after the course of action is determined, so the severity is not helpful for forming a management strategy at bedside. In addition, physicians may have different thresholds for prescribing antibiotics and corticosteroids.

An earlier definition categorized a COPD exacerbation by the presence of its three cardinal symptoms (ie, increased shortness of breath, sputum volume, and purulence):

• Type I—all three symptoms present
• Type II—two symptoms present
• Type III—one symptom present, accompanied by at least one of the following: upper respiratory tract infection within the past 5 days, unexplained fever, increased wheezing or cough, or 20% increased respiratory rate or heart rate from baseline.

This older definition was successfully used in a prospective clinical trial to identify patients who benefited most from antibiotics for COPD exacerbations.⁵

COPD exacerbation: an acute worsening of respiratory symptoms

Despite these caveats regarding a definition, most clinicians agree on the clinical presentation of a patient with COPD exacerbation: ie, having some combination of shortness of breath, increased sputum volume, and purulence. By the same token, patients with COPD who present with symptoms not typical of an exacerbation should be evaluated for another diagnosis. For instance, Tillie-Leblond et al⁶ reported that 49 (25%) of 197 patients hospitalized with an “unexplained” exacerbation of COPD were eventually diagnosed with pulmonary embolism.

EXACERBATIONS ARE COSTLY

The care of patients with COPD places a great burden on the healthcare system. Using multiple national databases, Ford et al⁷ estimated that medical costs in the United States in 2010 attributable to COPD and its complications were $32.1 billion.

The largest component of direct healthcare costs of COPD is exacerbations and subsequent hospitalizations.⁸ Data from a predominantly Medicare population indicate that the annualized mean COPD-related cost for a patient with no exacerbations was $1,425, compared with $12,765 for a patient with severe exacerbations.⁹ The investigators estimated that reducing exacerbations from two or more to none could save $5,125 per patient per year.

EXACERBATIONS AFFECT HEALTH BEYOND THE EVENT

COPD exacerbations are associated with a faster decline in lung function,¹⁰ reduced quality of life,¹¹ and lost workdays.⁷ A single exacerbation may cause a decline in lung function and health status that may not return to baseline for several months, particularly if another exacerbation occurs within 6 months.^12,13 COPD exacerbations have also been linked to poor clinical outcomes, including death.

In a prospective study in 304 men with COPD followed for 5 years, those who had three or more COPD exacerbations annually were four times as likely to die than patients who did not have an exacerbation.¹⁴ Nevertheless, the relationship with mortality may not be causal: Brusselle pointed out in an editorial¹⁵ that established mortality predictors for COPD do not include exacerbations, and symptomatic patients with COPD without any history of exacerbations are at greater risk of death than those who are asymptomatic but at high risk for exacerbations.

INFECTION + INFLAMMATION = EXACERBATION

An acute COPD exacerbation can be viewed as an acute inflammatory event superimposed on chronic inflammation associated with COPD. Inflammation in the airways increases resistance to air flow with consequent air trapping. Increased resistance and elastic load due to air trapping place respiratory muscles at a mechanical disadvantage and increase the work of breathing.

Infection starts the process

Infections are thought to be the major instigators of COPD exacerbation

Infections, particularly bacterial and viral, are thought to be the major instigators of COPD exacerbation, although environmental factors such as air pollution may also play a role.¹⁶

Airway inflammation is markedly reduced when bacterial infection is eradicated. But if bacterial colonization continues, inflammatory markers remain elevated despite clinical resolution of the exacerbation.¹⁷ Desai et al¹⁸ found that patients with COPD and chronic bronchitis with bacterial colonization had a larger symptom burden than patients without colonization, even without an exacerbation.

Allergic profile increases risk

Although most studies indicate that infection is the main cause of exacerbations, clinicians should consider other mechanisms of inflammation on an individual basis. COPD exacerbations may be phenotyped by measuring inflammatory markers, perhaps as a starting point for tailored therapies.

Bafadhel et al¹⁹ studied 145 patients with COPD over the course of a year and recorded various biomarkers at baseline and during exacerbations. Exacerbations had an inflammatory profile that was predominantly bacterial in 37%, viral in 10%, and eosinophilic in 17%, and had limited changes in the inflammatory profile in 14%. The remaining episodes were combinations of categories. In another study,²⁰ multivariate analysis conducted in two cohorts with COPD found that patients who had an allergic phenotype had more respiratory symptoms and a higher likelihood of COPD exacerbations.

Frequent COPD exacerbations are increasingly recognized as being associated with an asthma-COPD overlap syndrome, consisting of symptoms of increased airflow variability and incompletely reversible airflow obstruction.²¹

Inflammation as a marker of frequent exacerbations

Evidence is accumulating that supports systemic inflammation as a marker of frequent exacerbations. The Copenhagen Heart Study tested for baseline plasma C-reactive protein, fibrinogen, and white blood cell count in 6,574 stable patients with COPD.²² After multivariable adjustment, they found a significantly higher likelihood of having a subsequent exacerbation in patients who had all three biomarkers elevated (odds ratio [OR] 3.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.9–7.4), even in patients with milder COPD and those without previous exacerbations.

Past exacerbations predict risk

A history of exacerbation is the best predictor of future exacerbation

The Evaluation of COPD Longitudinally to Identify Predictive Surrogate Endpoints study²³ found that a history of acute COPD exacerbation was the single best predictor of future exacerbations. This risk factor remained stable over 3 years and was present across the severity of COPD, ie, patients at lower GOLD stages who had a history of frequent exacerbations were likely to have exacerbations during follow-up.

EXACERBATION INCREASES CARDIOVASCULAR RISK

COPD exacerbations increase the risk of cardiovascular events, particularly myocardial infarction.²⁴ During hospitalization for acute exacerbation of COPD, markers of myocardial injury and heart failure may be elevated and are a predictor of death.²⁵

Patel et al²⁶ measured arterial stiffness (aortic pulse wave velocity, a validated measure of cardiovascular risk) and cardiac biomarkers (troponin and N-terminal B-type natriuretic peptide) at baseline in 98 patients and longitudinally during and after a COPD exacerbation. In addition to increased levels of cardiac biomarkers, they found a significant rise in arterial stiffness during the exacerbation event without return to baseline levels over 35 days of follow-up. The arterial stiffness increase was related to airway inflammation as measured by sputum interleukin 6, particularly in patients with documented lower respiratory tract infection.

Retrospective analysis suggests a reduced all-cause mortality rate in COPD patients who are treated with beta-blockers.²⁷

Recommendation. We recommend that patients already taking a selective beta-blocker continue to do so during a COPD exacerbation.

OUTPATIENT MANAGEMENT

Treatment with a combination of a corticosteroid, antibiotic, and bronchodilator addresses the underlying pathophysiologic processes of an acute exacerbation: inflammation, infection, and airway trapping.

Short course of a corticosteroid improves outcomes

A single exacerbation may worsen health status for several months

A 10-day systemic course of a corticosteroid prescribed for COPD exacerbation before discharge from the emergency department was found to offer a small advantage over placebo for reducing treatment failure (unscheduled physician visits, return to emergency room for recurrent symptoms) and improving dyspnea scores and lung function.²⁸ Even just a 3-day course improved measures of respiration (forced expiratory volume in the first second of expiration [FEV₁] and arterial oxygenation) at days 3 and 10, and reduced treatment failures compared with placebo.²⁹

Corticosteroid prescription should not be taken lightly, because adverse effects are common. In a systematic review, one adverse effect (hyperglycemia, weight gain, or insomnia) occurred for every five people treated.³⁰

Identifying subgroups of patients most likely to benefit from corticosteroid treatment may be helpful. Corticosteroids may delay improvement in patients without eosinophilic inflammation and hasten recovery in those with more than 2% peripheral eosinophils.³¹ Siva et al³² found that limiting corticosteroids to patients with sputum eosinophilia reduced corticosteroid use and reduced severe exacerbations compared with standard care.³²

Recommendation. For an acute exacerbation, we prescribe a short course of corticosteroids (eg, prednisone 40 mg daily for 5 to 7 days). Tapering dosing is probably unnecessary because adrenal insufficiency is uncommon before 2 weeks of corticosteroid exposure. Clinicians should weigh the merits of tapering (reduced corticosteroid exposure) against patient inconvenience and difficulty following complicated instructions.

Antibiotics help, but exact strategy uncertain

Although antibiotic therapy is one of the three pillars of COPD exacerbation management, the optimal antimicrobial agent, duration of therapy, and which patients will benefit remain areas of controversy and research. Thus far, large trials have been unable to definitely show the superiority of one antibiotic over another.^33,34

A 1987 randomized controlled trial⁵ of antibiotic therapy in acute exacerbation of COPD found the greatest benefit to patients who had all three cardinal symptoms (ie, increased shortness of breath, sputum volume, and purulence), with less marked but still significant improvement in patients with two symptoms. In a 2012 multicenter trial³⁵ patients with mild to moderate COPD experiencing an exacerbation were treated with either combined amoxicillin and clavulanate or placebo if they had one of the three cardinal symptoms. The antibiotic group had a significantly higher clinical cure rate at days 9 to 11 (74.1% vs 59.9%) as well as a longer time until the next exacerbation (233 vs 160 days).

Recommendation. Optimal antibiotic management of COPD exacerbations may also depend on risk factors. For patients with at least two cardinal symptoms, we favor a scheme akin to one proposed for treating community-acquired pneumonia (Table 1).^16,36

INPATIENT MANAGEMENT

Corticosteroids improve outcomes

A Department of Veterans Affairs cooperative trial³⁷ randomized 271 patients hospitalized with COPD exacerbation to receive either corticosteroids (intravenous followed by oral) or placebo for either 2 weeks or 8 weeks. Corticosteroid recipients had lower rates of treatment failure at 30 and 90 days, defined as death from any cause, need for mechanical ventilation, readmission, or intensification of pharmacologic therapy. Corticosteroid therapy also reduced hospital length of stay and improved the rate of recovery. The longer corticosteroid course was associated with a higher rate of adverse effects.

Oral corticosteroids not inferior to intravenous

Using the same end point of treatment failure as the Veterans Affairs cooperative trial, deJong et al³⁸ demonstrated that prednisone 60 mg by mouth was not inferior to intravenous prednisone. Neither trial demonstrated a difference in mortality between corticosteroid use and placebo.

Short course of a corticosteroid not inferior to a long course

In 2013, the Reduction in the Use of Corticosteroids in Exacerbated COPD (REDUCE) trial³⁹ randomized 314 patients presenting with an acute COPD exacerbation (92% requiring hospital admission) to oral prednisone 40 mg daily for either 5 days or 14 days. They found that the short course was noninferior in preventing exacerbations over the ensuing 6 months in terms of death and the need for mechanical ventilation.

Recommendation. Our threshold for initiating systemic corticosteroid therapy is lower in hospitalized patients than in outpatients. We recommend the regimen of the REDUCE trial: prednisone 40 mg daily for 5 days.

Corticosteroids for patients on ventilatory support

Severe COPD exacerbations requiring admission to intensive care are a significant source of morbidity and mortality, and the strategy of corticosteroid treatment is still under investigation.

Intravenous corticosteroids are effective. A multicenter trial⁴⁰ in 354 patients requiring either invasive or noninvasive mechanical ventilation randomized them to treatment with either intravenous methylprednisolone (tapered) or placebo. Treatment was associated with fewer mechanical ventilation days and a lower rate of noninvasive ventilation failure.

Low-dose oral corticosteroids ineffective. In contrast, an open-label trial⁴¹ of patients requiring ventilatory support and randomized to either oral prednisone (1 mg/kg for up to 10 days) or usual care found no difference in intensive care length of stay or noninvasive ventilation failure. This study used the oral route and smaller doses, and its open-label design might have introduced bias.

Lower-dose steroids better than high-dose. A 2014 cohort study of 17,239 patients admitted to the ICU with acute exacerbations of COPD evaluated outcomes of treatment with high methylprednisolone dosages (> 240 mg per day) vs lower dosages, using propensity score matching.⁴² No mortality difference was found between the groups. The lower dosage group (median methylprednisolone dose 100 mg per day) had shorter hospital and intensive care unit stays, shorter duration of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation, less need for insulin therapy, and fewer fungal infections.

Antibiotics for hospitalized patients

Only scarce data are available on the use of antibiotics for patients hospitalized with COPD exacerbation. In a study of patients hospitalized with COPD exacerbations, adding doxycycline to corticosteroids led to better clinical success and cure rates at 10 days compared with placebo, but the primary end point of clinical success at 30 days was not different between the two groups.⁴³

BRONCHODILATORS: A MAINSTAY OF COPD TREATMENT

Bronchodilators are an important part of treatment of COPD exacerbations in inpatient and outpatient settings.

Nebulized beta-2 agonists are given every 1 to 4 hours. Albuterol at a 2.5-mg dose in each nebulization was found to be as effective as 5 mg for length of hospital stay and recovery of lung function in patients with an acute exacerbation of COPD.⁴⁴

Adding an anticholinergic may help. Nebulized anticholinergics can be given alone or combined with beta-2 agonists. Whether long-acting bronchodilators should be used to manage COPD patients hospitalized with an exacerbation requires further inquiry. In an observational study with historical controls, Drescher and colleagues⁴⁵ found cost savings and shorter hospital stays if tiotropium (a long-acting anticholinergic) was added to the respiratory care protocol, which also included formoterol (a long-acting beta-2 agonist).

OXYGEN: TITRATED APPROACH SAFER

Caution is needed to avoid hyperoxemic hypercapnia in patients on oxygen

Oxygen should be supplied during a COPD exacerbation to ensure adequate oxyhemoglobin saturation. Caution is needed to avoid hyperoxemic hypercapnia, particularly in patients with severe COPD and propensity to ventilatory failure. The routine administration of oxygen at high concentrations during a COPD exacerbation has been associated with a higher mortality rate than with a titrated oxygen approach.⁴⁶ Long-term oxygen treatment started at discharge or as outpatient therapy is associated with reduced hospital admissions and shorter hospital stays for acute exacerbations of COPD.⁴⁷

VENTILATION SUPPORT

Noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation is a useful adjunct to treatment of COPD exacerbations with evidence of ventilatory failure (ie, acute respiratory acidosis), helping to offset the work of breathing until respiratory system mechanics improve. Keenan et al⁴⁸ reviewed 15 randomized controlled trials, involving 636 patients, of noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation in the setting of COPD exacerbation. They concluded that noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation reduced the in-hospital mortality rate and length of stay compared with standard therapy. Noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation is most useful in patients with severe COPD exacerbations and acute respiratory acidosis (pH < 7.35).⁴⁹

Intubation and mechanical ventilation. Although no standards exist for determining which COPD exacerbations may be too severe for noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation, intubation is clearly indicated for impending respiratory failure or hemodynamic instability. Other factors to consider include the greater likelihood of noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation failure in patients with severe respiratory acidosis (pH < 7.25 is associated with a > 50% failure rate) and in those with no improvement in acidosis or respiratory rate during the first hour after initiation of noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation.⁵⁰

PREVENTING EXACERBATIONS

Recent data indicate that COPD exacerbations can often be prevented (Table 2).

Inhaled pharmacotherapy

Inhaled pharmacotherapeutic agents, singly or in combination, reduce the frequency of COPD exacerbations.

Combined long-acting beta-2 agonist and corticosteroid is better than single-agent therapy. In 2007, the Towards a Revolution in COPD Health (TORCH) trial⁵¹ evaluated outpatient therapy in more than 6,000 patients worldwide with either an inhaled long-acting beta-2 agonist (salmeterol), an inhaled corticosteroid (fluticasone), both drugs in combination, or placebo. Patients had baseline prebronchodilator FEV₁ of less than 60% and were followed for 3 years. No difference was found between the groups in the primary end point of deaths, but the annualized rate of moderate to severe exacerbations was reduced by 25% in the group that received combination therapy vs placebo. Combination therapy showed superior efficacy over individual drug therapy in preventing exacerbations. Treatment with the inhaled corticosteroid, whether alone or in combination with salmeterol, increased the risk of pneumonia.

A long-acting antimuscarinic agent is better than placebo. In 2008, the Understanding Potential Long-Term Impacts on Function With Tiotropium (UPLIFT) trial⁵² randomized nearly 6,000 patients with COPD and a postbronchodilator FEV₁ of less than 70% to placebo or tiotropium, a long-acting antimuscarinic agent. Tiotropium reduced the exacerbation rate by 14% compared with placebo and improved quality of life.

Antimuscarinics may be better than beta-2 agonists. Head-to-head comparisons suggest that long-acting antimuscarinic agents are preferable to long-acting beta-2 agonists for preventing COPD exacerbations.^53,54

Triple therapy: evidence is mixed. For patients with severe symptomatic COPD and frequent exacerbations, triple therapy with a combination of an inhaled long-acting antimuscarinic agent, an inhaled long-acting beta-2 agonist, and an inhaled corticosteroid has been suggested.

Data to support this practice are limited. In the Canadian Optimal Trial,⁵⁵ the rate of exacerbations was not different between tiotropium alone, tiotropium plus salmeterol, and triple therapy. However, the rate of hospitalization for severe exacerbation was lower with triple therapy than tiotropium alone. A large, retrospective cohort study also supported triple therapy by finding reduced mortality, hospitalizations, and need for oral corticosteroid bursts compared to combination therapy with an inhaled long-acting beta-2 agonist and an inhaled corticosteroid.⁵⁶

The drawback of triple therapy is an increased incidence of pneumonia associated with combined beta-2 agonist and corticosteroids, most likely due to the corticosteroid component.⁵¹ The risk appears to be higher for higher potency corticosteroids, eg, fluticasone.⁵⁷

In 2014, the Withdrawal of Inhaled Steroids During Optimised Bronchodilator Management (WISDOM) trial⁵⁸ randomized nearly 2,500 patients with a history of COPD exacerbation receiving triple therapy consisting of tiotropium, salmeterol, and inhaled fluticasone to either continue treatment or withdraw the corticosteroid for 3 months. The investigators defined an annualized exacerbation rate of 1.2 (ie, a 20% increase) as the upper limit of the confidence interval for an acceptable therapeutic margin of noninferiority. The study showed that the risk of moderate to severe exacerbations with combined tiotropium and salmeterol was noninferior to triple therapy.

Nevertheless, caution is advised when removing the corticosteroid component from triple therapy. The trial demonstrated a worsening in overall health status, some reduction in lung function, and a transient increase in severe exacerbations in the withdrawal group. Patients with increased symptom burden at baseline and a history of severe exacerbations may not be optimal candidates for this strategy.

Roflumilast is effective but has side effects

Roflumilast, an oral phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor, is an anti-inflammatory drug without bronchodilator properties. In randomized controlled trials, the drug was associated with a 17% reduction in acute exacerbations compared with placebo.⁵⁹

Adding roflumilast to either a long-acting beta-2 agonist or a long-acting antimuscarinic agent resulted in a 6% to 8% further reduction in the proportion of patients with exacerbation.^60,61 Martinez et al⁶¹ found that roflumilast added to a regimen of a long-acting beta-2 agonist plus an inhaled corticosteroid reduced moderate to severe exacerbations by 14.2%, even in the presence of tiotropium. Compared with placebo, roflumilast treatment reduced exacerbations necessitating hospitalizations by 23.9%.

The FDA has approved oral roflumilast 500 µg once daily to prevent COPD exacerbations.

Roflumilast is frequently associated with side effects, including gastrointestinal symptoms (chiefly diarrhea), weight loss, and psychiatric effects. A benefit-to-harm study in 2014 concluded that using the drug is only favorable for patients who have a high risk of severe exacerbations, ie, those who have a greater than 22% baseline risk of having at least one exacerbation annually.⁶²

Recommendation. Roflumilast should be reserved for patients who have severe COPD with a chronic bronchitis phenotype (ie, with cough and sputum production) and repeated exacerbations despite an optimal regimen of an inhaled corticosteroid, long-acting beta-2 agonist, and long-acting antimuscarinic agent.

Macrolide antibiotics: Role unclear

Macrolide antibiotics have anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory activities.

Azithromycin: fewer exacerbations but some side effects. A multicenter trial⁶³ in 1,142 COPD patients randomized to either oral azithromycin 250 mg daily or placebo found a 27% reduction in the risk of COPD exacerbation in the intervention arm. No differences were found between the groups in mortality, hospitalizations, emergency department visits, or respiratory failure. Hearing loss and increased macrolide resistance were noted in the intervention arm. In a secondary subgroup analysis,⁶⁴ no difference in efficacy was found by sex, history of chronic bronchitis, oxygen use, or concomitant COPD treatment.

The COPD: Influence of Macrolides on Exacerbation Frequency in Patients trial⁶⁵ helped refine patient selection for macrolide therapy. In this single-center study, 92 patients with COPD and at least three exacerbations during the year prior to enrollment were randomized to receive either azithromycin 500 mg three times weekly or placebo. Exacerbations in the intervention group were markedly reduced (42%) with no difference in hospitalization rate.

The place of macrolide antibiotics in the treatment strategy of COPD is unclear, and they are not currently part of the GOLD guidelines. Still unknown is the incremental benefit of adding them to existing preventive regimens, cardiovascular safety, side effects, and potential effects on the resident microbial flora. 

Other antibiotics have also been investigated for efficacy in preventing exacerbations.

Moxifloxacin: fewer exacerbations. The Pulsed Moxifloxacin Usage and Its Long-term Impact on the Reduction of Subsequent Exacerbations study⁶⁶ randomized more than 1,000 patients with stable COPD to receive either moxifloxacin 400 mg or placebo daily for 5 days repeated every 8 weeks for six courses. Frequent assessment during the treatment period and for 6 months afterward revealed a reduced exacerbation rate in the intervention group but without benefit in hospitalization rate, mortality, lung function, or health status.

Recommendation. Azithromycin (either 250 mg daily or 500 mg three times weekly) can be considered for patients who have repeated COPD exacerbations despite an optimal regimen of an inhaled corticosteroid, inhaled long-acting beta-2 agonist, and inhaled long-acting antimuscarinic agent. The need to continue azithromycin should be reassessed yearly.

Mucolytics

Greatest benefit to patients not taking inhaled corticosteroids. Mucolytic agents help clear airway secretions by reducing viscosity. N-acetylcysteine and carbocysteine (not available in the United States) also have antioxidant properties that may counteract oxidant stress associated with acute COPD exacerbations.

The Bronchitis Randomized on NAC Cost-Utility Study (BRONCUS)⁶⁷ randomized 523 COPD patients to N-acetylcysteine 600 mg daily or placebo. After 3 years of follow-up, no differences were found in the rate of exacerbations, lung function decline, and quality of life. Subgroup analysis suggested a reduction in exacerbations for patients who were not taking inhaled corticosteroids.

The Effect of Carbocisteine on Acute Exacerbation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (PEACE) study randomized more than 700 patients from multiple centers in China who had COPD and a recent history of exacerbations; they found a 25% lower exacerbation rate over 1 year with carbocysteine vs placebo.⁶⁸ Most of the patients (83%) were not on inhaled corticosteroids, which complemented findings of the BRONCUS trial.

The Effect of High Dose N-acetylcysteine on Air Trapping and Airway Resistance of COPD (HIACE) study randomized 120 patients with stable COPD in a hospital in Hong Kong to either oral N-acetylcysteine (600 mg twice daily) or placebo and found a reduced exacerbation rate of exacerbations. Patients were matched at baseline for inhaled corticosteroid use.⁶⁹

In 2014, the Twice Daily N-acetylcysteine 600 mg for Exacerbations of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (PANTHEON) study⁷⁰ randomized 1,006 patients from multiple hospitals in China with a history of moderate to severe COPD and exacerbations to receive either N-acetylcysteine 600 mg twice daily or placebo for 1 year. They found a 22% reduction in exacerbations in the treatment group vs placebo.  

GOLD guidelines² recommend mucolytics for patients with severe COPD and exacerbations when inhaled corticosteroids are not available or affordable.

Recommendation. Mucolytics may be useful for patients with difficulty expectorating and with a history of exacerbations despite appropriate inhaled therapy.

OTHER INTERVENTIONS CAN HELP

Pulmonary rehabilitation provides multiple benefits

Pulmonary rehabilitation increases exercise tolerance and reduces symptoms

Pulmonary rehabilitation increases exercise tolerance and reduces symptom burden in patients with stable COPD. It is also a multidisciplinary effort that may help reinforce adherence to medications, enhance COPD education, and provide closer medical surveillance to patients at high risk for recurrent exacerbations.

A small randomized controlled trial⁷¹ prescribed pulmonary rehabilitation on discharge for a COPD exacerbation and found sustainable improvements in exercise capacity and health status after 3 months.

In a later study,⁷² the same group started pulmonary rehabilitation within a week of hospital discharge and found reduced hospital readmissions over a 3-month period.

Smoking cessation is always worth advocating

A large observational cohort study concluded that current smokers were at a higher risk for COPD exacerbations compared with former smokers.⁷³ Although there are no randomized controlled trials that assess the effects of smoking cessation at the time of COPD exacerbation, we recommend seizing the opportunity to implement this important intervention.

Vaccinations: Influenza and pneumococcal

Influenza vaccination is associated with reduced incidence of hospitalization among patients with cardiopulmonary disease.⁷⁴ A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials of influenza vaccination for patients with COPD⁷⁵ reported significantly fewer exacerbations from vaccination, mostly owing to fewer episodes occurring after 3 to 4 weeks, coinciding with anticipated vaccine-induced immune protection. Furumoto and colleagues⁷⁶ reported an added benefit of combined vaccination with 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine and influenza vaccine in reducing hospital admissions over influenza vaccination alone. We also recommend providing the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine to patients with COPD, particularly for those older than 65, consistent with CDC recommendations.⁷⁷

In contrast to stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD),¹ acute exacerbations of COPD pose special management challenges and can significantly increase the risk of morbidity and death and the cost of care.

This review addresses the definition and diagnosis of COPD exacerbations, disease burden and costs, etiology and pathogenesis, and management and prevention strategies.

DEFINITIONS ARE PROBLEMATIC

The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) defines a COPD exacer­bation as “an acute event characterized by a worsening of the patient’s respiratory symptoms that is beyond normal day-to-day variations and leads to a change in medication.”² It further categorizes acute exacerbations by severity:

• Mild—treated with increased frequency of doses of existing medications
• Moderate—treated with corticosteroids or antibiotics, or both
• Severe—requires hospital utilization (either emergency room treatment or admission).

Although descriptive and useful for retrospective analyses, this current definition poses ambiguities for clinicians. Day-to-day variation in symptoms is not routinely assessed, so deviations from baseline may be difficult to detect. Although clinical tools are available for assessing symptoms in stable and exacerbated states (eg, the COPD assessment test³ and the Exacerbations of Chronic Pulmonary Disease Tool [EXACT]⁴), they have not been widely adopted in daily practice. Also, according to the current definition, the severity of an exacerbation can be classified only after the course of action is determined, so the severity is not helpful for forming a management strategy at bedside. In addition, physicians may have different thresholds for prescribing antibiotics and corticosteroids.

An earlier definition categorized a COPD exacerbation by the presence of its three cardinal symptoms (ie, increased shortness of breath, sputum volume, and purulence):

• Type I—all three symptoms present
• Type II—two symptoms present
• Type III—one symptom present, accompanied by at least one of the following: upper respiratory tract infection within the past 5 days, unexplained fever, increased wheezing or cough, or 20% increased respiratory rate or heart rate from baseline.

This older definition was successfully used in a prospective clinical trial to identify patients who benefited most from antibiotics for COPD exacerbations.⁵

COPD exacerbation: an acute worsening of respiratory symptoms

Despite these caveats regarding a definition, most clinicians agree on the clinical presentation of a patient with COPD exacerbation: ie, having some combination of shortness of breath, increased sputum volume, and purulence. By the same token, patients with COPD who present with symptoms not typical of an exacerbation should be evaluated for another diagnosis. For instance, Tillie-Leblond et al⁶ reported that 49 (25%) of 197 patients hospitalized with an “unexplained” exacerbation of COPD were eventually diagnosed with pulmonary embolism.

EXACERBATIONS ARE COSTLY

The care of patients with COPD places a great burden on the healthcare system. Using multiple national databases, Ford et al⁷ estimated that medical costs in the United States in 2010 attributable to COPD and its complications were $32.1 billion.

The largest component of direct healthcare costs of COPD is exacerbations and subsequent hospitalizations.⁸ Data from a predominantly Medicare population indicate that the annualized mean COPD-related cost for a patient with no exacerbations was $1,425, compared with $12,765 for a patient with severe exacerbations.⁹ The investigators estimated that reducing exacerbations from two or more to none could save $5,125 per patient per year.

EXACERBATIONS AFFECT HEALTH BEYOND THE EVENT

COPD exacerbations are associated with a faster decline in lung function,¹⁰ reduced quality of life,¹¹ and lost workdays.⁷ A single exacerbation may cause a decline in lung function and health status that may not return to baseline for several months, particularly if another exacerbation occurs within 6 months.^12,13 COPD exacerbations have also been linked to poor clinical outcomes, including death.

In a prospective study in 304 men with COPD followed for 5 years, those who had three or more COPD exacerbations annually were four times as likely to die than patients who did not have an exacerbation.¹⁴ Nevertheless, the relationship with mortality may not be causal: Brusselle pointed out in an editorial¹⁵ that established mortality predictors for COPD do not include exacerbations, and symptomatic patients with COPD without any history of exacerbations are at greater risk of death than those who are asymptomatic but at high risk for exacerbations.

INFECTION + INFLAMMATION = EXACERBATION

An acute COPD exacerbation can be viewed as an acute inflammatory event superimposed on chronic inflammation associated with COPD. Inflammation in the airways increases resistance to air flow with consequent air trapping. Increased resistance and elastic load due to air trapping place respiratory muscles at a mechanical disadvantage and increase the work of breathing.

Infection starts the process

Infections are thought to be the major instigators of COPD exacerbation

Infections, particularly bacterial and viral, are thought to be the major instigators of COPD exacerbation, although environmental factors such as air pollution may also play a role.¹⁶

Airway inflammation is markedly reduced when bacterial infection is eradicated. But if bacterial colonization continues, inflammatory markers remain elevated despite clinical resolution of the exacerbation.¹⁷ Desai et al¹⁸ found that patients with COPD and chronic bronchitis with bacterial colonization had a larger symptom burden than patients without colonization, even without an exacerbation.

Allergic profile increases risk

Although most studies indicate that infection is the main cause of exacerbations, clinicians should consider other mechanisms of inflammation on an individual basis. COPD exacerbations may be phenotyped by measuring inflammatory markers, perhaps as a starting point for tailored therapies.

Bafadhel et al¹⁹ studied 145 patients with COPD over the course of a year and recorded various biomarkers at baseline and during exacerbations. Exacerbations had an inflammatory profile that was predominantly bacterial in 37%, viral in 10%, and eosinophilic in 17%, and had limited changes in the inflammatory profile in 14%. The remaining episodes were combinations of categories. In another study,²⁰ multivariate analysis conducted in two cohorts with COPD found that patients who had an allergic phenotype had more respiratory symptoms and a higher likelihood of COPD exacerbations.

Frequent COPD exacerbations are increasingly recognized as being associated with an asthma-COPD overlap syndrome, consisting of symptoms of increased airflow variability and incompletely reversible airflow obstruction.²¹

Inflammation as a marker of frequent exacerbations

Evidence is accumulating that supports systemic inflammation as a marker of frequent exacerbations. The Copenhagen Heart Study tested for baseline plasma C-reactive protein, fibrinogen, and white blood cell count in 6,574 stable patients with COPD.²² After multivariable adjustment, they found a significantly higher likelihood of having a subsequent exacerbation in patients who had all three biomarkers elevated (odds ratio [OR] 3.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.9–7.4), even in patients with milder COPD and those without previous exacerbations.

Past exacerbations predict risk

A history of exacerbation is the best predictor of future exacerbation

The Evaluation of COPD Longitudinally to Identify Predictive Surrogate Endpoints study²³ found that a history of acute COPD exacerbation was the single best predictor of future exacerbations. This risk factor remained stable over 3 years and was present across the severity of COPD, ie, patients at lower GOLD stages who had a history of frequent exacerbations were likely to have exacerbations during follow-up.

EXACERBATION INCREASES CARDIOVASCULAR RISK

COPD exacerbations increase the risk of cardiovascular events, particularly myocardial infarction.²⁴ During hospitalization for acute exacerbation of COPD, markers of myocardial injury and heart failure may be elevated and are a predictor of death.²⁵

Patel et al²⁶ measured arterial stiffness (aortic pulse wave velocity, a validated measure of cardiovascular risk) and cardiac biomarkers (troponin and N-terminal B-type natriuretic peptide) at baseline in 98 patients and longitudinally during and after a COPD exacerbation. In addition to increased levels of cardiac biomarkers, they found a significant rise in arterial stiffness during the exacerbation event without return to baseline levels over 35 days of follow-up. The arterial stiffness increase was related to airway inflammation as measured by sputum interleukin 6, particularly in patients with documented lower respiratory tract infection.

Retrospective analysis suggests a reduced all-cause mortality rate in COPD patients who are treated with beta-blockers.²⁷

Recommendation. We recommend that patients already taking a selective beta-blocker continue to do so during a COPD exacerbation.

OUTPATIENT MANAGEMENT

Treatment with a combination of a corticosteroid, antibiotic, and bronchodilator addresses the underlying pathophysiologic processes of an acute exacerbation: inflammation, infection, and airway trapping.

Short course of a corticosteroid improves outcomes

A single exacerbation may worsen health status for several months

A 10-day systemic course of a corticosteroid prescribed for COPD exacerbation before discharge from the emergency department was found to offer a small advantage over placebo for reducing treatment failure (unscheduled physician visits, return to emergency room for recurrent symptoms) and improving dyspnea scores and lung function.²⁸ Even just a 3-day course improved measures of respiration (forced expiratory volume in the first second of expiration [FEV₁] and arterial oxygenation) at days 3 and 10, and reduced treatment failures compared with placebo.²⁹

Corticosteroid prescription should not be taken lightly, because adverse effects are common. In a systematic review, one adverse effect (hyperglycemia, weight gain, or insomnia) occurred for every five people treated.³⁰

Identifying subgroups of patients most likely to benefit from corticosteroid treatment may be helpful. Corticosteroids may delay improvement in patients without eosinophilic inflammation and hasten recovery in those with more than 2% peripheral eosinophils.³¹ Siva et al³² found that limiting corticosteroids to patients with sputum eosinophilia reduced corticosteroid use and reduced severe exacerbations compared with standard care.³²

Recommendation. For an acute exacerbation, we prescribe a short course of corticosteroids (eg, prednisone 40 mg daily for 5 to 7 days). Tapering dosing is probably unnecessary because adrenal insufficiency is uncommon before 2 weeks of corticosteroid exposure. Clinicians should weigh the merits of tapering (reduced corticosteroid exposure) against patient inconvenience and difficulty following complicated instructions.

Antibiotics help, but exact strategy uncertain

Although antibiotic therapy is one of the three pillars of COPD exacerbation management, the optimal antimicrobial agent, duration of therapy, and which patients will benefit remain areas of controversy and research. Thus far, large trials have been unable to definitely show the superiority of one antibiotic over another.^33,34

A 1987 randomized controlled trial⁵ of antibiotic therapy in acute exacerbation of COPD found the greatest benefit to patients who had all three cardinal symptoms (ie, increased shortness of breath, sputum volume, and purulence), with less marked but still significant improvement in patients with two symptoms. In a 2012 multicenter trial³⁵ patients with mild to moderate COPD experiencing an exacerbation were treated with either combined amoxicillin and clavulanate or placebo if they had one of the three cardinal symptoms. The antibiotic group had a significantly higher clinical cure rate at days 9 to 11 (74.1% vs 59.9%) as well as a longer time until the next exacerbation (233 vs 160 days).

Recommendation. Optimal antibiotic management of COPD exacerbations may also depend on risk factors. For patients with at least two cardinal symptoms, we favor a scheme akin to one proposed for treating community-acquired pneumonia (Table 1).^16,36

INPATIENT MANAGEMENT

Corticosteroids improve outcomes

A Department of Veterans Affairs cooperative trial³⁷ randomized 271 patients hospitalized with COPD exacerbation to receive either corticosteroids (intravenous followed by oral) or placebo for either 2 weeks or 8 weeks. Corticosteroid recipients had lower rates of treatment failure at 30 and 90 days, defined as death from any cause, need for mechanical ventilation, readmission, or intensification of pharmacologic therapy. Corticosteroid therapy also reduced hospital length of stay and improved the rate of recovery. The longer corticosteroid course was associated with a higher rate of adverse effects.

Oral corticosteroids not inferior to intravenous

Using the same end point of treatment failure as the Veterans Affairs cooperative trial, deJong et al³⁸ demonstrated that prednisone 60 mg by mouth was not inferior to intravenous prednisone. Neither trial demonstrated a difference in mortality between corticosteroid use and placebo.

Short course of a corticosteroid not inferior to a long course

In 2013, the Reduction in the Use of Corticosteroids in Exacerbated COPD (REDUCE) trial³⁹ randomized 314 patients presenting with an acute COPD exacerbation (92% requiring hospital admission) to oral prednisone 40 mg daily for either 5 days or 14 days. They found that the short course was noninferior in preventing exacerbations over the ensuing 6 months in terms of death and the need for mechanical ventilation.

Recommendation. Our threshold for initiating systemic corticosteroid therapy is lower in hospitalized patients than in outpatients. We recommend the regimen of the REDUCE trial: prednisone 40 mg daily for 5 days.

Corticosteroids for patients on ventilatory support

Severe COPD exacerbations requiring admission to intensive care are a significant source of morbidity and mortality, and the strategy of corticosteroid treatment is still under investigation.

Intravenous corticosteroids are effective. A multicenter trial⁴⁰ in 354 patients requiring either invasive or noninvasive mechanical ventilation randomized them to treatment with either intravenous methylprednisolone (tapered) or placebo. Treatment was associated with fewer mechanical ventilation days and a lower rate of noninvasive ventilation failure.

Low-dose oral corticosteroids ineffective. In contrast, an open-label trial⁴¹ of patients requiring ventilatory support and randomized to either oral prednisone (1 mg/kg for up to 10 days) or usual care found no difference in intensive care length of stay or noninvasive ventilation failure. This study used the oral route and smaller doses, and its open-label design might have introduced bias.

Lower-dose steroids better than high-dose. A 2014 cohort study of 17,239 patients admitted to the ICU with acute exacerbations of COPD evaluated outcomes of treatment with high methylprednisolone dosages (> 240 mg per day) vs lower dosages, using propensity score matching.⁴² No mortality difference was found between the groups. The lower dosage group (median methylprednisolone dose 100 mg per day) had shorter hospital and intensive care unit stays, shorter duration of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation, less need for insulin therapy, and fewer fungal infections.

Antibiotics for hospitalized patients

Only scarce data are available on the use of antibiotics for patients hospitalized with COPD exacerbation. In a study of patients hospitalized with COPD exacerbations, adding doxycycline to corticosteroids led to better clinical success and cure rates at 10 days compared with placebo, but the primary end point of clinical success at 30 days was not different between the two groups.⁴³

BRONCHODILATORS: A MAINSTAY OF COPD TREATMENT

Bronchodilators are an important part of treatment of COPD exacerbations in inpatient and outpatient settings.

Nebulized beta-2 agonists are given every 1 to 4 hours. Albuterol at a 2.5-mg dose in each nebulization was found to be as effective as 5 mg for length of hospital stay and recovery of lung function in patients with an acute exacerbation of COPD.⁴⁴

Adding an anticholinergic may help. Nebulized anticholinergics can be given alone or combined with beta-2 agonists. Whether long-acting bronchodilators should be used to manage COPD patients hospitalized with an exacerbation requires further inquiry. In an observational study with historical controls, Drescher and colleagues⁴⁵ found cost savings and shorter hospital stays if tiotropium (a long-acting anticholinergic) was added to the respiratory care protocol, which also included formoterol (a long-acting beta-2 agonist).

OXYGEN: TITRATED APPROACH SAFER

Caution is needed to avoid hyperoxemic hypercapnia in patients on oxygen

Oxygen should be supplied during a COPD exacerbation to ensure adequate oxyhemoglobin saturation. Caution is needed to avoid hyperoxemic hypercapnia, particularly in patients with severe COPD and propensity to ventilatory failure. The routine administration of oxygen at high concentrations during a COPD exacerbation has been associated with a higher mortality rate than with a titrated oxygen approach.⁴⁶ Long-term oxygen treatment started at discharge or as outpatient therapy is associated with reduced hospital admissions and shorter hospital stays for acute exacerbations of COPD.⁴⁷

VENTILATION SUPPORT

Noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation is a useful adjunct to treatment of COPD exacerbations with evidence of ventilatory failure (ie, acute respiratory acidosis), helping to offset the work of breathing until respiratory system mechanics improve. Keenan et al⁴⁸ reviewed 15 randomized controlled trials, involving 636 patients, of noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation in the setting of COPD exacerbation. They concluded that noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation reduced the in-hospital mortality rate and length of stay compared with standard therapy. Noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation is most useful in patients with severe COPD exacerbations and acute respiratory acidosis (pH < 7.35).⁴⁹

Intubation and mechanical ventilation. Although no standards exist for determining which COPD exacerbations may be too severe for noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation, intubation is clearly indicated for impending respiratory failure or hemodynamic instability. Other factors to consider include the greater likelihood of noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation failure in patients with severe respiratory acidosis (pH < 7.25 is associated with a > 50% failure rate) and in those with no improvement in acidosis or respiratory rate during the first hour after initiation of noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation.⁵⁰

PREVENTING EXACERBATIONS

Recent data indicate that COPD exacerbations can often be prevented (Table 2).

Inhaled pharmacotherapy

Inhaled pharmacotherapeutic agents, singly or in combination, reduce the frequency of COPD exacerbations.

Combined long-acting beta-2 agonist and corticosteroid is better than single-agent therapy. In 2007, the Towards a Revolution in COPD Health (TORCH) trial⁵¹ evaluated outpatient therapy in more than 6,000 patients worldwide with either an inhaled long-acting beta-2 agonist (salmeterol), an inhaled corticosteroid (fluticasone), both drugs in combination, or placebo. Patients had baseline prebronchodilator FEV₁ of less than 60% and were followed for 3 years. No difference was found between the groups in the primary end point of deaths, but the annualized rate of moderate to severe exacerbations was reduced by 25% in the group that received combination therapy vs placebo. Combination therapy showed superior efficacy over individual drug therapy in preventing exacerbations. Treatment with the inhaled corticosteroid, whether alone or in combination with salmeterol, increased the risk of pneumonia.

A long-acting antimuscarinic agent is better than placebo. In 2008, the Understanding Potential Long-Term Impacts on Function With Tiotropium (UPLIFT) trial⁵² randomized nearly 6,000 patients with COPD and a postbronchodilator FEV₁ of less than 70% to placebo or tiotropium, a long-acting antimuscarinic agent. Tiotropium reduced the exacerbation rate by 14% compared with placebo and improved quality of life.

Antimuscarinics may be better than beta-2 agonists. Head-to-head comparisons suggest that long-acting antimuscarinic agents are preferable to long-acting beta-2 agonists for preventing COPD exacerbations.^53,54

Triple therapy: evidence is mixed. For patients with severe symptomatic COPD and frequent exacerbations, triple therapy with a combination of an inhaled long-acting antimuscarinic agent, an inhaled long-acting beta-2 agonist, and an inhaled corticosteroid has been suggested.

Data to support this practice are limited. In the Canadian Optimal Trial,⁵⁵ the rate of exacerbations was not different between tiotropium alone, tiotropium plus salmeterol, and triple therapy. However, the rate of hospitalization for severe exacerbation was lower with triple therapy than tiotropium alone. A large, retrospective cohort study also supported triple therapy by finding reduced mortality, hospitalizations, and need for oral corticosteroid bursts compared to combination therapy with an inhaled long-acting beta-2 agonist and an inhaled corticosteroid.⁵⁶

The drawback of triple therapy is an increased incidence of pneumonia associated with combined beta-2 agonist and corticosteroids, most likely due to the corticosteroid component.⁵¹ The risk appears to be higher for higher potency corticosteroids, eg, fluticasone.⁵⁷

In 2014, the Withdrawal of Inhaled Steroids During Optimised Bronchodilator Management (WISDOM) trial⁵⁸ randomized nearly 2,500 patients with a history of COPD exacerbation receiving triple therapy consisting of tiotropium, salmeterol, and inhaled fluticasone to either continue treatment or withdraw the corticosteroid for 3 months. The investigators defined an annualized exacerbation rate of 1.2 (ie, a 20% increase) as the upper limit of the confidence interval for an acceptable therapeutic margin of noninferiority. The study showed that the risk of moderate to severe exacerbations with combined tiotropium and salmeterol was noninferior to triple therapy.

Nevertheless, caution is advised when removing the corticosteroid component from triple therapy. The trial demonstrated a worsening in overall health status, some reduction in lung function, and a transient increase in severe exacerbations in the withdrawal group. Patients with increased symptom burden at baseline and a history of severe exacerbations may not be optimal candidates for this strategy.

Roflumilast is effective but has side effects

Roflumilast, an oral phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor, is an anti-inflammatory drug without bronchodilator properties. In randomized controlled trials, the drug was associated with a 17% reduction in acute exacerbations compared with placebo.⁵⁹

Adding roflumilast to either a long-acting beta-2 agonist or a long-acting antimuscarinic agent resulted in a 6% to 8% further reduction in the proportion of patients with exacerbation.^60,61 Martinez et al⁶¹ found that roflumilast added to a regimen of a long-acting beta-2 agonist plus an inhaled corticosteroid reduced moderate to severe exacerbations by 14.2%, even in the presence of tiotropium. Compared with placebo, roflumilast treatment reduced exacerbations necessitating hospitalizations by 23.9%.

The FDA has approved oral roflumilast 500 µg once daily to prevent COPD exacerbations.

Roflumilast is frequently associated with side effects, including gastrointestinal symptoms (chiefly diarrhea), weight loss, and psychiatric effects. A benefit-to-harm study in 2014 concluded that using the drug is only favorable for patients who have a high risk of severe exacerbations, ie, those who have a greater than 22% baseline risk of having at least one exacerbation annually.⁶²

Recommendation. Roflumilast should be reserved for patients who have severe COPD with a chronic bronchitis phenotype (ie, with cough and sputum production) and repeated exacerbations despite an optimal regimen of an inhaled corticosteroid, long-acting beta-2 agonist, and long-acting antimuscarinic agent.

Macrolide antibiotics: Role unclear

Macrolide antibiotics have anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory activities.

Azithromycin: fewer exacerbations but some side effects. A multicenter trial⁶³ in 1,142 COPD patients randomized to either oral azithromycin 250 mg daily or placebo found a 27% reduction in the risk of COPD exacerbation in the intervention arm. No differences were found between the groups in mortality, hospitalizations, emergency department visits, or respiratory failure. Hearing loss and increased macrolide resistance were noted in the intervention arm. In a secondary subgroup analysis,⁶⁴ no difference in efficacy was found by sex, history of chronic bronchitis, oxygen use, or concomitant COPD treatment.

The COPD: Influence of Macrolides on Exacerbation Frequency in Patients trial⁶⁵ helped refine patient selection for macrolide therapy. In this single-center study, 92 patients with COPD and at least three exacerbations during the year prior to enrollment were randomized to receive either azithromycin 500 mg three times weekly or placebo. Exacerbations in the intervention group were markedly reduced (42%) with no difference in hospitalization rate.

The place of macrolide antibiotics in the treatment strategy of COPD is unclear, and they are not currently part of the GOLD guidelines. Still unknown is the incremental benefit of adding them to existing preventive regimens, cardiovascular safety, side effects, and potential effects on the resident microbial flora. 

Other antibiotics have also been investigated for efficacy in preventing exacerbations.

Moxifloxacin: fewer exacerbations. The Pulsed Moxifloxacin Usage and Its Long-term Impact on the Reduction of Subsequent Exacerbations study⁶⁶ randomized more than 1,000 patients with stable COPD to receive either moxifloxacin 400 mg or placebo daily for 5 days repeated every 8 weeks for six courses. Frequent assessment during the treatment period and for 6 months afterward revealed a reduced exacerbation rate in the intervention group but without benefit in hospitalization rate, mortality, lung function, or health status.

Recommendation. Azithromycin (either 250 mg daily or 500 mg three times weekly) can be considered for patients who have repeated COPD exacerbations despite an optimal regimen of an inhaled corticosteroid, inhaled long-acting beta-2 agonist, and inhaled long-acting antimuscarinic agent. The need to continue azithromycin should be reassessed yearly.

Mucolytics

Greatest benefit to patients not taking inhaled corticosteroids. Mucolytic agents help clear airway secretions by reducing viscosity. N-acetylcysteine and carbocysteine (not available in the United States) also have antioxidant properties that may counteract oxidant stress associated with acute COPD exacerbations.

The Bronchitis Randomized on NAC Cost-Utility Study (BRONCUS)⁶⁷ randomized 523 COPD patients to N-acetylcysteine 600 mg daily or placebo. After 3 years of follow-up, no differences were found in the rate of exacerbations, lung function decline, and quality of life. Subgroup analysis suggested a reduction in exacerbations for patients who were not taking inhaled corticosteroids.

The Effect of Carbocisteine on Acute Exacerbation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (PEACE) study randomized more than 700 patients from multiple centers in China who had COPD and a recent history of exacerbations; they found a 25% lower exacerbation rate over 1 year with carbocysteine vs placebo.⁶⁸ Most of the patients (83%) were not on inhaled corticosteroids, which complemented findings of the BRONCUS trial.

The Effect of High Dose N-acetylcysteine on Air Trapping and Airway Resistance of COPD (HIACE) study randomized 120 patients with stable COPD in a hospital in Hong Kong to either oral N-acetylcysteine (600 mg twice daily) or placebo and found a reduced exacerbation rate of exacerbations. Patients were matched at baseline for inhaled corticosteroid use.⁶⁹

In 2014, the Twice Daily N-acetylcysteine 600 mg for Exacerbations of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (PANTHEON) study⁷⁰ randomized 1,006 patients from multiple hospitals in China with a history of moderate to severe COPD and exacerbations to receive either N-acetylcysteine 600 mg twice daily or placebo for 1 year. They found a 22% reduction in exacerbations in the treatment group vs placebo.  

GOLD guidelines² recommend mucolytics for patients with severe COPD and exacerbations when inhaled corticosteroids are not available or affordable.

Recommendation. Mucolytics may be useful for patients with difficulty expectorating and with a history of exacerbations despite appropriate inhaled therapy.

OTHER INTERVENTIONS CAN HELP

Pulmonary rehabilitation provides multiple benefits

Pulmonary rehabilitation increases exercise tolerance and reduces symptoms

Pulmonary rehabilitation increases exercise tolerance and reduces symptom burden in patients with stable COPD. It is also a multidisciplinary effort that may help reinforce adherence to medications, enhance COPD education, and provide closer medical surveillance to patients at high risk for recurrent exacerbations.

A small randomized controlled trial⁷¹ prescribed pulmonary rehabilitation on discharge for a COPD exacerbation and found sustainable improvements in exercise capacity and health status after 3 months.

In a later study,⁷² the same group started pulmonary rehabilitation within a week of hospital discharge and found reduced hospital readmissions over a 3-month period.

Smoking cessation is always worth advocating

A large observational cohort study concluded that current smokers were at a higher risk for COPD exacerbations compared with former smokers.⁷³ Although there are no randomized controlled trials that assess the effects of smoking cessation at the time of COPD exacerbation, we recommend seizing the opportunity to implement this important intervention.

Vaccinations: Influenza and pneumococcal

Influenza vaccination is associated with reduced incidence of hospitalization among patients with cardiopulmonary disease.⁷⁴ A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials of influenza vaccination for patients with COPD⁷⁵ reported significantly fewer exacerbations from vaccination, mostly owing to fewer episodes occurring after 3 to 4 weeks, coinciding with anticipated vaccine-induced immune protection. Furumoto and colleagues⁷⁶ reported an added benefit of combined vaccination with 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine and influenza vaccine in reducing hospital admissions over influenza vaccination alone. We also recommend providing the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine to patients with COPD, particularly for those older than 65, consistent with CDC recommendations.⁷⁷

In contrast to stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD),¹ acute exacerbations of COPD pose special management challenges and can significantly increase the risk of morbidity and death and the cost of care.

This review addresses the definition and diagnosis of COPD exacerbations, disease burden and costs, etiology and pathogenesis, and management and prevention strategies.

DEFINITIONS ARE PROBLEMATIC

The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) defines a COPD exacer­bation as “an acute event characterized by a worsening of the patient’s respiratory symptoms that is beyond normal day-to-day variations and leads to a change in medication.”² It further categorizes acute exacerbations by severity:

• Mild—treated with increased frequency of doses of existing medications
• Moderate—treated with corticosteroids or antibiotics, or both
• Severe—requires hospital utilization (either emergency room treatment or admission).

Although descriptive and useful for retrospective analyses, this current definition poses ambiguities for clinicians. Day-to-day variation in symptoms is not routinely assessed, so deviations from baseline may be difficult to detect. Although clinical tools are available for assessing symptoms in stable and exacerbated states (eg, the COPD assessment test³ and the Exacerbations of Chronic Pulmonary Disease Tool [EXACT]⁴), they have not been widely adopted in daily practice. Also, according to the current definition, the severity of an exacerbation can be classified only after the course of action is determined, so the severity is not helpful for forming a management strategy at bedside. In addition, physicians may have different thresholds for prescribing antibiotics and corticosteroids.

An earlier definition categorized a COPD exacerbation by the presence of its three cardinal symptoms (ie, increased shortness of breath, sputum volume, and purulence):

• Type I—all three symptoms present
• Type II—two symptoms present
• Type III—one symptom present, accompanied by at least one of the following: upper respiratory tract infection within the past 5 days, unexplained fever, increased wheezing or cough, or 20% increased respiratory rate or heart rate from baseline.

This older definition was successfully used in a prospective clinical trial to identify patients who benefited most from antibiotics for COPD exacerbations.⁵

COPD exacerbation: an acute worsening of respiratory symptoms

Despite these caveats regarding a definition, most clinicians agree on the clinical presentation of a patient with COPD exacerbation: ie, having some combination of shortness of breath, increased sputum volume, and purulence. By the same token, patients with COPD who present with symptoms not typical of an exacerbation should be evaluated for another diagnosis. For instance, Tillie-Leblond et al⁶ reported that 49 (25%) of 197 patients hospitalized with an “unexplained” exacerbation of COPD were eventually diagnosed with pulmonary embolism.

EXACERBATIONS ARE COSTLY

The care of patients with COPD places a great burden on the healthcare system. Using multiple national databases, Ford et al⁷ estimated that medical costs in the United States in 2010 attributable to COPD and its complications were $32.1 billion.

The largest component of direct healthcare costs of COPD is exacerbations and subsequent hospitalizations.⁸ Data from a predominantly Medicare population indicate that the annualized mean COPD-related cost for a patient with no exacerbations was $1,425, compared with $12,765 for a patient with severe exacerbations.⁹ The investigators estimated that reducing exacerbations from two or more to none could save $5,125 per patient per year.

EXACERBATIONS AFFECT HEALTH BEYOND THE EVENT

COPD exacerbations are associated with a faster decline in lung function,¹⁰ reduced quality of life,¹¹ and lost workdays.⁷ A single exacerbation may cause a decline in lung function and health status that may not return to baseline for several months, particularly if another exacerbation occurs within 6 months.^12,13 COPD exacerbations have also been linked to poor clinical outcomes, including death.

In a prospective study in 304 men with COPD followed for 5 years, those who had three or more COPD exacerbations annually were four times as likely to die than patients who did not have an exacerbation.¹⁴ Nevertheless, the relationship with mortality may not be causal: Brusselle pointed out in an editorial¹⁵ that established mortality predictors for COPD do not include exacerbations, and symptomatic patients with COPD without any history of exacerbations are at greater risk of death than those who are asymptomatic but at high risk for exacerbations.

INFECTION + INFLAMMATION = EXACERBATION

An acute COPD exacerbation can be viewed as an acute inflammatory event superimposed on chronic inflammation associated with COPD. Inflammation in the airways increases resistance to air flow with consequent air trapping. Increased resistance and elastic load due to air trapping place respiratory muscles at a mechanical disadvantage and increase the work of breathing.

Infection starts the process

Infections are thought to be the major instigators of COPD exacerbation

Infections, particularly bacterial and viral, are thought to be the major instigators of COPD exacerbation, although environmental factors such as air pollution may also play a role.¹⁶

Airway inflammation is markedly reduced when bacterial infection is eradicated. But if bacterial colonization continues, inflammatory markers remain elevated despite clinical resolution of the exacerbation.¹⁷ Desai et al¹⁸ found that patients with COPD and chronic bronchitis with bacterial colonization had a larger symptom burden than patients without colonization, even without an exacerbation.

Allergic profile increases risk

Although most studies indicate that infection is the main cause of exacerbations, clinicians should consider other mechanisms of inflammation on an individual basis. COPD exacerbations may be phenotyped by measuring inflammatory markers, perhaps as a starting point for tailored therapies.

Bafadhel et al¹⁹ studied 145 patients with COPD over the course of a year and recorded various biomarkers at baseline and during exacerbations. Exacerbations had an inflammatory profile that was predominantly bacterial in 37%, viral in 10%, and eosinophilic in 17%, and had limited changes in the inflammatory profile in 14%. The remaining episodes were combinations of categories. In another study,²⁰ multivariate analysis conducted in two cohorts with COPD found that patients who had an allergic phenotype had more respiratory symptoms and a higher likelihood of COPD exacerbations.

Frequent COPD exacerbations are increasingly recognized as being associated with an asthma-COPD overlap syndrome, consisting of symptoms of increased airflow variability and incompletely reversible airflow obstruction.²¹

Inflammation as a marker of frequent exacerbations

Evidence is accumulating that supports systemic inflammation as a marker of frequent exacerbations. The Copenhagen Heart Study tested for baseline plasma C-reactive protein, fibrinogen, and white blood cell count in 6,574 stable patients with COPD.²² After multivariable adjustment, they found a significantly higher likelihood of having a subsequent exacerbation in patients who had all three biomarkers elevated (odds ratio [OR] 3.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.9–7.4), even in patients with milder COPD and those without previous exacerbations.

Past exacerbations predict risk

A history of exacerbation is the best predictor of future exacerbation

The Evaluation of COPD Longitudinally to Identify Predictive Surrogate Endpoints study²³ found that a history of acute COPD exacerbation was the single best predictor of future exacerbations. This risk factor remained stable over 3 years and was present across the severity of COPD, ie, patients at lower GOLD stages who had a history of frequent exacerbations were likely to have exacerbations during follow-up.

EXACERBATION INCREASES CARDIOVASCULAR RISK

COPD exacerbations increase the risk of cardiovascular events, particularly myocardial infarction.²⁴ During hospitalization for acute exacerbation of COPD, markers of myocardial injury and heart failure may be elevated and are a predictor of death.²⁵

Patel et al²⁶ measured arterial stiffness (aortic pulse wave velocity, a validated measure of cardiovascular risk) and cardiac biomarkers (troponin and N-terminal B-type natriuretic peptide) at baseline in 98 patients and longitudinally during and after a COPD exacerbation. In addition to increased levels of cardiac biomarkers, they found a significant rise in arterial stiffness during the exacerbation event without return to baseline levels over 35 days of follow-up. The arterial stiffness increase was related to airway inflammation as measured by sputum interleukin 6, particularly in patients with documented lower respiratory tract infection.

Retrospective analysis suggests a reduced all-cause mortality rate in COPD patients who are treated with beta-blockers.²⁷

Recommendation. We recommend that patients already taking a selective beta-blocker continue to do so during a COPD exacerbation.

OUTPATIENT MANAGEMENT

Treatment with a combination of a corticosteroid, antibiotic, and bronchodilator addresses the underlying pathophysiologic processes of an acute exacerbation: inflammation, infection, and airway trapping.

Short course of a corticosteroid improves outcomes

A single exacerbation may worsen health status for several months

A 10-day systemic course of a corticosteroid prescribed for COPD exacerbation before discharge from the emergency department was found to offer a small advantage over placebo for reducing treatment failure (unscheduled physician visits, return to emergency room for recurrent symptoms) and improving dyspnea scores and lung function.²⁸ Even just a 3-day course improved measures of respiration (forced expiratory volume in the first second of expiration [FEV₁] and arterial oxygenation) at days 3 and 10, and reduced treatment failures compared with placebo.²⁹

Corticosteroid prescription should not be taken lightly, because adverse effects are common. In a systematic review, one adverse effect (hyperglycemia, weight gain, or insomnia) occurred for every five people treated.³⁰

Identifying subgroups of patients most likely to benefit from corticosteroid treatment may be helpful. Corticosteroids may delay improvement in patients without eosinophilic inflammation and hasten recovery in those with more than 2% peripheral eosinophils.³¹ Siva et al³² found that limiting corticosteroids to patients with sputum eosinophilia reduced corticosteroid use and reduced severe exacerbations compared with standard care.³²

Recommendation. For an acute exacerbation, we prescribe a short course of corticosteroids (eg, prednisone 40 mg daily for 5 to 7 days). Tapering dosing is probably unnecessary because adrenal insufficiency is uncommon before 2 weeks of corticosteroid exposure. Clinicians should weigh the merits of tapering (reduced corticosteroid exposure) against patient inconvenience and difficulty following complicated instructions.

Antibiotics help, but exact strategy uncertain

Although antibiotic therapy is one of the three pillars of COPD exacerbation management, the optimal antimicrobial agent, duration of therapy, and which patients will benefit remain areas of controversy and research. Thus far, large trials have been unable to definitely show the superiority of one antibiotic over another.^33,34

A 1987 randomized controlled trial⁵ of antibiotic therapy in acute exacerbation of COPD found the greatest benefit to patients who had all three cardinal symptoms (ie, increased shortness of breath, sputum volume, and purulence), with less marked but still significant improvement in patients with two symptoms. In a 2012 multicenter trial³⁵ patients with mild to moderate COPD experiencing an exacerbation were treated with either combined amoxicillin and clavulanate or placebo if they had one of the three cardinal symptoms. The antibiotic group had a significantly higher clinical cure rate at days 9 to 11 (74.1% vs 59.9%) as well as a longer time until the next exacerbation (233 vs 160 days).

Recommendation. Optimal antibiotic management of COPD exacerbations may also depend on risk factors. For patients with at least two cardinal symptoms, we favor a scheme akin to one proposed for treating community-acquired pneumonia (Table 1).^16,36

INPATIENT MANAGEMENT

Corticosteroids improve outcomes

A Department of Veterans Affairs cooperative trial³⁷ randomized 271 patients hospitalized with COPD exacerbation to receive either corticosteroids (intravenous followed by oral) or placebo for either 2 weeks or 8 weeks. Corticosteroid recipients had lower rates of treatment failure at 30 and 90 days, defined as death from any cause, need for mechanical ventilation, readmission, or intensification of pharmacologic therapy. Corticosteroid therapy also reduced hospital length of stay and improved the rate of recovery. The longer corticosteroid course was associated with a higher rate of adverse effects.

Oral corticosteroids not inferior to intravenous

Using the same end point of treatment failure as the Veterans Affairs cooperative trial, deJong et al³⁸ demonstrated that prednisone 60 mg by mouth was not inferior to intravenous prednisone. Neither trial demonstrated a difference in mortality between corticosteroid use and placebo.

Short course of a corticosteroid not inferior to a long course

In 2013, the Reduction in the Use of Corticosteroids in Exacerbated COPD (REDUCE) trial³⁹ randomized 314 patients presenting with an acute COPD exacerbation (92% requiring hospital admission) to oral prednisone 40 mg daily for either 5 days or 14 days. They found that the short course was noninferior in preventing exacerbations over the ensuing 6 months in terms of death and the need for mechanical ventilation.

Recommendation. Our threshold for initiating systemic corticosteroid therapy is lower in hospitalized patients than in outpatients. We recommend the regimen of the REDUCE trial: prednisone 40 mg daily for 5 days.

Corticosteroids for patients on ventilatory support

Severe COPD exacerbations requiring admission to intensive care are a significant source of morbidity and mortality, and the strategy of corticosteroid treatment is still under investigation.

Intravenous corticosteroids are effective. A multicenter trial⁴⁰ in 354 patients requiring either invasive or noninvasive mechanical ventilation randomized them to treatment with either intravenous methylprednisolone (tapered) or placebo. Treatment was associated with fewer mechanical ventilation days and a lower rate of noninvasive ventilation failure.

Low-dose oral corticosteroids ineffective. In contrast, an open-label trial⁴¹ of patients requiring ventilatory support and randomized to either oral prednisone (1 mg/kg for up to 10 days) or usual care found no difference in intensive care length of stay or noninvasive ventilation failure. This study used the oral route and smaller doses, and its open-label design might have introduced bias.

Lower-dose steroids better than high-dose. A 2014 cohort study of 17,239 patients admitted to the ICU with acute exacerbations of COPD evaluated outcomes of treatment with high methylprednisolone dosages (> 240 mg per day) vs lower dosages, using propensity score matching.⁴² No mortality difference was found between the groups. The lower dosage group (median methylprednisolone dose 100 mg per day) had shorter hospital and intensive care unit stays, shorter duration of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation, less need for insulin therapy, and fewer fungal infections.

Antibiotics for hospitalized patients

Only scarce data are available on the use of antibiotics for patients hospitalized with COPD exacerbation. In a study of patients hospitalized with COPD exacerbations, adding doxycycline to corticosteroids led to better clinical success and cure rates at 10 days compared with placebo, but the primary end point of clinical success at 30 days was not different between the two groups.⁴³

BRONCHODILATORS: A MAINSTAY OF COPD TREATMENT

Bronchodilators are an important part of treatment of COPD exacerbations in inpatient and outpatient settings.

Nebulized beta-2 agonists are given every 1 to 4 hours. Albuterol at a 2.5-mg dose in each nebulization was found to be as effective as 5 mg for length of hospital stay and recovery of lung function in patients with an acute exacerbation of COPD.⁴⁴

Adding an anticholinergic may help. Nebulized anticholinergics can be given alone or combined with beta-2 agonists. Whether long-acting bronchodilators should be used to manage COPD patients hospitalized with an exacerbation requires further inquiry. In an observational study with historical controls, Drescher and colleagues⁴⁵ found cost savings and shorter hospital stays if tiotropium (a long-acting anticholinergic) was added to the respiratory care protocol, which also included formoterol (a long-acting beta-2 agonist).

OXYGEN: TITRATED APPROACH SAFER

Caution is needed to avoid hyperoxemic hypercapnia in patients on oxygen

Oxygen should be supplied during a COPD exacerbation to ensure adequate oxyhemoglobin saturation. Caution is needed to avoid hyperoxemic hypercapnia, particularly in patients with severe COPD and propensity to ventilatory failure. The routine administration of oxygen at high concentrations during a COPD exacerbation has been associated with a higher mortality rate than with a titrated oxygen approach.⁴⁶ Long-term oxygen treatment started at discharge or as outpatient therapy is associated with reduced hospital admissions and shorter hospital stays for acute exacerbations of COPD.⁴⁷

VENTILATION SUPPORT

Noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation is a useful adjunct to treatment of COPD exacerbations with evidence of ventilatory failure (ie, acute respiratory acidosis), helping to offset the work of breathing until respiratory system mechanics improve. Keenan et al⁴⁸ reviewed 15 randomized controlled trials, involving 636 patients, of noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation in the setting of COPD exacerbation. They concluded that noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation reduced the in-hospital mortality rate and length of stay compared with standard therapy. Noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation is most useful in patients with severe COPD exacerbations and acute respiratory acidosis (pH < 7.35).⁴⁹

Intubation and mechanical ventilation. Although no standards exist for determining which COPD exacerbations may be too severe for noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation, intubation is clearly indicated for impending respiratory failure or hemodynamic instability. Other factors to consider include the greater likelihood of noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation failure in patients with severe respiratory acidosis (pH < 7.25 is associated with a > 50% failure rate) and in those with no improvement in acidosis or respiratory rate during the first hour after initiation of noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation.⁵⁰

PREVENTING EXACERBATIONS

Recent data indicate that COPD exacerbations can often be prevented (Table 2).

Inhaled pharmacotherapy

Inhaled pharmacotherapeutic agents, singly or in combination, reduce the frequency of COPD exacerbations.

Combined long-acting beta-2 agonist and corticosteroid is better than single-agent therapy. In 2007, the Towards a Revolution in COPD Health (TORCH) trial⁵¹ evaluated outpatient therapy in more than 6,000 patients worldwide with either an inhaled long-acting beta-2 agonist (salmeterol), an inhaled corticosteroid (fluticasone), both drugs in combination, or placebo. Patients had baseline prebronchodilator FEV₁ of less than 60% and were followed for 3 years. No difference was found between the groups in the primary end point of deaths, but the annualized rate of moderate to severe exacerbations was reduced by 25% in the group that received combination therapy vs placebo. Combination therapy showed superior efficacy over individual drug therapy in preventing exacerbations. Treatment with the inhaled corticosteroid, whether alone or in combination with salmeterol, increased the risk of pneumonia.

A long-acting antimuscarinic agent is better than placebo. In 2008, the Understanding Potential Long-Term Impacts on Function With Tiotropium (UPLIFT) trial⁵² randomized nearly 6,000 patients with COPD and a postbronchodilator FEV₁ of less than 70% to placebo or tiotropium, a long-acting antimuscarinic agent. Tiotropium reduced the exacerbation rate by 14% compared with placebo and improved quality of life.

Antimuscarinics may be better than beta-2 agonists. Head-to-head comparisons suggest that long-acting antimuscarinic agents are preferable to long-acting beta-2 agonists for preventing COPD exacerbations.^53,54

Triple therapy: evidence is mixed. For patients with severe symptomatic COPD and frequent exacerbations, triple therapy with a combination of an inhaled long-acting antimuscarinic agent, an inhaled long-acting beta-2 agonist, and an inhaled corticosteroid has been suggested.

Data to support this practice are limited. In the Canadian Optimal Trial,⁵⁵ the rate of exacerbations was not different between tiotropium alone, tiotropium plus salmeterol, and triple therapy. However, the rate of hospitalization for severe exacerbation was lower with triple therapy than tiotropium alone. A large, retrospective cohort study also supported triple therapy by finding reduced mortality, hospitalizations, and need for oral corticosteroid bursts compared to combination therapy with an inhaled long-acting beta-2 agonist and an inhaled corticosteroid.⁵⁶

The drawback of triple therapy is an increased incidence of pneumonia associated with combined beta-2 agonist and corticosteroids, most likely due to the corticosteroid component.⁵¹ The risk appears to be higher for higher potency corticosteroids, eg, fluticasone.⁵⁷

In 2014, the Withdrawal of Inhaled Steroids During Optimised Bronchodilator Management (WISDOM) trial⁵⁸ randomized nearly 2,500 patients with a history of COPD exacerbation receiving triple therapy consisting of tiotropium, salmeterol, and inhaled fluticasone to either continue treatment or withdraw the corticosteroid for 3 months. The investigators defined an annualized exacerbation rate of 1.2 (ie, a 20% increase) as the upper limit of the confidence interval for an acceptable therapeutic margin of noninferiority. The study showed that the risk of moderate to severe exacerbations with combined tiotropium and salmeterol was noninferior to triple therapy.

Nevertheless, caution is advised when removing the corticosteroid component from triple therapy. The trial demonstrated a worsening in overall health status, some reduction in lung function, and a transient increase in severe exacerbations in the withdrawal group. Patients with increased symptom burden at baseline and a history of severe exacerbations may not be optimal candidates for this strategy.

Roflumilast is effective but has side effects

Roflumilast, an oral phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor, is an anti-inflammatory drug without bronchodilator properties. In randomized controlled trials, the drug was associated with a 17% reduction in acute exacerbations compared with placebo.⁵⁹

Adding roflumilast to either a long-acting beta-2 agonist or a long-acting antimuscarinic agent resulted in a 6% to 8% further reduction in the proportion of patients with exacerbation.^60,61 Martinez et al⁶¹ found that roflumilast added to a regimen of a long-acting beta-2 agonist plus an inhaled corticosteroid reduced moderate to severe exacerbations by 14.2%, even in the presence of tiotropium. Compared with placebo, roflumilast treatment reduced exacerbations necessitating hospitalizations by 23.9%.

The FDA has approved oral roflumilast 500 µg once daily to prevent COPD exacerbations.

Roflumilast is frequently associated with side effects, including gastrointestinal symptoms (chiefly diarrhea), weight loss, and psychiatric effects. A benefit-to-harm study in 2014 concluded that using the drug is only favorable for patients who have a high risk of severe exacerbations, ie, those who have a greater than 22% baseline risk of having at least one exacerbation annually.⁶²

Recommendation. Roflumilast should be reserved for patients who have severe COPD with a chronic bronchitis phenotype (ie, with cough and sputum production) and repeated exacerbations despite an optimal regimen of an inhaled corticosteroid, long-acting beta-2 agonist, and long-acting antimuscarinic agent.

Macrolide antibiotics: Role unclear

Macrolide antibiotics have anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory activities.

Azithromycin: fewer exacerbations but some side effects. A multicenter trial⁶³ in 1,142 COPD patients randomized to either oral azithromycin 250 mg daily or placebo found a 27% reduction in the risk of COPD exacerbation in the intervention arm. No differences were found between the groups in mortality, hospitalizations, emergency department visits, or respiratory failure. Hearing loss and increased macrolide resistance were noted in the intervention arm. In a secondary subgroup analysis,⁶⁴ no difference in efficacy was found by sex, history of chronic bronchitis, oxygen use, or concomitant COPD treatment.

The COPD: Influence of Macrolides on Exacerbation Frequency in Patients trial⁶⁵ helped refine patient selection for macrolide therapy. In this single-center study, 92 patients with COPD and at least three exacerbations during the year prior to enrollment were randomized to receive either azithromycin 500 mg three times weekly or placebo. Exacerbations in the intervention group were markedly reduced (42%) with no difference in hospitalization rate.

The place of macrolide antibiotics in the treatment strategy of COPD is unclear, and they are not currently part of the GOLD guidelines. Still unknown is the incremental benefit of adding them to existing preventive regimens, cardiovascular safety, side effects, and potential effects on the resident microbial flora. 

Other antibiotics have also been investigated for efficacy in preventing exacerbations.

Moxifloxacin: fewer exacerbations. The Pulsed Moxifloxacin Usage and Its Long-term Impact on the Reduction of Subsequent Exacerbations study⁶⁶ randomized more than 1,000 patients with stable COPD to receive either moxifloxacin 400 mg or placebo daily for 5 days repeated every 8 weeks for six courses. Frequent assessment during the treatment period and for 6 months afterward revealed a reduced exacerbation rate in the intervention group but without benefit in hospitalization rate, mortality, lung function, or health status.

Recommendation. Azithromycin (either 250 mg daily or 500 mg three times weekly) can be considered for patients who have repeated COPD exacerbations despite an optimal regimen of an inhaled corticosteroid, inhaled long-acting beta-2 agonist, and inhaled long-acting antimuscarinic agent. The need to continue azithromycin should be reassessed yearly.

Mucolytics

Greatest benefit to patients not taking inhaled corticosteroids. Mucolytic agents help clear airway secretions by reducing viscosity. N-acetylcysteine and carbocysteine (not available in the United States) also have antioxidant properties that may counteract oxidant stress associated with acute COPD exacerbations.

The Bronchitis Randomized on NAC Cost-Utility Study (BRONCUS)⁶⁷ randomized 523 COPD patients to N-acetylcysteine 600 mg daily or placebo. After 3 years of follow-up, no differences were found in the rate of exacerbations, lung function decline, and quality of life. Subgroup analysis suggested a reduction in exacerbations for patients who were not taking inhaled corticosteroids.

The Effect of Carbocisteine on Acute Exacerbation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (PEACE) study randomized more than 700 patients from multiple centers in China who had COPD and a recent history of exacerbations; they found a 25% lower exacerbation rate over 1 year with carbocysteine vs placebo.⁶⁸ Most of the patients (83%) were not on inhaled corticosteroids, which complemented findings of the BRONCUS trial.

The Effect of High Dose N-acetylcysteine on Air Trapping and Airway Resistance of COPD (HIACE) study randomized 120 patients with stable COPD in a hospital in Hong Kong to either oral N-acetylcysteine (600 mg twice daily) or placebo and found a reduced exacerbation rate of exacerbations. Patients were matched at baseline for inhaled corticosteroid use.⁶⁹

In 2014, the Twice Daily N-acetylcysteine 600 mg for Exacerbations of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (PANTHEON) study⁷⁰ randomized 1,006 patients from multiple hospitals in China with a history of moderate to severe COPD and exacerbations to receive either N-acetylcysteine 600 mg twice daily or placebo for 1 year. They found a 22% reduction in exacerbations in the treatment group vs placebo.  

GOLD guidelines² recommend mucolytics for patients with severe COPD and exacerbations when inhaled corticosteroids are not available or affordable.

Recommendation. Mucolytics may be useful for patients with difficulty expectorating and with a history of exacerbations despite appropriate inhaled therapy.

OTHER INTERVENTIONS CAN HELP

Pulmonary rehabilitation provides multiple benefits

Pulmonary rehabilitation increases exercise tolerance and reduces symptoms

Pulmonary rehabilitation increases exercise tolerance and reduces symptom burden in patients with stable COPD. It is also a multidisciplinary effort that may help reinforce adherence to medications, enhance COPD education, and provide closer medical surveillance to patients at high risk for recurrent exacerbations.

A small randomized controlled trial⁷¹ prescribed pulmonary rehabilitation on discharge for a COPD exacerbation and found sustainable improvements in exercise capacity and health status after 3 months.

In a later study,⁷² the same group started pulmonary rehabilitation within a week of hospital discharge and found reduced hospital readmissions over a 3-month period.

Smoking cessation is always worth advocating

A large observational cohort study concluded that current smokers were at a higher risk for COPD exacerbations compared with former smokers.⁷³ Although there are no randomized controlled trials that assess the effects of smoking cessation at the time of COPD exacerbation, we recommend seizing the opportunity to implement this important intervention.

Vaccinations: Influenza and pneumococcal

Influenza vaccination is associated with reduced incidence of hospitalization among patients with cardiopulmonary disease.⁷⁴ A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials of influenza vaccination for patients with COPD⁷⁵ reported significantly fewer exacerbations from vaccination, mostly owing to fewer episodes occurring after 3 to 4 weeks, coinciding with anticipated vaccine-induced immune protection. Furumoto and colleagues⁷⁶ reported an added benefit of combined vaccination with 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine and influenza vaccine in reducing hospital admissions over influenza vaccination alone. We also recommend providing the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine to patients with COPD, particularly for those older than 65, consistent with CDC recommendations.⁷⁷

Managing glycemic control in hospitalized patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and diabetes mellitus is a challenge, with no published guidelines. In this setting, avoiding hypoglycemia takes precedence over meeting strict blood glucose targets. Optimal management is essential to reduce hypoglycemia and the risk of death from cardiovascular disease.¹

This article reviews the evidence to guide diabetes management in hospitalized patients with CKD, focusing on blood glucose monitoring, insulin dosing, and concerns about other diabetic agents.

FOCUS ON AVOIDING HYPOGLYCEMIA

CKD is common, estimated to affect more than 50 million people worldwide.² Diabetes mellitus is the primary cause of kidney failure in 45% of dialysis patients with CKD.

Tight control comes with a cost

Hyperglycemia in hospitalized patients is associated with a higher risk of death, a higher risk of infections, and a longer hospital stay.^3,4 In 2001, Van den Berghe et al⁵ found that intensive insulin therapy reduced the mortality rate in critically ill patients in the surgical intensive care unit. But subsequent studies^6,7 found that intensive insulin therapy to achieve tight glycemic control increased rates of morbidity and mortality without adding clinical benefit.

Randomized clinical trials in outpatients have shown that tight control of blood glucose levels reduces microvascular and macrovascular complications in patients with type 1 diabetes.^8–10 In the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial,⁹ compared with conventional therapy, intensive insulin therapy reduced the incidence of retinopathy progression (4.7 vs 1.2 cases per 100 patient-years, number needed to treat [NNT] = 3 for 10 years) and clinical neuropathy (9.8 vs 3.1 per 100 patient-years, NNT = 1.5 for 10 years). The long-term likelihood of a cardiovascular event was also significantly lower in the intensive treatment group (0.38 vs 0.80 events per 100 patient-years).⁹

Similarly, in the Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications follow-up study, the intensive therapy group had fewer cardiovascular deaths.¹¹ On the other hand, the risk of severe hypoglycemia and subsequent coma or seizure was significantly higher in the intensive therapy group than in the conventional therapy group (16.3 vs 5.4 per 100 patient-years).⁸

CKD increases hypoglycemia risk

Moen et al¹² found that the incidence of hypoglycemia was significantly higher in patients with CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate [GFR] < 60 mL/min) with or without diabetes, and that patients with both conditions were at greatest risk (Figure 1). Multiple factors contribute to the increased risk of hypoglycemia: patients with advanced CKD tend to have poor nutrition, resulting in reduced glycogen stores, and a smaller renal mass reduces renal gluconeogenesis and decreases the elimination of insulin and oral antidiabetic agents.

After the onset of diabetic nephropathy, progression of renal complications and overall life expectancy are influenced by earlier glycemic control.⁸ Development of diabetic nephropathy is commonly accompanied by changes in metabolic control, particularly an increased risk of hypoglycemia.¹³ In addition, episodes of severe hypoglycemia constitute an independent cardiovascular risk factor.¹⁴

Aggressive glycemic control in hospitalized patients, particularly those with advanced CKD, is associated with a risk of hypoglycemia without overall improvement in outcomes.¹⁵ Elderly patients with type 2 diabetes are similar to patients with CKD in that they have a reduced GFR and are thus more sensitive to insulin. In both groups, intensifying glycemic control, especially in the hospital, is associated with more frequent episodes of severe hypoglycemia.¹⁶ The focus should be not only on maintaining optimal blood glucose concentration, but also on preventing hypoglycemia.

‘Burnt-out’ diabetes

Paradoxically, patients with end-stage renal disease and type 2 diabetes often experience altered glucose homeostasis with markedly improved glycemic control. They may attain normoglycemia and normalization of hemoglobin A_1c, a condition known as “burnt-out” diabetes. Its precise mechanism is not understood and its significance remains unclear (Table 1).¹⁷

HEMOGLOBIN A_1c CAN BE FALSELY HIGH OR FALSELY LOW

Hemoglobin A_1c measurement is used to diagnose diabetes and to assess long-term glycemic control. It is a measure of the fraction of hemoglobin that has been glycated by exposure to glucose. Because the average lifespan of a red cell is 120 days, the hemoglobin A_1c value reflects the mean blood glucose concentration over the preceding 3 months.

But hemoglobin A_1c measurement has limitations: any condition that alters the lifespan of erythrocytes leads to higher or lower hemoglobin A_1c levels. Hemoglobin A_1c levels are also affected by kidney dysfunction, hemolysis, and acidosis.¹⁸

Falsely high hemoglobin A_1c levels are associated with conditions that prolong the lifespan of erythrocytes, such as asplenia. Iron deficiency also increases the average age of circulating red cells because of reduced red cell production. For patients in whom blood glucose measurements do not correlate with hemoglobin A_1c measurements, iron deficiency anemia should be considered before altering a treatment regimen.

Falsely low hemoglobin A_1c levels are associated with conditions of more rapid erythrocyte turnover, such as autoimmune hemolytic anemia, hereditary spherocytosis, and acute blood loss anemia. In patients with CKD, recombinant erythropoietin treatment lowers hemoglobin A_1c levels by increasing the number of immature red cells, which are less likely to glycosylate.¹⁹

Morgan et al²⁰ compared the association between hemoglobin A_1c and blood glucose levels in diabetic patients with moderate to severe CKD not requiring dialysis and in diabetic patients with normal renal function and found no difference between these two groups, suggesting that hemoglobin A_1c is reliable in this setting. But study results conflict for patients on dialysis, making the usefulness of hemoglobin A_1c testing for those patients less clear. In one study, hemoglobin A_1c testing underestimated glycemic control,²⁰ but other studies found that glycemic control was overestimated.^21,22

Alternatives to hemoglobin A_1c

Other measures of long-term glycemic control such as fructosamine and glycated albumin levels are sometimes used in conditions in which hemoglobin A_1c may not be reliable.

Albumin also undergoes glycation when exposed to glucose. Glycated albumin appears to be a better measure of glycemic control in patients with CKD and diabetes than serum fructosamine,²³ which has failed to show a significant correlation with blood glucose levels in patients with CKD.²⁴ However, because serum albumin has a short half-life, glycated albumin reflects glycemic control in only the approximately 1 to 2 weeks before sampling,²⁵ so monthly monitoring is required.

Glycated albumin levels may be reduced due to increased albumin turnover in patients with nephrotic-range proteinuria and in diabetic patients on peritoneal dialysis. Several issues remain unclear, such as the appropriate target level of glycated albumin and at what stage of CKD it should replace hemoglobin A_1c testing. If an improved assay that is unaffected by changes in serum albumin becomes available, it may be appropriate to use glycated albumin measurements to assess long-term glycemic control for patients with CKD.

In general, therapeutic decisions to achieve optimum glycemic control in patients with diabetes and CKD should be based on hemoglobin A_1c testing, multiple glucose measurements, and patient symptoms of hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia. The best measure for assessing glycemic control in hospitalized patients with CKD remains multiple blood glucose testing daily.

INSULIN THERAPY PREFERRED

Although several studies have evaluated inpatient glycemic control,^26–29 no guidelines have been published for hospitalized patients with diabetes and CKD. Insulin therapy is preferred for achieving glycemic control in acutely ill or hospitalized patients with diabetes. Oral hypoglycemic agents should be discontinued.

Regardless of the form of insulin chosen to treat diabetes, caution is needed for patients with kidney disease. During hospitalization, clinical changes are expected owing to illness and differences in caloric intake and physical activity, resulting in altered insulin sensitivity. Insulin-treated hospitalized patients require individualized care, including multiple daily blood glucose tests and insulin therapy modifications for ideal glycemic control.

For surgical or medical intensive care patients on insulin therapy, the target blood glucose level before meals should be 140 mg/dL, and the target random level should be less than 180 mg/dL.^15,26–29

Basal-bolus insulin

Sliding-scale therapy should be avoided as the only method for glycemic control. Instead, scheduled subcutaneous basal insulin once or twice daily combined with rapid- or short-acting insulin with meals is recommended.

Basal-bolus insulin therapy, one of the most advanced and flexible insulin replacement therapies, mimics endogenous insulin release and offers great advantages in diabetes care. Using mealtime bolus insulin permits variation in the amount of food eaten; more insulin can be taken with a larger meal and less with smaller meals. A bolus approach offers the flexibility of administering rapid-acting insulin immediately after meals when oral intake is variable.

Individualize insulin therapy

Optimizing glycemic control requires an understanding of the altered pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of insulin in patients with diabetic nephropathy. Table 2 shows the pharmacokinetic profiles of insulin preparations in healthy people. Analogue insulins, which are manufactured by recombinant DNA technology, have conformational changes in the insulin molecule that alter their pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. The rapid-acting analogue insulins are absorbed quickly, making them suitable for postprandial glucose control.

Changes in GFR are associated with altered pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of insulin,^30,31 but unlike for oral antidiabetic agents, these properties are not well characterized for insulin preparations in patients with renal insufficiency.^13,32–36

CKD may reduce insulin clearance. Rave et al³² reported that the clearance of regular human insulin was reduced by 30% to 40% in patients with type 1 diabetes and a mean estimated GFR of 54 mL/min. They found that the metabolic activity of insulin lispro was more robust than that of short-acting regular human insulin in patients with diabetic nephropathy. In another study, patients with diabetes treated with insulin aspart did not show any significant change in the required insulin dosage in relation to the renal filtration rate.³⁴ Biesenbach et al³³ found a 38% reduction in insulin requirements in patients with type 1 diabetes as estimated GFR decreased from 80 mL/min to 10 mL/min. Further studies are required to better understand the safety of insulin in treating hospitalized patients with diabetes and renal insufficiency.

Few studies have compared the pharmacodynamics of long-acting insulins in relation to declining renal function. The long-acting analogue insulins have less of a peak than human insulin and thus better mimic endogenous insulin secretion. For insulin detemir, Lindholm and Jacobsen found no significant differences in the pharmacokinetics related to the stages of CKD.³⁵ When using the long-acting insulins glargine or detemir, one should consider giving much lower doses (half the initial starting dosage) and titrating the dosage until target fasting glucose concentrations are reached to prevent hypoglycemia.

Table 3 summarizes recommended insulin dosage adjustments in CKD based on the literature and our clinical experience.

Considerations for dialysis patients

Subcutaneously administered insulin is eliminated renally, unlike endogenous insulin, which undergoes first-pass metabolism in the liver.^13,37 As renal function declines, insulin clearance decreases and the insulin dosage must be reduced to prevent hypoglycemia.

Patients on hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis pose a challenge for insulin dosing. Hemodialysis improves insulin sensitivity but also increases insulin clearance, making it difficult to determine insulin requirements. Sobngwi et al³⁸ conducted a study in diabetic patients with end-stage renal disease on hemodialysis, using a 24-hour euglycemic clamp. They found that exogenous basal insulin requirements were 25% lower on the day after hemodialysis compared with the day before, but premeal insulin requirements stayed the same.

Peritoneal dialysis exposes patients to a high glucose load via the peritoneum, which can worsen insulin resistance. Intraperitoneal administration of insulin during peritoneal dialysis provides a more physiologic effect than subcutaneous administration: it prevents fluctuations of blood glucose and the formation of insulin antibodies. But insulin requirements are higher owing to a dilutional effect and to insulin binding to the plastic surface of the dialysis fluid reservoir.³⁹

GLYCEMIC CONTROL FOR PROCEDURES

No guidelines have been established regarding the optimal blood glucose range for diabetic patients with CKD undergoing diagnostic or surgical procedures. Given the risk of hypoglycemia in such settings, less-stringent targets are reasonable, ie, premeal blood glucose levels of 140 mg/dL and random blood glucose levels of less than 180 mg/dL.

Before surgery, consideration should be given to the type of diabetes, surgical procedure, and metabolic control. Patients on insulin detemir or glargine as part of a basal-bolus regimen with rapid-acting insulin may safely be given the full dose of their basal insulin the night before or the morning of their procedure. However, patients on neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin as a part of their basal-bolus regimen should receive half of their usual dose due to a difference in pharmacokinetic profile compared with insulin glargine or detemir.

In insulin-treated patients undergoing prolonged procedures (eg, coronary artery bypass grafting, transplant):

• Discontinue subcutaneous insulin and start an intravenous insulin infusion, titrated to maintain a blood glucose range of 140 to 180 mg/dL
• Subcutaneous insulin management may be acceptable for patients undergoing shorter outpatient procedures
• Supplemental subcutaneous doses of short- or rapid-acting insulin preparations can be given for blood glucose elevation greater than 180 mg/dL.

AVOID ORAL AGENTS AND NONINSULIN INJECTABLES

Oral antidiabetic agents and noninsulin injectables (Table 4) should generally be avoided in hospitalized patients, especially for those with decompensated heart failure, renal insufficiency, hypoperfusion, or chronic pulmonary disease, or for those given intravenous contrast. Most oral medications used to treat diabetes are affected by reduced kidney function, resulting in prolonged drug exposure and increased risk of hypoglycemia in patients with moderate to severe CKD (stages 3–5).

Metformin, a biguanide, is contraindicated in patients with high serum creatinine levels (> 1.5 mg/dL in men, > 1.4 mg/dL in women) because of the theoretical risk of lactic acidosis.⁴⁰

Sulfonylurea clearance depends on kidney function.⁴¹ Severe prolonged episodes of hypoglycemia have been reported in dialysis patients taking these drugs, except with glipizide, which carries a lower risk.^41,42

Repaglinide, a nonsulfonylurea insulin secretagogue, can be used in CKD stages 3 to 4 without any dosage adjustment.⁴³

Thiazolidinediones have been reported to slow the progression of diabetic kidney disease independent of glycemic control.⁴⁴ Adverse effects include fluid retention, edema, and congestive heart failure. Thiazolidinediones should not be used in patients with New York Heart Association class 3 or 4 heart failure,⁴⁵ and so should not be prescribed in the hospital except for patients who are clinically stable or ready for discharge.

Quick-release bromocriptine, a dopamine receptor agonist, has been shown to be effective in lowering fasting plasma glucose levels and hemoglobin A_1c, and improving glucose tolerance in obese patients with type 2 diabetes, although its usefulness in hospitalized patients with diabetes is not known.^46,47

Dipeptidyl peptidase inhibitors. Sitagliptin and saxagliptin have been shown to be safe and effective in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes.⁴⁸ However, except for linagliptin, dose reduction is recommended in patients with CKD stage 3 and higher.^49–52

GLP-1 receptor agonists. Drugs of this class are potent agents for the reduction of glucose in the outpatient setting but are relatively contraindicated if the GFR is less than 30 mL/min, and they are currently not used in the hospital.

BLOOD GLUCOSE MONITORING IN HOSPITALIZED PATIENTS

Bedside blood glucose monitoring is recommended for all hospitalized patients with known diabetes with or without CKD, those with newly recognized hyperglycemia, and those who receive therapy associated with high risk for hyperglycemia, such as glucocorticoid therapy and enteral and parenteral nutrition. For patients on scheduled diets, fingerstick blood glucose monitoring is recommended before meals and at bedtime. In patients with no oral intake or on continuous enteral or parenteral nutrition, blood glucose monitoring every 4 to 6 hours is recommended. More frequent monitoring (eg, adding a 3:00 am check) may be prudent in patients with CKD.

Continuous glucose monitoring systems use a sensor inserted under the skin and transmit information via radio to a wireless monitor. Such systems are more expensive than conventional glucose monitoring but may enable better glucose control by providing real-time glucose measurements, with levels displayed at 5-minute or 1-minute intervals. Marshall et al⁵³ confirmed this technology’s accuracy and precision in uremic patients on dialysis.

Considerations for peritoneal dialysis

For patients on peritoneal dialysis, glucose in the dialysate exacerbates hyperglycemia. Dialysis solutions with the glucose polymer icodextrin as the osmotic agent instead of glucose have been suggested to reduce glucose exposure.

Glucose monitoring systems measure interstitial fluid glucose by the glucose oxidase reaction and therefore are not affected by icodextrin. However, icodextrin is converted to maltose, a disaccharide composed of two glucose molecules, which can cause spuriously high readings in devices that use test strips containing the enzymes glucose dehydrogenase pyrroloquinoline quinone or glucose dye oxidoreductase. Spurious hyperglycemia may lead to giving too much insulin, in turn leading to symptomatic hypoglycemia.

Clinicians caring for patients receiving icodextrin should ensure that the glucose monitoring system uses only test strips that contain glucose oxidase, glucose dehydrogenase-nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide, or glucose dehydrogenase-flavin adenine dinucleotide, which are not affected by icodextrin.⁵⁴

IMPROVING QUALITY

Hospitalized patients face many barriers to optimal glycemic control. Less experienced practitioners tend to have insufficient knowledge of insulin preparations and appropriate insulin dosing. Also, diabetes is often listed as a secondary diagnosis and so may be overlooked by the inpatient care team.

Educational programs should be instituted to overcome these barriers and improve knowledge related to inpatient diabetes care. When necessary, the appropriate use of consultants is important in hospitalized settings to improve quality and make hospital care more efficient and cost-effective.

No national benchmarks currently exist for inpatient diabetes care, and they need to be developed to ensure best practices. Physicians should take the initiative to remedy this by collaborating with other healthcare providers, such as dedicated diabetes educators, nursing staff, pharmacists, registered dietitians, and physicians with expertise in diabetes management, with the aim of achieving optimum glycemic control and minimizing hypoglycemia. 

Managing glycemic control in hospitalized patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and diabetes mellitus is a challenge, with no published guidelines. In this setting, avoiding hypoglycemia takes precedence over meeting strict blood glucose targets. Optimal management is essential to reduce hypoglycemia and the risk of death from cardiovascular disease.¹

This article reviews the evidence to guide diabetes management in hospitalized patients with CKD, focusing on blood glucose monitoring, insulin dosing, and concerns about other diabetic agents.

FOCUS ON AVOIDING HYPOGLYCEMIA

CKD is common, estimated to affect more than 50 million people worldwide.² Diabetes mellitus is the primary cause of kidney failure in 45% of dialysis patients with CKD.

Tight control comes with a cost

Hyperglycemia in hospitalized patients is associated with a higher risk of death, a higher risk of infections, and a longer hospital stay.^3,4 In 2001, Van den Berghe et al⁵ found that intensive insulin therapy reduced the mortality rate in critically ill patients in the surgical intensive care unit. But subsequent studies^6,7 found that intensive insulin therapy to achieve tight glycemic control increased rates of morbidity and mortality without adding clinical benefit.

Randomized clinical trials in outpatients have shown that tight control of blood glucose levels reduces microvascular and macrovascular complications in patients with type 1 diabetes.^8–10 In the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial,⁹ compared with conventional therapy, intensive insulin therapy reduced the incidence of retinopathy progression (4.7 vs 1.2 cases per 100 patient-years, number needed to treat [NNT] = 3 for 10 years) and clinical neuropathy (9.8 vs 3.1 per 100 patient-years, NNT = 1.5 for 10 years). The long-term likelihood of a cardiovascular event was also significantly lower in the intensive treatment group (0.38 vs 0.80 events per 100 patient-years).⁹

Similarly, in the Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications follow-up study, the intensive therapy group had fewer cardiovascular deaths.¹¹ On the other hand, the risk of severe hypoglycemia and subsequent coma or seizure was significantly higher in the intensive therapy group than in the conventional therapy group (16.3 vs 5.4 per 100 patient-years).⁸

CKD increases hypoglycemia risk

Moen et al¹² found that the incidence of hypoglycemia was significantly higher in patients with CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate [GFR] < 60 mL/min) with or without diabetes, and that patients with both conditions were at greatest risk (Figure 1). Multiple factors contribute to the increased risk of hypoglycemia: patients with advanced CKD tend to have poor nutrition, resulting in reduced glycogen stores, and a smaller renal mass reduces renal gluconeogenesis and decreases the elimination of insulin and oral antidiabetic agents.

After the onset of diabetic nephropathy, progression of renal complications and overall life expectancy are influenced by earlier glycemic control.⁸ Development of diabetic nephropathy is commonly accompanied by changes in metabolic control, particularly an increased risk of hypoglycemia.¹³ In addition, episodes of severe hypoglycemia constitute an independent cardiovascular risk factor.¹⁴

Aggressive glycemic control in hospitalized patients, particularly those with advanced CKD, is associated with a risk of hypoglycemia without overall improvement in outcomes.¹⁵ Elderly patients with type 2 diabetes are similar to patients with CKD in that they have a reduced GFR and are thus more sensitive to insulin. In both groups, intensifying glycemic control, especially in the hospital, is associated with more frequent episodes of severe hypoglycemia.¹⁶ The focus should be not only on maintaining optimal blood glucose concentration, but also on preventing hypoglycemia.

‘Burnt-out’ diabetes

Paradoxically, patients with end-stage renal disease and type 2 diabetes often experience altered glucose homeostasis with markedly improved glycemic control. They may attain normoglycemia and normalization of hemoglobin A_1c, a condition known as “burnt-out” diabetes. Its precise mechanism is not understood and its significance remains unclear (Table 1).¹⁷

HEMOGLOBIN A_1c CAN BE FALSELY HIGH OR FALSELY LOW

Hemoglobin A_1c measurement is used to diagnose diabetes and to assess long-term glycemic control. It is a measure of the fraction of hemoglobin that has been glycated by exposure to glucose. Because the average lifespan of a red cell is 120 days, the hemoglobin A_1c value reflects the mean blood glucose concentration over the preceding 3 months.

But hemoglobin A_1c measurement has limitations: any condition that alters the lifespan of erythrocytes leads to higher or lower hemoglobin A_1c levels. Hemoglobin A_1c levels are also affected by kidney dysfunction, hemolysis, and acidosis.¹⁸

Falsely high hemoglobin A_1c levels are associated with conditions that prolong the lifespan of erythrocytes, such as asplenia. Iron deficiency also increases the average age of circulating red cells because of reduced red cell production. For patients in whom blood glucose measurements do not correlate with hemoglobin A_1c measurements, iron deficiency anemia should be considered before altering a treatment regimen.

Falsely low hemoglobin A_1c levels are associated with conditions of more rapid erythrocyte turnover, such as autoimmune hemolytic anemia, hereditary spherocytosis, and acute blood loss anemia. In patients with CKD, recombinant erythropoietin treatment lowers hemoglobin A_1c levels by increasing the number of immature red cells, which are less likely to glycosylate.¹⁹

Morgan et al²⁰ compared the association between hemoglobin A_1c and blood glucose levels in diabetic patients with moderate to severe CKD not requiring dialysis and in diabetic patients with normal renal function and found no difference between these two groups, suggesting that hemoglobin A_1c is reliable in this setting. But study results conflict for patients on dialysis, making the usefulness of hemoglobin A_1c testing for those patients less clear. In one study, hemoglobin A_1c testing underestimated glycemic control,²⁰ but other studies found that glycemic control was overestimated.^21,22

Alternatives to hemoglobin A_1c

Other measures of long-term glycemic control such as fructosamine and glycated albumin levels are sometimes used in conditions in which hemoglobin A_1c may not be reliable.

Albumin also undergoes glycation when exposed to glucose. Glycated albumin appears to be a better measure of glycemic control in patients with CKD and diabetes than serum fructosamine,²³ which has failed to show a significant correlation with blood glucose levels in patients with CKD.²⁴ However, because serum albumin has a short half-life, glycated albumin reflects glycemic control in only the approximately 1 to 2 weeks before sampling,²⁵ so monthly monitoring is required.

Glycated albumin levels may be reduced due to increased albumin turnover in patients with nephrotic-range proteinuria and in diabetic patients on peritoneal dialysis. Several issues remain unclear, such as the appropriate target level of glycated albumin and at what stage of CKD it should replace hemoglobin A_1c testing. If an improved assay that is unaffected by changes in serum albumin becomes available, it may be appropriate to use glycated albumin measurements to assess long-term glycemic control for patients with CKD.

In general, therapeutic decisions to achieve optimum glycemic control in patients with diabetes and CKD should be based on hemoglobin A_1c testing, multiple glucose measurements, and patient symptoms of hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia. The best measure for assessing glycemic control in hospitalized patients with CKD remains multiple blood glucose testing daily.

INSULIN THERAPY PREFERRED

Although several studies have evaluated inpatient glycemic control,^26–29 no guidelines have been published for hospitalized patients with diabetes and CKD. Insulin therapy is preferred for achieving glycemic control in acutely ill or hospitalized patients with diabetes. Oral hypoglycemic agents should be discontinued.

Regardless of the form of insulin chosen to treat diabetes, caution is needed for patients with kidney disease. During hospitalization, clinical changes are expected owing to illness and differences in caloric intake and physical activity, resulting in altered insulin sensitivity. Insulin-treated hospitalized patients require individualized care, including multiple daily blood glucose tests and insulin therapy modifications for ideal glycemic control.

For surgical or medical intensive care patients on insulin therapy, the target blood glucose level before meals should be 140 mg/dL, and the target random level should be less than 180 mg/dL.^15,26–29

Basal-bolus insulin

Sliding-scale therapy should be avoided as the only method for glycemic control. Instead, scheduled subcutaneous basal insulin once or twice daily combined with rapid- or short-acting insulin with meals is recommended.

Basal-bolus insulin therapy, one of the most advanced and flexible insulin replacement therapies, mimics endogenous insulin release and offers great advantages in diabetes care. Using mealtime bolus insulin permits variation in the amount of food eaten; more insulin can be taken with a larger meal and less with smaller meals. A bolus approach offers the flexibility of administering rapid-acting insulin immediately after meals when oral intake is variable.

Individualize insulin therapy

Optimizing glycemic control requires an understanding of the altered pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of insulin in patients with diabetic nephropathy. Table 2 shows the pharmacokinetic profiles of insulin preparations in healthy people. Analogue insulins, which are manufactured by recombinant DNA technology, have conformational changes in the insulin molecule that alter their pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. The rapid-acting analogue insulins are absorbed quickly, making them suitable for postprandial glucose control.

Changes in GFR are associated with altered pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of insulin,^30,31 but unlike for oral antidiabetic agents, these properties are not well characterized for insulin preparations in patients with renal insufficiency.^13,32–36

CKD may reduce insulin clearance. Rave et al³² reported that the clearance of regular human insulin was reduced by 30% to 40% in patients with type 1 diabetes and a mean estimated GFR of 54 mL/min. They found that the metabolic activity of insulin lispro was more robust than that of short-acting regular human insulin in patients with diabetic nephropathy. In another study, patients with diabetes treated with insulin aspart did not show any significant change in the required insulin dosage in relation to the renal filtration rate.³⁴ Biesenbach et al³³ found a 38% reduction in insulin requirements in patients with type 1 diabetes as estimated GFR decreased from 80 mL/min to 10 mL/min. Further studies are required to better understand the safety of insulin in treating hospitalized patients with diabetes and renal insufficiency.

Few studies have compared the pharmacodynamics of long-acting insulins in relation to declining renal function. The long-acting analogue insulins have less of a peak than human insulin and thus better mimic endogenous insulin secretion. For insulin detemir, Lindholm and Jacobsen found no significant differences in the pharmacokinetics related to the stages of CKD.³⁵ When using the long-acting insulins glargine or detemir, one should consider giving much lower doses (half the initial starting dosage) and titrating the dosage until target fasting glucose concentrations are reached to prevent hypoglycemia.

Table 3 summarizes recommended insulin dosage adjustments in CKD based on the literature and our clinical experience.

Considerations for dialysis patients

Subcutaneously administered insulin is eliminated renally, unlike endogenous insulin, which undergoes first-pass metabolism in the liver.^13,37 As renal function declines, insulin clearance decreases and the insulin dosage must be reduced to prevent hypoglycemia.

Patients on hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis pose a challenge for insulin dosing. Hemodialysis improves insulin sensitivity but also increases insulin clearance, making it difficult to determine insulin requirements. Sobngwi et al³⁸ conducted a study in diabetic patients with end-stage renal disease on hemodialysis, using a 24-hour euglycemic clamp. They found that exogenous basal insulin requirements were 25% lower on the day after hemodialysis compared with the day before, but premeal insulin requirements stayed the same.

Peritoneal dialysis exposes patients to a high glucose load via the peritoneum, which can worsen insulin resistance. Intraperitoneal administration of insulin during peritoneal dialysis provides a more physiologic effect than subcutaneous administration: it prevents fluctuations of blood glucose and the formation of insulin antibodies. But insulin requirements are higher owing to a dilutional effect and to insulin binding to the plastic surface of the dialysis fluid reservoir.³⁹

GLYCEMIC CONTROL FOR PROCEDURES

No guidelines have been established regarding the optimal blood glucose range for diabetic patients with CKD undergoing diagnostic or surgical procedures. Given the risk of hypoglycemia in such settings, less-stringent targets are reasonable, ie, premeal blood glucose levels of 140 mg/dL and random blood glucose levels of less than 180 mg/dL.

Before surgery, consideration should be given to the type of diabetes, surgical procedure, and metabolic control. Patients on insulin detemir or glargine as part of a basal-bolus regimen with rapid-acting insulin may safely be given the full dose of their basal insulin the night before or the morning of their procedure. However, patients on neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin as a part of their basal-bolus regimen should receive half of their usual dose due to a difference in pharmacokinetic profile compared with insulin glargine or detemir.

In insulin-treated patients undergoing prolonged procedures (eg, coronary artery bypass grafting, transplant):

• Discontinue subcutaneous insulin and start an intravenous insulin infusion, titrated to maintain a blood glucose range of 140 to 180 mg/dL
• Subcutaneous insulin management may be acceptable for patients undergoing shorter outpatient procedures
• Supplemental subcutaneous doses of short- or rapid-acting insulin preparations can be given for blood glucose elevation greater than 180 mg/dL.

AVOID ORAL AGENTS AND NONINSULIN INJECTABLES

Oral antidiabetic agents and noninsulin injectables (Table 4) should generally be avoided in hospitalized patients, especially for those with decompensated heart failure, renal insufficiency, hypoperfusion, or chronic pulmonary disease, or for those given intravenous contrast. Most oral medications used to treat diabetes are affected by reduced kidney function, resulting in prolonged drug exposure and increased risk of hypoglycemia in patients with moderate to severe CKD (stages 3–5).

Metformin, a biguanide, is contraindicated in patients with high serum creatinine levels (> 1.5 mg/dL in men, > 1.4 mg/dL in women) because of the theoretical risk of lactic acidosis.⁴⁰

Sulfonylurea clearance depends on kidney function.⁴¹ Severe prolonged episodes of hypoglycemia have been reported in dialysis patients taking these drugs, except with glipizide, which carries a lower risk.^41,42

Repaglinide, a nonsulfonylurea insulin secretagogue, can be used in CKD stages 3 to 4 without any dosage adjustment.⁴³

Thiazolidinediones have been reported to slow the progression of diabetic kidney disease independent of glycemic control.⁴⁴ Adverse effects include fluid retention, edema, and congestive heart failure. Thiazolidinediones should not be used in patients with New York Heart Association class 3 or 4 heart failure,⁴⁵ and so should not be prescribed in the hospital except for patients who are clinically stable or ready for discharge.

Quick-release bromocriptine, a dopamine receptor agonist, has been shown to be effective in lowering fasting plasma glucose levels and hemoglobin A_1c, and improving glucose tolerance in obese patients with type 2 diabetes, although its usefulness in hospitalized patients with diabetes is not known.^46,47

Dipeptidyl peptidase inhibitors. Sitagliptin and saxagliptin have been shown to be safe and effective in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes.⁴⁸ However, except for linagliptin, dose reduction is recommended in patients with CKD stage 3 and higher.^49–52

GLP-1 receptor agonists. Drugs of this class are potent agents for the reduction of glucose in the outpatient setting but are relatively contraindicated if the GFR is less than 30 mL/min, and they are currently not used in the hospital.

BLOOD GLUCOSE MONITORING IN HOSPITALIZED PATIENTS

Bedside blood glucose monitoring is recommended for all hospitalized patients with known diabetes with or without CKD, those with newly recognized hyperglycemia, and those who receive therapy associated with high risk for hyperglycemia, such as glucocorticoid therapy and enteral and parenteral nutrition. For patients on scheduled diets, fingerstick blood glucose monitoring is recommended before meals and at bedtime. In patients with no oral intake or on continuous enteral or parenteral nutrition, blood glucose monitoring every 4 to 6 hours is recommended. More frequent monitoring (eg, adding a 3:00 am check) may be prudent in patients with CKD.

Continuous glucose monitoring systems use a sensor inserted under the skin and transmit information via radio to a wireless monitor. Such systems are more expensive than conventional glucose monitoring but may enable better glucose control by providing real-time glucose measurements, with levels displayed at 5-minute or 1-minute intervals. Marshall et al⁵³ confirmed this technology’s accuracy and precision in uremic patients on dialysis.

Considerations for peritoneal dialysis

For patients on peritoneal dialysis, glucose in the dialysate exacerbates hyperglycemia. Dialysis solutions with the glucose polymer icodextrin as the osmotic agent instead of glucose have been suggested to reduce glucose exposure.

Glucose monitoring systems measure interstitial fluid glucose by the glucose oxidase reaction and therefore are not affected by icodextrin. However, icodextrin is converted to maltose, a disaccharide composed of two glucose molecules, which can cause spuriously high readings in devices that use test strips containing the enzymes glucose dehydrogenase pyrroloquinoline quinone or glucose dye oxidoreductase. Spurious hyperglycemia may lead to giving too much insulin, in turn leading to symptomatic hypoglycemia.

Clinicians caring for patients receiving icodextrin should ensure that the glucose monitoring system uses only test strips that contain glucose oxidase, glucose dehydrogenase-nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide, or glucose dehydrogenase-flavin adenine dinucleotide, which are not affected by icodextrin.⁵⁴

IMPROVING QUALITY

Hospitalized patients face many barriers to optimal glycemic control. Less experienced practitioners tend to have insufficient knowledge of insulin preparations and appropriate insulin dosing. Also, diabetes is often listed as a secondary diagnosis and so may be overlooked by the inpatient care team.

Educational programs should be instituted to overcome these barriers and improve knowledge related to inpatient diabetes care. When necessary, the appropriate use of consultants is important in hospitalized settings to improve quality and make hospital care more efficient and cost-effective.

No national benchmarks currently exist for inpatient diabetes care, and they need to be developed to ensure best practices. Physicians should take the initiative to remedy this by collaborating with other healthcare providers, such as dedicated diabetes educators, nursing staff, pharmacists, registered dietitians, and physicians with expertise in diabetes management, with the aim of achieving optimum glycemic control and minimizing hypoglycemia. 

Managing glycemic control in hospitalized patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and diabetes mellitus is a challenge, with no published guidelines. In this setting, avoiding hypoglycemia takes precedence over meeting strict blood glucose targets. Optimal management is essential to reduce hypoglycemia and the risk of death from cardiovascular disease.¹

This article reviews the evidence to guide diabetes management in hospitalized patients with CKD, focusing on blood glucose monitoring, insulin dosing, and concerns about other diabetic agents.

FOCUS ON AVOIDING HYPOGLYCEMIA

CKD is common, estimated to affect more than 50 million people worldwide.² Diabetes mellitus is the primary cause of kidney failure in 45% of dialysis patients with CKD.

Tight control comes with a cost

Hyperglycemia in hospitalized patients is associated with a higher risk of death, a higher risk of infections, and a longer hospital stay.^3,4 In 2001, Van den Berghe et al⁵ found that intensive insulin therapy reduced the mortality rate in critically ill patients in the surgical intensive care unit. But subsequent studies^6,7 found that intensive insulin therapy to achieve tight glycemic control increased rates of morbidity and mortality without adding clinical benefit.

Randomized clinical trials in outpatients have shown that tight control of blood glucose levels reduces microvascular and macrovascular complications in patients with type 1 diabetes.^8–10 In the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial,⁹ compared with conventional therapy, intensive insulin therapy reduced the incidence of retinopathy progression (4.7 vs 1.2 cases per 100 patient-years, number needed to treat [NNT] = 3 for 10 years) and clinical neuropathy (9.8 vs 3.1 per 100 patient-years, NNT = 1.5 for 10 years). The long-term likelihood of a cardiovascular event was also significantly lower in the intensive treatment group (0.38 vs 0.80 events per 100 patient-years).⁹

Similarly, in the Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications follow-up study, the intensive therapy group had fewer cardiovascular deaths.¹¹ On the other hand, the risk of severe hypoglycemia and subsequent coma or seizure was significantly higher in the intensive therapy group than in the conventional therapy group (16.3 vs 5.4 per 100 patient-years).⁸

CKD increases hypoglycemia risk

Moen et al¹² found that the incidence of hypoglycemia was significantly higher in patients with CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate [GFR] < 60 mL/min) with or without diabetes, and that patients with both conditions were at greatest risk (Figure 1). Multiple factors contribute to the increased risk of hypoglycemia: patients with advanced CKD tend to have poor nutrition, resulting in reduced glycogen stores, and a smaller renal mass reduces renal gluconeogenesis and decreases the elimination of insulin and oral antidiabetic agents.

After the onset of diabetic nephropathy, progression of renal complications and overall life expectancy are influenced by earlier glycemic control.⁸ Development of diabetic nephropathy is commonly accompanied by changes in metabolic control, particularly an increased risk of hypoglycemia.¹³ In addition, episodes of severe hypoglycemia constitute an independent cardiovascular risk factor.¹⁴

Aggressive glycemic control in hospitalized patients, particularly those with advanced CKD, is associated with a risk of hypoglycemia without overall improvement in outcomes.¹⁵ Elderly patients with type 2 diabetes are similar to patients with CKD in that they have a reduced GFR and are thus more sensitive to insulin. In both groups, intensifying glycemic control, especially in the hospital, is associated with more frequent episodes of severe hypoglycemia.¹⁶ The focus should be not only on maintaining optimal blood glucose concentration, but also on preventing hypoglycemia.

‘Burnt-out’ diabetes

Paradoxically, patients with end-stage renal disease and type 2 diabetes often experience altered glucose homeostasis with markedly improved glycemic control. They may attain normoglycemia and normalization of hemoglobin A_1c, a condition known as “burnt-out” diabetes. Its precise mechanism is not understood and its significance remains unclear (Table 1).¹⁷

HEMOGLOBIN A_1c CAN BE FALSELY HIGH OR FALSELY LOW

Hemoglobin A_1c measurement is used to diagnose diabetes and to assess long-term glycemic control. It is a measure of the fraction of hemoglobin that has been glycated by exposure to glucose. Because the average lifespan of a red cell is 120 days, the hemoglobin A_1c value reflects the mean blood glucose concentration over the preceding 3 months.

But hemoglobin A_1c measurement has limitations: any condition that alters the lifespan of erythrocytes leads to higher or lower hemoglobin A_1c levels. Hemoglobin A_1c levels are also affected by kidney dysfunction, hemolysis, and acidosis.¹⁸

Falsely high hemoglobin A_1c levels are associated with conditions that prolong the lifespan of erythrocytes, such as asplenia. Iron deficiency also increases the average age of circulating red cells because of reduced red cell production. For patients in whom blood glucose measurements do not correlate with hemoglobin A_1c measurements, iron deficiency anemia should be considered before altering a treatment regimen.

Falsely low hemoglobin A_1c levels are associated with conditions of more rapid erythrocyte turnover, such as autoimmune hemolytic anemia, hereditary spherocytosis, and acute blood loss anemia. In patients with CKD, recombinant erythropoietin treatment lowers hemoglobin A_1c levels by increasing the number of immature red cells, which are less likely to glycosylate.¹⁹

Morgan et al²⁰ compared the association between hemoglobin A_1c and blood glucose levels in diabetic patients with moderate to severe CKD not requiring dialysis and in diabetic patients with normal renal function and found no difference between these two groups, suggesting that hemoglobin A_1c is reliable in this setting. But study results conflict for patients on dialysis, making the usefulness of hemoglobin A_1c testing for those patients less clear. In one study, hemoglobin A_1c testing underestimated glycemic control,²⁰ but other studies found that glycemic control was overestimated.^21,22

Alternatives to hemoglobin A_1c

Other measures of long-term glycemic control such as fructosamine and glycated albumin levels are sometimes used in conditions in which hemoglobin A_1c may not be reliable.

Albumin also undergoes glycation when exposed to glucose. Glycated albumin appears to be a better measure of glycemic control in patients with CKD and diabetes than serum fructosamine,²³ which has failed to show a significant correlation with blood glucose levels in patients with CKD.²⁴ However, because serum albumin has a short half-life, glycated albumin reflects glycemic control in only the approximately 1 to 2 weeks before sampling,²⁵ so monthly monitoring is required.

Glycated albumin levels may be reduced due to increased albumin turnover in patients with nephrotic-range proteinuria and in diabetic patients on peritoneal dialysis. Several issues remain unclear, such as the appropriate target level of glycated albumin and at what stage of CKD it should replace hemoglobin A_1c testing. If an improved assay that is unaffected by changes in serum albumin becomes available, it may be appropriate to use glycated albumin measurements to assess long-term glycemic control for patients with CKD.

In general, therapeutic decisions to achieve optimum glycemic control in patients with diabetes and CKD should be based on hemoglobin A_1c testing, multiple glucose measurements, and patient symptoms of hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia. The best measure for assessing glycemic control in hospitalized patients with CKD remains multiple blood glucose testing daily.

INSULIN THERAPY PREFERRED

Although several studies have evaluated inpatient glycemic control,^26–29 no guidelines have been published for hospitalized patients with diabetes and CKD. Insulin therapy is preferred for achieving glycemic control in acutely ill or hospitalized patients with diabetes. Oral hypoglycemic agents should be discontinued.

Regardless of the form of insulin chosen to treat diabetes, caution is needed for patients with kidney disease. During hospitalization, clinical changes are expected owing to illness and differences in caloric intake and physical activity, resulting in altered insulin sensitivity. Insulin-treated hospitalized patients require individualized care, including multiple daily blood glucose tests and insulin therapy modifications for ideal glycemic control.

For surgical or medical intensive care patients on insulin therapy, the target blood glucose level before meals should be 140 mg/dL, and the target random level should be less than 180 mg/dL.^15,26–29

Basal-bolus insulin

Sliding-scale therapy should be avoided as the only method for glycemic control. Instead, scheduled subcutaneous basal insulin once or twice daily combined with rapid- or short-acting insulin with meals is recommended.

Basal-bolus insulin therapy, one of the most advanced and flexible insulin replacement therapies, mimics endogenous insulin release and offers great advantages in diabetes care. Using mealtime bolus insulin permits variation in the amount of food eaten; more insulin can be taken with a larger meal and less with smaller meals. A bolus approach offers the flexibility of administering rapid-acting insulin immediately after meals when oral intake is variable.

Individualize insulin therapy

Optimizing glycemic control requires an understanding of the altered pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of insulin in patients with diabetic nephropathy. Table 2 shows the pharmacokinetic profiles of insulin preparations in healthy people. Analogue insulins, which are manufactured by recombinant DNA technology, have conformational changes in the insulin molecule that alter their pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. The rapid-acting analogue insulins are absorbed quickly, making them suitable for postprandial glucose control.

Changes in GFR are associated with altered pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of insulin,^30,31 but unlike for oral antidiabetic agents, these properties are not well characterized for insulin preparations in patients with renal insufficiency.^13,32–36

CKD may reduce insulin clearance. Rave et al³² reported that the clearance of regular human insulin was reduced by 30% to 40% in patients with type 1 diabetes and a mean estimated GFR of 54 mL/min. They found that the metabolic activity of insulin lispro was more robust than that of short-acting regular human insulin in patients with diabetic nephropathy. In another study, patients with diabetes treated with insulin aspart did not show any significant change in the required insulin dosage in relation to the renal filtration rate.³⁴ Biesenbach et al³³ found a 38% reduction in insulin requirements in patients with type 1 diabetes as estimated GFR decreased from 80 mL/min to 10 mL/min. Further studies are required to better understand the safety of insulin in treating hospitalized patients with diabetes and renal insufficiency.

Few studies have compared the pharmacodynamics of long-acting insulins in relation to declining renal function. The long-acting analogue insulins have less of a peak than human insulin and thus better mimic endogenous insulin secretion. For insulin detemir, Lindholm and Jacobsen found no significant differences in the pharmacokinetics related to the stages of CKD.³⁵ When using the long-acting insulins glargine or detemir, one should consider giving much lower doses (half the initial starting dosage) and titrating the dosage until target fasting glucose concentrations are reached to prevent hypoglycemia.

Table 3 summarizes recommended insulin dosage adjustments in CKD based on the literature and our clinical experience.

Considerations for dialysis patients

Subcutaneously administered insulin is eliminated renally, unlike endogenous insulin, which undergoes first-pass metabolism in the liver.^13,37 As renal function declines, insulin clearance decreases and the insulin dosage must be reduced to prevent hypoglycemia.

Patients on hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis pose a challenge for insulin dosing. Hemodialysis improves insulin sensitivity but also increases insulin clearance, making it difficult to determine insulin requirements. Sobngwi et al³⁸ conducted a study in diabetic patients with end-stage renal disease on hemodialysis, using a 24-hour euglycemic clamp. They found that exogenous basal insulin requirements were 25% lower on the day after hemodialysis compared with the day before, but premeal insulin requirements stayed the same.

Peritoneal dialysis exposes patients to a high glucose load via the peritoneum, which can worsen insulin resistance. Intraperitoneal administration of insulin during peritoneal dialysis provides a more physiologic effect than subcutaneous administration: it prevents fluctuations of blood glucose and the formation of insulin antibodies. But insulin requirements are higher owing to a dilutional effect and to insulin binding to the plastic surface of the dialysis fluid reservoir.³⁹

GLYCEMIC CONTROL FOR PROCEDURES

No guidelines have been established regarding the optimal blood glucose range for diabetic patients with CKD undergoing diagnostic or surgical procedures. Given the risk of hypoglycemia in such settings, less-stringent targets are reasonable, ie, premeal blood glucose levels of 140 mg/dL and random blood glucose levels of less than 180 mg/dL.

Before surgery, consideration should be given to the type of diabetes, surgical procedure, and metabolic control. Patients on insulin detemir or glargine as part of a basal-bolus regimen with rapid-acting insulin may safely be given the full dose of their basal insulin the night before or the morning of their procedure. However, patients on neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin as a part of their basal-bolus regimen should receive half of their usual dose due to a difference in pharmacokinetic profile compared with insulin glargine or detemir.

In insulin-treated patients undergoing prolonged procedures (eg, coronary artery bypass grafting, transplant):

• Discontinue subcutaneous insulin and start an intravenous insulin infusion, titrated to maintain a blood glucose range of 140 to 180 mg/dL
• Subcutaneous insulin management may be acceptable for patients undergoing shorter outpatient procedures
• Supplemental subcutaneous doses of short- or rapid-acting insulin preparations can be given for blood glucose elevation greater than 180 mg/dL.

AVOID ORAL AGENTS AND NONINSULIN INJECTABLES

Oral antidiabetic agents and noninsulin injectables (Table 4) should generally be avoided in hospitalized patients, especially for those with decompensated heart failure, renal insufficiency, hypoperfusion, or chronic pulmonary disease, or for those given intravenous contrast. Most oral medications used to treat diabetes are affected by reduced kidney function, resulting in prolonged drug exposure and increased risk of hypoglycemia in patients with moderate to severe CKD (stages 3–5).

Metformin, a biguanide, is contraindicated in patients with high serum creatinine levels (> 1.5 mg/dL in men, > 1.4 mg/dL in women) because of the theoretical risk of lactic acidosis.⁴⁰

Sulfonylurea clearance depends on kidney function.⁴¹ Severe prolonged episodes of hypoglycemia have been reported in dialysis patients taking these drugs, except with glipizide, which carries a lower risk.^41,42

Repaglinide, a nonsulfonylurea insulin secretagogue, can be used in CKD stages 3 to 4 without any dosage adjustment.⁴³

Thiazolidinediones have been reported to slow the progression of diabetic kidney disease independent of glycemic control.⁴⁴ Adverse effects include fluid retention, edema, and congestive heart failure. Thiazolidinediones should not be used in patients with New York Heart Association class 3 or 4 heart failure,⁴⁵ and so should not be prescribed in the hospital except for patients who are clinically stable or ready for discharge.

Quick-release bromocriptine, a dopamine receptor agonist, has been shown to be effective in lowering fasting plasma glucose levels and hemoglobin A_1c, and improving glucose tolerance in obese patients with type 2 diabetes, although its usefulness in hospitalized patients with diabetes is not known.^46,47

Dipeptidyl peptidase inhibitors. Sitagliptin and saxagliptin have been shown to be safe and effective in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes.⁴⁸ However, except for linagliptin, dose reduction is recommended in patients with CKD stage 3 and higher.^49–52

GLP-1 receptor agonists. Drugs of this class are potent agents for the reduction of glucose in the outpatient setting but are relatively contraindicated if the GFR is less than 30 mL/min, and they are currently not used in the hospital.

BLOOD GLUCOSE MONITORING IN HOSPITALIZED PATIENTS

Bedside blood glucose monitoring is recommended for all hospitalized patients with known diabetes with or without CKD, those with newly recognized hyperglycemia, and those who receive therapy associated with high risk for hyperglycemia, such as glucocorticoid therapy and enteral and parenteral nutrition. For patients on scheduled diets, fingerstick blood glucose monitoring is recommended before meals and at bedtime. In patients with no oral intake or on continuous enteral or parenteral nutrition, blood glucose monitoring every 4 to 6 hours is recommended. More frequent monitoring (eg, adding a 3:00 am check) may be prudent in patients with CKD.

Continuous glucose monitoring systems use a sensor inserted under the skin and transmit information via radio to a wireless monitor. Such systems are more expensive than conventional glucose monitoring but may enable better glucose control by providing real-time glucose measurements, with levels displayed at 5-minute or 1-minute intervals. Marshall et al⁵³ confirmed this technology’s accuracy and precision in uremic patients on dialysis.

Considerations for peritoneal dialysis

For patients on peritoneal dialysis, glucose in the dialysate exacerbates hyperglycemia. Dialysis solutions with the glucose polymer icodextrin as the osmotic agent instead of glucose have been suggested to reduce glucose exposure.

Glucose monitoring systems measure interstitial fluid glucose by the glucose oxidase reaction and therefore are not affected by icodextrin. However, icodextrin is converted to maltose, a disaccharide composed of two glucose molecules, which can cause spuriously high readings in devices that use test strips containing the enzymes glucose dehydrogenase pyrroloquinoline quinone or glucose dye oxidoreductase. Spurious hyperglycemia may lead to giving too much insulin, in turn leading to symptomatic hypoglycemia.

Clinicians caring for patients receiving icodextrin should ensure that the glucose monitoring system uses only test strips that contain glucose oxidase, glucose dehydrogenase-nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide, or glucose dehydrogenase-flavin adenine dinucleotide, which are not affected by icodextrin.⁵⁴

IMPROVING QUALITY

Hospitalized patients face many barriers to optimal glycemic control. Less experienced practitioners tend to have insufficient knowledge of insulin preparations and appropriate insulin dosing. Also, diabetes is often listed as a secondary diagnosis and so may be overlooked by the inpatient care team.

Educational programs should be instituted to overcome these barriers and improve knowledge related to inpatient diabetes care. When necessary, the appropriate use of consultants is important in hospitalized settings to improve quality and make hospital care more efficient and cost-effective.

No national benchmarks currently exist for inpatient diabetes care, and they need to be developed to ensure best practices. Physicians should take the initiative to remedy this by collaborating with other healthcare providers, such as dedicated diabetes educators, nursing staff, pharmacists, registered dietitians, and physicians with expertise in diabetes management, with the aim of achieving optimum glycemic control and minimizing hypoglycemia. 

Managing anticoagulation in patients with infectious endocarditis requires an individualized approach, using a careful risk-benefit assessment on a case-by-case basis. There is a dearth of high-quality evidence; consequently, the recommendations also vary according to the clinical situation.

Newly diagnosed native valve infectious endocarditis in itself is not an indication for anticoagulation.^1–3 The question of whether to anticoagulate arises in patients who have a preexisting or coexisting indication for anticoagulation such as atrial fibrillation, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, or a mechanical prosthetic heart valve. The question becomes yet more complex in patients with cerebrovascular complications and a coexistent strong indication for anticoagulation, creating what is often a very thorny dilemma.

Based on a review of available evidence, recommendations for anticoagulation in patients with infectious endocarditis are summarized below.

AVAILABLE EVIDENCE IS SCARCE AND MIXED

Earlier observational studies suggested a significant risk of cerebral hemorrhage with anticoagulation in patients with native valve endocarditis, although none of these studies were recent (some of them took place in the 1940s), and none are methodologically compelling.^4–8 Consequently, some experts have expressed skepticism regarding their findings, particularly in recent years.

In part, this skepticism arises from studies that showed a lower incidence of cerebrovascular complications and smaller vegetation size in patients with prosthetic valve infectious endocarditis, studies in which many of the patients received anticoagulation therapy.^9,10 The mechanism responsible for this effect is theorized to be that the vegetation is an amalgam of destroyed cells, platelets, and fibrin, with anticoagulation preventing this aggregation from further growth and propagation.

How great is the benefit or the potential harm?

Some experts argue that the incidence of ischemic stroke with hemorrhagic transformation in patients with infectious endocarditis receiving anticoagulation is overestimated. According to this view, the beneficial effects of anticoagulation at least counterbalance the potential harmful effects.

In addition to the studies cited above, recent studies have shown that patients on anticoagulation tend to have smaller vegetations and fewer cerebrovascular complications.^11–13 Snygg-Martin et al¹¹ and Rasmussen et al¹² found not only that cerebrovascular complications were less common in patients already on anticoagulation at the time infectious endocarditis was diagnosed, but also that no increase in the rate of hemorrhagic lesions was reported.

These were all nonrandomized studies, and most of the patients in them had native valve infectious endocarditis diagnosed at an early stage. Importantly, these studies found that the beneficial effects of anticoagulation were only present if the patient was receiving warfarin before infectious endocarditis was diagnosed and antibiotic therapy was initiated. No benefits from anticoagulation were demonstrated once antimicrobial therapy was begun.

Similarly, Anavekar et al¹⁴ showed that embolic events occurred significantly less often in those who were currently on continuous daily antiplatelet therapy, suggesting that receiving antiplatelet agents at baseline protects against cardioembolic events in patients who develop infective endocarditis. However, the only randomized trial examining the initiation of antiplatelet therapy in patients diagnosed with infectious endocarditis receiving antibiotic treatment showed that adding aspirin did not reduce the risk of embolic events and was associated with a trend toward increased risk of bleeding.¹⁵

A recent large cohort study suggested that infectious endocarditis patients who receive anticoagulation therapy may have a higher incidence of cerebrovascular complications (hazard ratio 1.31, 95% confidence interval 1.00–1.72, P = .048), with a particular association of anticoagulation therapy with intracranial bleeding (hazard ratio 2.71, 95% confidence interval 1.54–4.76, P = .001).¹⁶

Another provocative link supported by the same study was a higher incidence of hemorrhagic complications with anticoagulation in patients with infectious endocarditis caused by Staphylococcus aureus, an association also suggested by older data from Tornos et al,⁸ but not seen in a study by Rasmussen et al.¹²

Continuing anticoagulation is an individualized decision

The benefit or harm of anticoagulation in patients with infectious endocarditis may be determined at least in part by a complex mix of factors including the valve involved (embolic events are more common with mitral valve vegetations than with aortic valve vegetations), vegetation size (higher risk if > 1 cm), mobility of vegetations, and perhaps the virulence of the causative organism.^16,17 The fact that antimicrobial therapy obviates any beneficial effect of anticoagulation speaks strongly against starting anticoagulation therapy in infectious endocarditis patients with the sole purpose of reducing stroke risk.

Without large randomized trials to better delineate the risks and benefits of continuing preexisting anticoagulation in all patients with infectious endocarditis, patients already receiving anticoagulants need a careful, individualized risk-benefit assessment. Current guidelines agree that newly diagnosed infectious endocarditis per se is not an indication for anticoagulation or aspirin therapy (Table 1).^1–3

TAKE-HOME POINTS

• Starting antiplatelet and anticoagulation therapy for the sole purpose of stroke prevention is not recommended in patients with newly diagnosed infectious endocarditis.
• In most cases, anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy should be temporarily discontinued in patients with infectious endocarditis and stroke or suspected stroke.
• Patients need careful assessment on a case-by-case basis, and the presence of risk factors predisposing patients to cerebrovascular complications (eg, large or very mobile vegetations, causative pathogens such as S aureus or Candida spp) may prompt temporary suspension of anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy.
• If there is a clear preexisting or coexisting indication for these agents and surgery is not anticipated, consider continuing antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy in patients with infectious endocarditis, provided they lack the risk factors described above and stroke has been excluded.
• If there is a clear preexisting or coexisting indication for these agents and surgery is being considered, consider using a short-acting anticoagulant such as intravenous or low-molecular weight heparin as a bridge to surgery.

Managing anticoagulation in patients with infectious endocarditis requires an individualized approach, using a careful risk-benefit assessment on a case-by-case basis. There is a dearth of high-quality evidence; consequently, the recommendations also vary according to the clinical situation.

Newly diagnosed native valve infectious endocarditis in itself is not an indication for anticoagulation.^1–3 The question of whether to anticoagulate arises in patients who have a preexisting or coexisting indication for anticoagulation such as atrial fibrillation, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, or a mechanical prosthetic heart valve. The question becomes yet more complex in patients with cerebrovascular complications and a coexistent strong indication for anticoagulation, creating what is often a very thorny dilemma.

Based on a review of available evidence, recommendations for anticoagulation in patients with infectious endocarditis are summarized below.

AVAILABLE EVIDENCE IS SCARCE AND MIXED

Earlier observational studies suggested a significant risk of cerebral hemorrhage with anticoagulation in patients with native valve endocarditis, although none of these studies were recent (some of them took place in the 1940s), and none are methodologically compelling.^4–8 Consequently, some experts have expressed skepticism regarding their findings, particularly in recent years.

In part, this skepticism arises from studies that showed a lower incidence of cerebrovascular complications and smaller vegetation size in patients with prosthetic valve infectious endocarditis, studies in which many of the patients received anticoagulation therapy.^9,10 The mechanism responsible for this effect is theorized to be that the vegetation is an amalgam of destroyed cells, platelets, and fibrin, with anticoagulation preventing this aggregation from further growth and propagation.

How great is the benefit or the potential harm?

Some experts argue that the incidence of ischemic stroke with hemorrhagic transformation in patients with infectious endocarditis receiving anticoagulation is overestimated. According to this view, the beneficial effects of anticoagulation at least counterbalance the potential harmful effects.

In addition to the studies cited above, recent studies have shown that patients on anticoagulation tend to have smaller vegetations and fewer cerebrovascular complications.^11–13 Snygg-Martin et al¹¹ and Rasmussen et al¹² found not only that cerebrovascular complications were less common in patients already on anticoagulation at the time infectious endocarditis was diagnosed, but also that no increase in the rate of hemorrhagic lesions was reported.

These were all nonrandomized studies, and most of the patients in them had native valve infectious endocarditis diagnosed at an early stage. Importantly, these studies found that the beneficial effects of anticoagulation were only present if the patient was receiving warfarin before infectious endocarditis was diagnosed and antibiotic therapy was initiated. No benefits from anticoagulation were demonstrated once antimicrobial therapy was begun.

Similarly, Anavekar et al¹⁴ showed that embolic events occurred significantly less often in those who were currently on continuous daily antiplatelet therapy, suggesting that receiving antiplatelet agents at baseline protects against cardioembolic events in patients who develop infective endocarditis. However, the only randomized trial examining the initiation of antiplatelet therapy in patients diagnosed with infectious endocarditis receiving antibiotic treatment showed that adding aspirin did not reduce the risk of embolic events and was associated with a trend toward increased risk of bleeding.¹⁵

A recent large cohort study suggested that infectious endocarditis patients who receive anticoagulation therapy may have a higher incidence of cerebrovascular complications (hazard ratio 1.31, 95% confidence interval 1.00–1.72, P = .048), with a particular association of anticoagulation therapy with intracranial bleeding (hazard ratio 2.71, 95% confidence interval 1.54–4.76, P = .001).¹⁶

Another provocative link supported by the same study was a higher incidence of hemorrhagic complications with anticoagulation in patients with infectious endocarditis caused by Staphylococcus aureus, an association also suggested by older data from Tornos et al,⁸ but not seen in a study by Rasmussen et al.¹²

Continuing anticoagulation is an individualized decision

The benefit or harm of anticoagulation in patients with infectious endocarditis may be determined at least in part by a complex mix of factors including the valve involved (embolic events are more common with mitral valve vegetations than with aortic valve vegetations), vegetation size (higher risk if > 1 cm), mobility of vegetations, and perhaps the virulence of the causative organism.^16,17 The fact that antimicrobial therapy obviates any beneficial effect of anticoagulation speaks strongly against starting anticoagulation therapy in infectious endocarditis patients with the sole purpose of reducing stroke risk.

Without large randomized trials to better delineate the risks and benefits of continuing preexisting anticoagulation in all patients with infectious endocarditis, patients already receiving anticoagulants need a careful, individualized risk-benefit assessment. Current guidelines agree that newly diagnosed infectious endocarditis per se is not an indication for anticoagulation or aspirin therapy (Table 1).^1–3

TAKE-HOME POINTS

• Starting antiplatelet and anticoagulation therapy for the sole purpose of stroke prevention is not recommended in patients with newly diagnosed infectious endocarditis.
• In most cases, anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy should be temporarily discontinued in patients with infectious endocarditis and stroke or suspected stroke.
• Patients need careful assessment on a case-by-case basis, and the presence of risk factors predisposing patients to cerebrovascular complications (eg, large or very mobile vegetations, causative pathogens such as S aureus or Candida spp) may prompt temporary suspension of anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy.
• If there is a clear preexisting or coexisting indication for these agents and surgery is not anticipated, consider continuing antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy in patients with infectious endocarditis, provided they lack the risk factors described above and stroke has been excluded.
• If there is a clear preexisting or coexisting indication for these agents and surgery is being considered, consider using a short-acting anticoagulant such as intravenous or low-molecular weight heparin as a bridge to surgery.

Managing anticoagulation in patients with infectious endocarditis requires an individualized approach, using a careful risk-benefit assessment on a case-by-case basis. There is a dearth of high-quality evidence; consequently, the recommendations also vary according to the clinical situation.

Newly diagnosed native valve infectious endocarditis in itself is not an indication for anticoagulation.^1–3 The question of whether to anticoagulate arises in patients who have a preexisting or coexisting indication for anticoagulation such as atrial fibrillation, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, or a mechanical prosthetic heart valve. The question becomes yet more complex in patients with cerebrovascular complications and a coexistent strong indication for anticoagulation, creating what is often a very thorny dilemma.

Based on a review of available evidence, recommendations for anticoagulation in patients with infectious endocarditis are summarized below.

AVAILABLE EVIDENCE IS SCARCE AND MIXED

Earlier observational studies suggested a significant risk of cerebral hemorrhage with anticoagulation in patients with native valve endocarditis, although none of these studies were recent (some of them took place in the 1940s), and none are methodologically compelling.^4–8 Consequently, some experts have expressed skepticism regarding their findings, particularly in recent years.

In part, this skepticism arises from studies that showed a lower incidence of cerebrovascular complications and smaller vegetation size in patients with prosthetic valve infectious endocarditis, studies in which many of the patients received anticoagulation therapy.^9,10 The mechanism responsible for this effect is theorized to be that the vegetation is an amalgam of destroyed cells, platelets, and fibrin, with anticoagulation preventing this aggregation from further growth and propagation.

How great is the benefit or the potential harm?

Some experts argue that the incidence of ischemic stroke with hemorrhagic transformation in patients with infectious endocarditis receiving anticoagulation is overestimated. According to this view, the beneficial effects of anticoagulation at least counterbalance the potential harmful effects.

In addition to the studies cited above, recent studies have shown that patients on anticoagulation tend to have smaller vegetations and fewer cerebrovascular complications.^11–13 Snygg-Martin et al¹¹ and Rasmussen et al¹² found not only that cerebrovascular complications were less common in patients already on anticoagulation at the time infectious endocarditis was diagnosed, but also that no increase in the rate of hemorrhagic lesions was reported.

These were all nonrandomized studies, and most of the patients in them had native valve infectious endocarditis diagnosed at an early stage. Importantly, these studies found that the beneficial effects of anticoagulation were only present if the patient was receiving warfarin before infectious endocarditis was diagnosed and antibiotic therapy was initiated. No benefits from anticoagulation were demonstrated once antimicrobial therapy was begun.

Similarly, Anavekar et al¹⁴ showed that embolic events occurred significantly less often in those who were currently on continuous daily antiplatelet therapy, suggesting that receiving antiplatelet agents at baseline protects against cardioembolic events in patients who develop infective endocarditis. However, the only randomized trial examining the initiation of antiplatelet therapy in patients diagnosed with infectious endocarditis receiving antibiotic treatment showed that adding aspirin did not reduce the risk of embolic events and was associated with a trend toward increased risk of bleeding.¹⁵

A recent large cohort study suggested that infectious endocarditis patients who receive anticoagulation therapy may have a higher incidence of cerebrovascular complications (hazard ratio 1.31, 95% confidence interval 1.00–1.72, P = .048), with a particular association of anticoagulation therapy with intracranial bleeding (hazard ratio 2.71, 95% confidence interval 1.54–4.76, P = .001).¹⁶

Another provocative link supported by the same study was a higher incidence of hemorrhagic complications with anticoagulation in patients with infectious endocarditis caused by Staphylococcus aureus, an association also suggested by older data from Tornos et al,⁸ but not seen in a study by Rasmussen et al.¹²

Continuing anticoagulation is an individualized decision

The benefit or harm of anticoagulation in patients with infectious endocarditis may be determined at least in part by a complex mix of factors including the valve involved (embolic events are more common with mitral valve vegetations than with aortic valve vegetations), vegetation size (higher risk if > 1 cm), mobility of vegetations, and perhaps the virulence of the causative organism.^16,17 The fact that antimicrobial therapy obviates any beneficial effect of anticoagulation speaks strongly against starting anticoagulation therapy in infectious endocarditis patients with the sole purpose of reducing stroke risk.

Without large randomized trials to better delineate the risks and benefits of continuing preexisting anticoagulation in all patients with infectious endocarditis, patients already receiving anticoagulants need a careful, individualized risk-benefit assessment. Current guidelines agree that newly diagnosed infectious endocarditis per se is not an indication for anticoagulation or aspirin therapy (Table 1).^1–3

TAKE-HOME POINTS

• Starting antiplatelet and anticoagulation therapy for the sole purpose of stroke prevention is not recommended in patients with newly diagnosed infectious endocarditis.
• In most cases, anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy should be temporarily discontinued in patients with infectious endocarditis and stroke or suspected stroke.
• Patients need careful assessment on a case-by-case basis, and the presence of risk factors predisposing patients to cerebrovascular complications (eg, large or very mobile vegetations, causative pathogens such as S aureus or Candida spp) may prompt temporary suspension of anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy.
• If there is a clear preexisting or coexisting indication for these agents and surgery is not anticipated, consider continuing antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy in patients with infectious endocarditis, provided they lack the risk factors described above and stroke has been excluded.
• If there is a clear preexisting or coexisting indication for these agents and surgery is being considered, consider using a short-acting anticoagulant such as intravenous or low-molecular weight heparin as a bridge to surgery.

“I am forever humbled.” So said a heart failure specialist on rounds when I was a resident in the intensive care unit several decades ago. He was talking about the perpetual mismatch between a physician’s level of knowledge and the unpredictability inherent in the management and outcome of critically ill patients. His words ring true for me nearly every day. We should never think we are so smart that we are truly in control of our patients’ outcomes or that we don’t make mistakes—but we also cannot become so paralyzed by the awareness of our limitations that we don’t make decisions.

I have spoken those same powerful words many times on teaching rounds. I also frequently push them to the back of my mind. As a consultant at a major medical center, I am supposed to know. It is a fine line we walk.

I know I am not alone in harboring these self-doubts. Ready access to online information does little to assuage the concern that we can never know enough. Have I ordered enough diagnostic tests to be sure? Have I ordered too many tests and thus will be penalized for providing cost-ineffective care? Should we follow generic guidelines, or deviate from the guidelines based on our clinical instincts, our own interpretation of the literature, and the patient’s unique circumstances and desires?

And then what happens when we make wrong decisions, or even the right decisions that result in a poor patient outcome, which of course is at some point inevitable? We are told to be open about errors, to be honest and transparent about our limitations, to throw down our elaborate emotional and intellectual defensive shields and expose our vulnerability.

But what do we experience emotionally when we are named in a malpractice suit? We may have done all that we thought we could do: we responsibly explored the diagnostic and therapeutic options, provided empathetic care, and listened to the voice of the patient. Yet an adverse outcome still occurred. The practice of medicine is indeed humbling. We feel crushed. We revisit the patient’s care in a vivid perpetual replay loop in our head. Maybe we didn’t evaluate all the options as we should have. If we had been a bit smarter, a bit more efficient, maybe the outcome would have been different.

Then during a deposition, the plaintiff’s counsel points out the temporal and documentary inconsistencies in the electronic medical record: “Doctor, you say you saw the patient at 2:00 pm, but there was no note finalized until 10:00 pm…and why was your documented physical exam exactly the same as the one from the day before and exactly the same as that of the resident who saw the patient that afternoon?” We now feel crushed, totally vulnerable, emotionally trampled, and often isolated and disconnected from our patients and peers. The intellectualized humility becomes transformed into a sense of inadequacy. Why should I keep doing this?

In this issue of the Journal, experienced malpractice attorney Kevin Giordano explores aspects of the malpractice process as they relate to the physicians he defends. He notes how the electronic medical record, a tool ostensibly in place to improve communication and the sharing of medical information between caregivers and patients, can be our worst enemy in a courtroom. He discusses the pressures of our complicated healthcare system that promote documentation errors that he must try to explain away to the jury in our defense, demonstrating that these documentation errors do not necessarily mirror the care and caring of the named physicians. This is critically important information for us to understand and to act on for our personal protection, but it is not his most important message to us.

Mr. Giordano is a sincere, empathetic, and proficient professional. He has spoken for and to many physicians. He has listened to us and observed our behaviors. And as he has defended many of us in a court of law, he has learned to diagnose in his clients the damage that can persist following involvement in a malpractice case and the emotional scars the malpractice experience leaves on physicians. He emphasizes that we must not let the event of a malpractice suit force us to withdraw and strip us of our connection and engagement to patients. If anything, he and Drs. Susan Rehm and Bradford Borden, in an accompanying editorial, urge us to keep in mind that our personal engagement with patients and the mindful practice of medicine is our raison d’être as physicians.

I am continuously humbled by the breadth of the pathology, clinical medicine, and social challenges that I encounter on a daily basis, armed with limited knowledge and experience. It is intellectually rewarding to make an arcane diagnosis or to see an individualized therapy work as I had hoped. But I agree with Mr. Giordano that it is the genuine engagement with patients that provides us with the real joy in the practice of medicine and pushes us to deliver care at a consistently proficient level. We must not forget that, even in the face of significant and emotionally challenging events such as being named in a malpractice suit. It is the nature of our engagement with our patients and our colleagues that make what we do more than a job.

As more physicians in the United States become employed by health systems, I hope that the administrative leaders within these systems truly recognize these issues. As they struggle to balance the provision of safe high-quality care to patients with their increasingly complex financial spreadsheets, I hope that the emotional health of their physician employees is not forgotten. And not just after a malpractice suit.

“I am forever humbled.” So said a heart failure specialist on rounds when I was a resident in the intensive care unit several decades ago. He was talking about the perpetual mismatch between a physician’s level of knowledge and the unpredictability inherent in the management and outcome of critically ill patients. His words ring true for me nearly every day. We should never think we are so smart that we are truly in control of our patients’ outcomes or that we don’t make mistakes—but we also cannot become so paralyzed by the awareness of our limitations that we don’t make decisions.

I have spoken those same powerful words many times on teaching rounds. I also frequently push them to the back of my mind. As a consultant at a major medical center, I am supposed to know. It is a fine line we walk.

I know I am not alone in harboring these self-doubts. Ready access to online information does little to assuage the concern that we can never know enough. Have I ordered enough diagnostic tests to be sure? Have I ordered too many tests and thus will be penalized for providing cost-ineffective care? Should we follow generic guidelines, or deviate from the guidelines based on our clinical instincts, our own interpretation of the literature, and the patient’s unique circumstances and desires?

And then what happens when we make wrong decisions, or even the right decisions that result in a poor patient outcome, which of course is at some point inevitable? We are told to be open about errors, to be honest and transparent about our limitations, to throw down our elaborate emotional and intellectual defensive shields and expose our vulnerability.

But what do we experience emotionally when we are named in a malpractice suit? We may have done all that we thought we could do: we responsibly explored the diagnostic and therapeutic options, provided empathetic care, and listened to the voice of the patient. Yet an adverse outcome still occurred. The practice of medicine is indeed humbling. We feel crushed. We revisit the patient’s care in a vivid perpetual replay loop in our head. Maybe we didn’t evaluate all the options as we should have. If we had been a bit smarter, a bit more efficient, maybe the outcome would have been different.

Then during a deposition, the plaintiff’s counsel points out the temporal and documentary inconsistencies in the electronic medical record: “Doctor, you say you saw the patient at 2:00 pm, but there was no note finalized until 10:00 pm…and why was your documented physical exam exactly the same as the one from the day before and exactly the same as that of the resident who saw the patient that afternoon?” We now feel crushed, totally vulnerable, emotionally trampled, and often isolated and disconnected from our patients and peers. The intellectualized humility becomes transformed into a sense of inadequacy. Why should I keep doing this?

In this issue of the Journal, experienced malpractice attorney Kevin Giordano explores aspects of the malpractice process as they relate to the physicians he defends. He notes how the electronic medical record, a tool ostensibly in place to improve communication and the sharing of medical information between caregivers and patients, can be our worst enemy in a courtroom. He discusses the pressures of our complicated healthcare system that promote documentation errors that he must try to explain away to the jury in our defense, demonstrating that these documentation errors do not necessarily mirror the care and caring of the named physicians. This is critically important information for us to understand and to act on for our personal protection, but it is not his most important message to us.

Mr. Giordano is a sincere, empathetic, and proficient professional. He has spoken for and to many physicians. He has listened to us and observed our behaviors. And as he has defended many of us in a court of law, he has learned to diagnose in his clients the damage that can persist following involvement in a malpractice case and the emotional scars the malpractice experience leaves on physicians. He emphasizes that we must not let the event of a malpractice suit force us to withdraw and strip us of our connection and engagement to patients. If anything, he and Drs. Susan Rehm and Bradford Borden, in an accompanying editorial, urge us to keep in mind that our personal engagement with patients and the mindful practice of medicine is our raison d’être as physicians.

I am continuously humbled by the breadth of the pathology, clinical medicine, and social challenges that I encounter on a daily basis, armed with limited knowledge and experience. It is intellectually rewarding to make an arcane diagnosis or to see an individualized therapy work as I had hoped. But I agree with Mr. Giordano that it is the genuine engagement with patients that provides us with the real joy in the practice of medicine and pushes us to deliver care at a consistently proficient level. We must not forget that, even in the face of significant and emotionally challenging events such as being named in a malpractice suit. It is the nature of our engagement with our patients and our colleagues that make what we do more than a job.

As more physicians in the United States become employed by health systems, I hope that the administrative leaders within these systems truly recognize these issues. As they struggle to balance the provision of safe high-quality care to patients with their increasingly complex financial spreadsheets, I hope that the emotional health of their physician employees is not forgotten. And not just after a malpractice suit.

“I am forever humbled.” So said a heart failure specialist on rounds when I was a resident in the intensive care unit several decades ago. He was talking about the perpetual mismatch between a physician’s level of knowledge and the unpredictability inherent in the management and outcome of critically ill patients. His words ring true for me nearly every day. We should never think we are so smart that we are truly in control of our patients’ outcomes or that we don’t make mistakes—but we also cannot become so paralyzed by the awareness of our limitations that we don’t make decisions.

I have spoken those same powerful words many times on teaching rounds. I also frequently push them to the back of my mind. As a consultant at a major medical center, I am supposed to know. It is a fine line we walk.

I know I am not alone in harboring these self-doubts. Ready access to online information does little to assuage the concern that we can never know enough. Have I ordered enough diagnostic tests to be sure? Have I ordered too many tests and thus will be penalized for providing cost-ineffective care? Should we follow generic guidelines, or deviate from the guidelines based on our clinical instincts, our own interpretation of the literature, and the patient’s unique circumstances and desires?

And then what happens when we make wrong decisions, or even the right decisions that result in a poor patient outcome, which of course is at some point inevitable? We are told to be open about errors, to be honest and transparent about our limitations, to throw down our elaborate emotional and intellectual defensive shields and expose our vulnerability.

But what do we experience emotionally when we are named in a malpractice suit? We may have done all that we thought we could do: we responsibly explored the diagnostic and therapeutic options, provided empathetic care, and listened to the voice of the patient. Yet an adverse outcome still occurred. The practice of medicine is indeed humbling. We feel crushed. We revisit the patient’s care in a vivid perpetual replay loop in our head. Maybe we didn’t evaluate all the options as we should have. If we had been a bit smarter, a bit more efficient, maybe the outcome would have been different.

Then during a deposition, the plaintiff’s counsel points out the temporal and documentary inconsistencies in the electronic medical record: “Doctor, you say you saw the patient at 2:00 pm, but there was no note finalized until 10:00 pm…and why was your documented physical exam exactly the same as the one from the day before and exactly the same as that of the resident who saw the patient that afternoon?” We now feel crushed, totally vulnerable, emotionally trampled, and often isolated and disconnected from our patients and peers. The intellectualized humility becomes transformed into a sense of inadequacy. Why should I keep doing this?

In this issue of the Journal, experienced malpractice attorney Kevin Giordano explores aspects of the malpractice process as they relate to the physicians he defends. He notes how the electronic medical record, a tool ostensibly in place to improve communication and the sharing of medical information between caregivers and patients, can be our worst enemy in a courtroom. He discusses the pressures of our complicated healthcare system that promote documentation errors that he must try to explain away to the jury in our defense, demonstrating that these documentation errors do not necessarily mirror the care and caring of the named physicians. This is critically important information for us to understand and to act on for our personal protection, but it is not his most important message to us.

Mr. Giordano is a sincere, empathetic, and proficient professional. He has spoken for and to many physicians. He has listened to us and observed our behaviors. And as he has defended many of us in a court of law, he has learned to diagnose in his clients the damage that can persist following involvement in a malpractice case and the emotional scars the malpractice experience leaves on physicians. He emphasizes that we must not let the event of a malpractice suit force us to withdraw and strip us of our connection and engagement to patients. If anything, he and Drs. Susan Rehm and Bradford Borden, in an accompanying editorial, urge us to keep in mind that our personal engagement with patients and the mindful practice of medicine is our raison d’être as physicians.

I am continuously humbled by the breadth of the pathology, clinical medicine, and social challenges that I encounter on a daily basis, armed with limited knowledge and experience. It is intellectually rewarding to make an arcane diagnosis or to see an individualized therapy work as I had hoped. But I agree with Mr. Giordano that it is the genuine engagement with patients that provides us with the real joy in the practice of medicine and pushes us to deliver care at a consistently proficient level. We must not forget that, even in the face of significant and emotionally challenging events such as being named in a malpractice suit. It is the nature of our engagement with our patients and our colleagues that make what we do more than a job.

As more physicians in the United States become employed by health systems, I hope that the administrative leaders within these systems truly recognize these issues. As they struggle to balance the provision of safe high-quality care to patients with their increasingly complex financial spreadsheets, I hope that the emotional health of their physician employees is not forgotten. And not just after a malpractice suit.

Physicians who have been involved in malpractice actions are all too familiar with the range of emotions they experience during the process. Anxiety, fear, frustration, remorse, self-doubt, shame, betrayal, anger…no pleasant feelings here. Add malpractice stress to the high level of pressure experienced at home and at work, and crisis looms.

In his commentary in this issue, Kevin Giordano states, “it is not easy to stay connected in a healthcare system in which the system’s structure is driving physicians and other members of the healthcare team toward disconnection.”¹

See related commentary

Because of the nature of our work as physicians, we are isolated, and malpractice isolates us further. Because of embarrassment, we avoid talking with our colleagues and managers. Legal counsel reminds us to correspond with no one about the details of the case. Spouses and friends may offer support, but it is difficult— perhaps impossible—to be reassured.

Isolation fuels our self-doubt and erodes our confidence, leading us to focus on what may go wrong, rather than on healing. Every decision is fraught with anxiety, and efficiency evaporates. Paralysis may set in, leading to disengagement from patient care and increasing the chance of further problems. 

IT TAKES RESILIENCE TO THRIVE

It takes resilience to thrive in today’s pressure-cooker healthcare environment, let alone in the setting of malpractice stress. Resilient people are able to face reality and see a better future, put things into perspective, and bounce back from adversity.² Resilience, a trait that protects against stress and burnout, is relevant at the personal, managerial, and system levels. Though this definition is not specific to caregiver or malpractice stress, it is applicable. It is an essential component of wellness and requires perpetual attention to self-care for successful maintenance.

Resilient people can face reality, see a better future, put things into perspective, and bounce back from adversity

Studies of physicians who have avoided burnout reveal remarkably consistent qualities, including finding gratification related to work, maintaining useful habits and practices, and developing attitudes that keep them resilient.³ Rather than adding activities to their full schedules, these physicians stayed resilient through mindfulness of various aspects of their daily lives. Interactions with colleagues—discussing cases, treatments, and outcomes (including errors)—proved vital. Professional development, encompassing activities such as continuing education, coaching, mentoring, and counseling, was recognized as an important self-directed resilience measure. Maintenance of relationships with family and friends, cultivation of leisure-time activities, and appreciation of the need for personal reflection time were traits often found in resilient physicians.

FOSTERING RESILIENCE

As part of the Mayo Clinic’s biannual survey of its physicians, Shanafelt et al⁴ studied relationships between qualities of physician leaders and burnout and satisfaction among the physicians they supervised. Many of the desirable leadership traits were related to building relationships through respectful communication, along with provision of opportunities for personal and professional development. The acknowledgment that resilient, healthy physicians are satisfied, productive, and able to provide safer and higher-quality patient care should lead to the establishment of physician wellness as a “dashboard metric.” This makes priorities clear by rewarding managers who foster self-care and resilience among their staff.

Likewise, at the healthcare system level, Beckman⁵ recognized that organizations can provide opportunities to promote resilience among caregivers. Organizational initiatives that set the stage for resilience include:

• Curricula to enhance communication with patients, coworkers, and family
• “Best practices” for efficient and effective patient care
• Self-care through health insurance incentives and educational sessions
• Accessible, affordable, and confidential behavioral health support
• Time for self-care activities during the workday
• Coaching and mentoring programs
• Narrative-and-reflection groups and mindfulness training.⁵

Through an atmosphere of support for resilience, organizations provide a place for physicians to maintain a sense of meaning and purpose in their work. For individuals facing malpractice action, this infrastructure can be used to weather the storm. As Mr. Giordano writes, staying engaged “may allow you to draw meaning and reconciliation from the fact that throughout the patient’s illness, undeterred by the complexities of today’s healthcare system, you remained the attentive and compassionate healer you hoped to be when you first became a healthcare professional.”¹ We must pay attention to developing individual physicians, educating managers, and building systems so that caregivers can remain engaged and resilient. It may help those affected by malpractice stress, and perhaps as importantly, it may reduce the chance of future “disconnection” leading to recourse in the legal system.

Physicians who have been involved in malpractice actions are all too familiar with the range of emotions they experience during the process. Anxiety, fear, frustration, remorse, self-doubt, shame, betrayal, anger…no pleasant feelings here. Add malpractice stress to the high level of pressure experienced at home and at work, and crisis looms.

In his commentary in this issue, Kevin Giordano states, “it is not easy to stay connected in a healthcare system in which the system’s structure is driving physicians and other members of the healthcare team toward disconnection.”¹

See related commentary

Because of the nature of our work as physicians, we are isolated, and malpractice isolates us further. Because of embarrassment, we avoid talking with our colleagues and managers. Legal counsel reminds us to correspond with no one about the details of the case. Spouses and friends may offer support, but it is difficult— perhaps impossible—to be reassured.

Isolation fuels our self-doubt and erodes our confidence, leading us to focus on what may go wrong, rather than on healing. Every decision is fraught with anxiety, and efficiency evaporates. Paralysis may set in, leading to disengagement from patient care and increasing the chance of further problems. 

IT TAKES RESILIENCE TO THRIVE

It takes resilience to thrive in today’s pressure-cooker healthcare environment, let alone in the setting of malpractice stress. Resilient people are able to face reality and see a better future, put things into perspective, and bounce back from adversity.² Resilience, a trait that protects against stress and burnout, is relevant at the personal, managerial, and system levels. Though this definition is not specific to caregiver or malpractice stress, it is applicable. It is an essential component of wellness and requires perpetual attention to self-care for successful maintenance.

Resilient people can face reality, see a better future, put things into perspective, and bounce back from adversity

Studies of physicians who have avoided burnout reveal remarkably consistent qualities, including finding gratification related to work, maintaining useful habits and practices, and developing attitudes that keep them resilient.³ Rather than adding activities to their full schedules, these physicians stayed resilient through mindfulness of various aspects of their daily lives. Interactions with colleagues—discussing cases, treatments, and outcomes (including errors)—proved vital. Professional development, encompassing activities such as continuing education, coaching, mentoring, and counseling, was recognized as an important self-directed resilience measure. Maintenance of relationships with family and friends, cultivation of leisure-time activities, and appreciation of the need for personal reflection time were traits often found in resilient physicians.

FOSTERING RESILIENCE

As part of the Mayo Clinic’s biannual survey of its physicians, Shanafelt et al⁴ studied relationships between qualities of physician leaders and burnout and satisfaction among the physicians they supervised. Many of the desirable leadership traits were related to building relationships through respectful communication, along with provision of opportunities for personal and professional development. The acknowledgment that resilient, healthy physicians are satisfied, productive, and able to provide safer and higher-quality patient care should lead to the establishment of physician wellness as a “dashboard metric.” This makes priorities clear by rewarding managers who foster self-care and resilience among their staff.

Likewise, at the healthcare system level, Beckman⁵ recognized that organizations can provide opportunities to promote resilience among caregivers. Organizational initiatives that set the stage for resilience include:

• Curricula to enhance communication with patients, coworkers, and family
• “Best practices” for efficient and effective patient care
• Self-care through health insurance incentives and educational sessions
• Accessible, affordable, and confidential behavioral health support
• Time for self-care activities during the workday
• Coaching and mentoring programs
• Narrative-and-reflection groups and mindfulness training.⁵

Through an atmosphere of support for resilience, organizations provide a place for physicians to maintain a sense of meaning and purpose in their work. For individuals facing malpractice action, this infrastructure can be used to weather the storm. As Mr. Giordano writes, staying engaged “may allow you to draw meaning and reconciliation from the fact that throughout the patient’s illness, undeterred by the complexities of today’s healthcare system, you remained the attentive and compassionate healer you hoped to be when you first became a healthcare professional.”¹ We must pay attention to developing individual physicians, educating managers, and building systems so that caregivers can remain engaged and resilient. It may help those affected by malpractice stress, and perhaps as importantly, it may reduce the chance of future “disconnection” leading to recourse in the legal system.

Physicians who have been involved in malpractice actions are all too familiar with the range of emotions they experience during the process. Anxiety, fear, frustration, remorse, self-doubt, shame, betrayal, anger…no pleasant feelings here. Add malpractice stress to the high level of pressure experienced at home and at work, and crisis looms.

In his commentary in this issue, Kevin Giordano states, “it is not easy to stay connected in a healthcare system in which the system’s structure is driving physicians and other members of the healthcare team toward disconnection.”¹

See related commentary

Because of the nature of our work as physicians, we are isolated, and malpractice isolates us further. Because of embarrassment, we avoid talking with our colleagues and managers. Legal counsel reminds us to correspond with no one about the details of the case. Spouses and friends may offer support, but it is difficult— perhaps impossible—to be reassured.

Isolation fuels our self-doubt and erodes our confidence, leading us to focus on what may go wrong, rather than on healing. Every decision is fraught with anxiety, and efficiency evaporates. Paralysis may set in, leading to disengagement from patient care and increasing the chance of further problems. 

IT TAKES RESILIENCE TO THRIVE

It takes resilience to thrive in today’s pressure-cooker healthcare environment, let alone in the setting of malpractice stress. Resilient people are able to face reality and see a better future, put things into perspective, and bounce back from adversity.² Resilience, a trait that protects against stress and burnout, is relevant at the personal, managerial, and system levels. Though this definition is not specific to caregiver or malpractice stress, it is applicable. It is an essential component of wellness and requires perpetual attention to self-care for successful maintenance.

Resilient people can face reality, see a better future, put things into perspective, and bounce back from adversity

Studies of physicians who have avoided burnout reveal remarkably consistent qualities, including finding gratification related to work, maintaining useful habits and practices, and developing attitudes that keep them resilient.³ Rather than adding activities to their full schedules, these physicians stayed resilient through mindfulness of various aspects of their daily lives. Interactions with colleagues—discussing cases, treatments, and outcomes (including errors)—proved vital. Professional development, encompassing activities such as continuing education, coaching, mentoring, and counseling, was recognized as an important self-directed resilience measure. Maintenance of relationships with family and friends, cultivation of leisure-time activities, and appreciation of the need for personal reflection time were traits often found in resilient physicians.

FOSTERING RESILIENCE

As part of the Mayo Clinic’s biannual survey of its physicians, Shanafelt et al⁴ studied relationships between qualities of physician leaders and burnout and satisfaction among the physicians they supervised. Many of the desirable leadership traits were related to building relationships through respectful communication, along with provision of opportunities for personal and professional development. The acknowledgment that resilient, healthy physicians are satisfied, productive, and able to provide safer and higher-quality patient care should lead to the establishment of physician wellness as a “dashboard metric.” This makes priorities clear by rewarding managers who foster self-care and resilience among their staff.

Likewise, at the healthcare system level, Beckman⁵ recognized that organizations can provide opportunities to promote resilience among caregivers. Organizational initiatives that set the stage for resilience include:

• Curricula to enhance communication with patients, coworkers, and family
• “Best practices” for efficient and effective patient care
• Self-care through health insurance incentives and educational sessions
• Accessible, affordable, and confidential behavioral health support
• Time for self-care activities during the workday
• Coaching and mentoring programs
• Narrative-and-reflection groups and mindfulness training.⁵

Through an atmosphere of support for resilience, organizations provide a place for physicians to maintain a sense of meaning and purpose in their work. For individuals facing malpractice action, this infrastructure can be used to weather the storm. As Mr. Giordano writes, staying engaged “may allow you to draw meaning and reconciliation from the fact that throughout the patient’s illness, undeterred by the complexities of today’s healthcare system, you remained the attentive and compassionate healer you hoped to be when you first became a healthcare professional.”¹ We must pay attention to developing individual physicians, educating managers, and building systems so that caregivers can remain engaged and resilient. It may help those affected by malpractice stress, and perhaps as importantly, it may reduce the chance of future “disconnection” leading to recourse in the legal system.

During my 25 years as a defense attorney, I have seen the traumatic impact that the allegation of medical malpractice can have on healthcare providers. And I have seen many times that in the aftermath of a case it remains difficult, if not impossible, for the practitioner to return to the clinical setting unscarred by the process. Although vindication by the jury provides some solace, by itself it does not create healing. Instead, the critic’s voice continues to resonate long after the trial.

See related editorial

During a lawsuit, physicians and other providers are commonly confronted with incidental imperfections in the care they provided, errors in their documentation, or both. Consequently, a provider’s perception of events and ultimately the meaning derived from the experience is shaped less by the valid defenses and opinions of the supportive defense experts than by the inconsequential flaws and errors that can often be found in any medical record.

A RECENT CASE

Recently, I defended a hospital team consisting of a hospitalist, trauma surgeon, three residents, and a nurse. The case involved a 74-year-old man who was admitted to the hospital with pancreatitis of unknown cause. Six days after admission, he died of complications of acute respiratory distress syndrome. The team was accused of causing the patient’s death. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that although the patient’s liver enzyme levels were improving, his condition was deteriorating, and he ultimately developed hemorrhagic pancreatitis. It was the plaintiff’s contention that proper ongoing evaluation, including computed tomographic imaging, would have led to treatment that would have avoided the worsening of pancreatitis, development of an ileus, and ultimately the insult to his bowel and lungs that they claim caused acute respiratory distress syndrome and death. The patient was survived by his wife and their three children. After his death, hospital representatives and the hospitalist met with her in an effort to explain the events that led to her husband’s death. Unfortunately, these discussions did not ameliorate her feelings of loss and anger. She filed a lawsuit, and 4 years later, the case went to trial.

Vindication provides some solace, but the critic’s voice can resonate long after the trial

During the trial, the plaintiff’s attorney highlighted errors in the electronic medical record. Entries had been cut and pasted, saving time, but without updating information that had changed in the interim. The inaccuracies included “assessment: worsening pancreatitis” on a day it was considered to have improved. Another entry contained “persistent fever” on a day when no fever was present. Other mistakes involved notes that contained care plans made after morning rounds that were not revised later in the day after changes in the patient’s condition necessitated a change in the plan. In fact, most references to medication dosing in the progress notes on the last 2 days did not match the medication dosing documented in the medication administration record.

In the end, the plaintiff’s counsel did not convince the jury that the healthcare team had been negligent, but unfortunately, she planted doubt in the minds of the caregivers themselves. Perhaps in part, these doubts were the result of having to defend a bad outcome in the face of criticism that was based solely in retrospect. But the providers’ doubts seemed mostly to emanate from the inadequacies in their documentation as they observed how every entry in a far-from-perfect medical record was scrutinized and then manipulated to challenge its textual integrity—and to portray the healthcare team as unengaged and substandard clinicians.

Despite the team’s high level of engagement and the quality of care they provided, any imperfection—whether a documentation error or a minor omission in some aspect of the care provided to this complex patient—became a source of self-doubt and self-criticism.

THE ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD: A MIXED BLESSING

Documentation failures have long been used to “prove” that physicians are disconnected from the clinical situation. The electronic medical record has not proved to be a strong shield against malpractice allegations. In fact, because the electronic medical record absorbs more of the physician’s time and that of the care team’s members, efforts to save time through work-arounds and shortcuts have increased the risk of errors in entering information.

For instance, drop-down menus have led to wrong selections. Cutting and pasting has led to entries that contain data superseded by clinical events, thus creating contradictions within the record itself, and worse, with the physician’s own testimony pertaining to the basis of the clinical decision-making. And boilerplate language has created difficulties when the language does not completely fit the context or when inapplicable verbiage that fills itself in automatically goes unedited. An emergency department physician I represented at trial had to awkwardly explain that some of the data reported in his physical exam findings were inaccurate because of programmed language and should have been deleted; he had no explanation for his oversight.

But my experience has been that juries can forgive imperfections in documentation and even incidental aspects of care. They want to trust that the clinician was there for, and there with, the patient. This emphasis is what allowed us to defend the case involving the patient with pancreatitis. Clinical judgment means being engaged enough to choose what you pay attention to and to process the data you receive.

The electronic medical record has not proved to be a strong shield against malpractice allegations

Unfortunately, the electronic medical record seems designed more for billing and for guarding against claims of fraud than for communication among clinicians or documenting clinically significant events. Many clinicians believe that redundancy and standardized phraseology have weakened the meaningful use of the medical record, as the clinical information is now of questionable reliability or value or is simply hard to find. Consequently, the electronic medical record has become less effective as a communication tool for providing continuity of care.

More importantly, the electronic medical record too often places the physician in front of a computer, so that the computer becomes the focus, not the patient. Studies suggest that the way the electronic medical record is currently used in the examination room affects the quality of physician-patient communication as well as the physician’s cognitive processing of information. Unless the physician is alert and attuned, the electronic medical record can be a barrier to connection. This not only creates the potential for mistakes, but it can also cause patients to question the quality of care they are getting and to distrust the level of the provider’s engagement. In this context, the likelihood that the patient retains an attorney increases when a bad outcome occurs, avoidable or not.

WHAT PATIENTS WANT FROM PHYSICIANS

When I first began seeing my own primary care physician, her office was 5 minutes from my home. Then she relocated to a practice 15 minutes away. And then, because of office consolidation and acquisition, her office was relocated 40 minutes away.

So why do I still go to her? Her training is not better than that of most internists, and my medical history is not so complex that I require more care than most 55-year-old men. I am only speculating, but I would guess that she is not the most financially productive physician in her group. I know that her transition to the electronic medical record has been difficult. Recently, I asked her about it. Except in some situations, she does not type while taking a history, and she stays totally away from the computer while in the examination room with me. She sits a couple of feet from me, and it feels like the days before the electronic medical record. She is clearly more comfortable listening and taking notes first and worrying about the electronic record later. I imagine she stays later to do her notes than most of the other physicians, or she finishes them at home.

The reason I continue to see her as my primary care physician is that she remains totally engaged during my office visit. What tells me that is not just her avoidance of the computer or her body language, but the depth of questions she asks. My responses often prompt her to look back at an earlier office note, and she will then ask follow-up questions to confirm what she had previously recorded. Her examination is thorough, with testing to confirm and retesting to be sure. Doing this may mean that she has difficulty meeting financial or administrative benchmarks established by her practice. I don’t know. But I have no doubt that the likelihood of her missing something in her clinical care is small, and what I suspect is even smaller is the risk that one of her patients would bring a lawsuit against her, given the time she takes to listen and remain connected throughout the office visit.

STAYING CONNECTED, IN SPITE OF EVERYTHING

Be the attentive, compassionate healer you hoped to be when you first entered practice

My point is not to suggest that everyone must conform to the same practice philosophy, particularly with the economic pressures in the medical field. What I am suggesting is that it is not easy to stay connected in a healthcare system in which the system’s structure is driving physicians and other members of the healthcare team towards disconnection. Quality healthcare means making every effort to remain engaged at all times with your patient’s care, which will reduce the likelihood of a bad outcome and may preserve the physician-patient relationship even when a bad outcome occurs.

In the end, perhaps it is not possible to avoid being named as a defendant in a malpractice case, just as it is not possible to avoid all bad medical outcomes despite exceptional care. In law, as in medicine, there are always factors beyond your control. My aspiration is to find a pathway to get providers through the system unbroken—also not an easy task. But one thing I know is true: the more you can stay engaged in the care you provide and in your documentation, the more you will preclude a plaintiff’s attorney from exploiting the effects of the forces within the system that drive providers toward disconnection. As long as you stay engaged and supported by the knowledge that the care provided was appropriate, it is my hope that the voice of the critic will not count as much in the aftermath of a malpractice case. But more importantly, it may allow you to draw meaning and reconciliation from the fact that throughout the patient’s illness, undeterred by the complexities of today’s healthcare system, you remained the attentive and compassionate healer you hoped to be when you first became a healthcare professional.

During my 25 years as a defense attorney, I have seen the traumatic impact that the allegation of medical malpractice can have on healthcare providers. And I have seen many times that in the aftermath of a case it remains difficult, if not impossible, for the practitioner to return to the clinical setting unscarred by the process. Although vindication by the jury provides some solace, by itself it does not create healing. Instead, the critic’s voice continues to resonate long after the trial.

See related editorial

During a lawsuit, physicians and other providers are commonly confronted with incidental imperfections in the care they provided, errors in their documentation, or both. Consequently, a provider’s perception of events and ultimately the meaning derived from the experience is shaped less by the valid defenses and opinions of the supportive defense experts than by the inconsequential flaws and errors that can often be found in any medical record.

A RECENT CASE

Recently, I defended a hospital team consisting of a hospitalist, trauma surgeon, three residents, and a nurse. The case involved a 74-year-old man who was admitted to the hospital with pancreatitis of unknown cause. Six days after admission, he died of complications of acute respiratory distress syndrome. The team was accused of causing the patient’s death. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that although the patient’s liver enzyme levels were improving, his condition was deteriorating, and he ultimately developed hemorrhagic pancreatitis. It was the plaintiff’s contention that proper ongoing evaluation, including computed tomographic imaging, would have led to treatment that would have avoided the worsening of pancreatitis, development of an ileus, and ultimately the insult to his bowel and lungs that they claim caused acute respiratory distress syndrome and death. The patient was survived by his wife and their three children. After his death, hospital representatives and the hospitalist met with her in an effort to explain the events that led to her husband’s death. Unfortunately, these discussions did not ameliorate her feelings of loss and anger. She filed a lawsuit, and 4 years later, the case went to trial.

Vindication provides some solace, but the critic’s voice can resonate long after the trial

During the trial, the plaintiff’s attorney highlighted errors in the electronic medical record. Entries had been cut and pasted, saving time, but without updating information that had changed in the interim. The inaccuracies included “assessment: worsening pancreatitis” on a day it was considered to have improved. Another entry contained “persistent fever” on a day when no fever was present. Other mistakes involved notes that contained care plans made after morning rounds that were not revised later in the day after changes in the patient’s condition necessitated a change in the plan. In fact, most references to medication dosing in the progress notes on the last 2 days did not match the medication dosing documented in the medication administration record.

In the end, the plaintiff’s counsel did not convince the jury that the healthcare team had been negligent, but unfortunately, she planted doubt in the minds of the caregivers themselves. Perhaps in part, these doubts were the result of having to defend a bad outcome in the face of criticism that was based solely in retrospect. But the providers’ doubts seemed mostly to emanate from the inadequacies in their documentation as they observed how every entry in a far-from-perfect medical record was scrutinized and then manipulated to challenge its textual integrity—and to portray the healthcare team as unengaged and substandard clinicians.

Despite the team’s high level of engagement and the quality of care they provided, any imperfection—whether a documentation error or a minor omission in some aspect of the care provided to this complex patient—became a source of self-doubt and self-criticism.

THE ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD: A MIXED BLESSING

Documentation failures have long been used to “prove” that physicians are disconnected from the clinical situation. The electronic medical record has not proved to be a strong shield against malpractice allegations. In fact, because the electronic medical record absorbs more of the physician’s time and that of the care team’s members, efforts to save time through work-arounds and shortcuts have increased the risk of errors in entering information.

For instance, drop-down menus have led to wrong selections. Cutting and pasting has led to entries that contain data superseded by clinical events, thus creating contradictions within the record itself, and worse, with the physician’s own testimony pertaining to the basis of the clinical decision-making. And boilerplate language has created difficulties when the language does not completely fit the context or when inapplicable verbiage that fills itself in automatically goes unedited. An emergency department physician I represented at trial had to awkwardly explain that some of the data reported in his physical exam findings were inaccurate because of programmed language and should have been deleted; he had no explanation for his oversight.

But my experience has been that juries can forgive imperfections in documentation and even incidental aspects of care. They want to trust that the clinician was there for, and there with, the patient. This emphasis is what allowed us to defend the case involving the patient with pancreatitis. Clinical judgment means being engaged enough to choose what you pay attention to and to process the data you receive.

The electronic medical record has not proved to be a strong shield against malpractice allegations

Unfortunately, the electronic medical record seems designed more for billing and for guarding against claims of fraud than for communication among clinicians or documenting clinically significant events. Many clinicians believe that redundancy and standardized phraseology have weakened the meaningful use of the medical record, as the clinical information is now of questionable reliability or value or is simply hard to find. Consequently, the electronic medical record has become less effective as a communication tool for providing continuity of care.

More importantly, the electronic medical record too often places the physician in front of a computer, so that the computer becomes the focus, not the patient. Studies suggest that the way the electronic medical record is currently used in the examination room affects the quality of physician-patient communication as well as the physician’s cognitive processing of information. Unless the physician is alert and attuned, the electronic medical record can be a barrier to connection. This not only creates the potential for mistakes, but it can also cause patients to question the quality of care they are getting and to distrust the level of the provider’s engagement. In this context, the likelihood that the patient retains an attorney increases when a bad outcome occurs, avoidable or not.

WHAT PATIENTS WANT FROM PHYSICIANS

When I first began seeing my own primary care physician, her office was 5 minutes from my home. Then she relocated to a practice 15 minutes away. And then, because of office consolidation and acquisition, her office was relocated 40 minutes away.

So why do I still go to her? Her training is not better than that of most internists, and my medical history is not so complex that I require more care than most 55-year-old men. I am only speculating, but I would guess that she is not the most financially productive physician in her group. I know that her transition to the electronic medical record has been difficult. Recently, I asked her about it. Except in some situations, she does not type while taking a history, and she stays totally away from the computer while in the examination room with me. She sits a couple of feet from me, and it feels like the days before the electronic medical record. She is clearly more comfortable listening and taking notes first and worrying about the electronic record later. I imagine she stays later to do her notes than most of the other physicians, or she finishes them at home.

The reason I continue to see her as my primary care physician is that she remains totally engaged during my office visit. What tells me that is not just her avoidance of the computer or her body language, but the depth of questions she asks. My responses often prompt her to look back at an earlier office note, and she will then ask follow-up questions to confirm what she had previously recorded. Her examination is thorough, with testing to confirm and retesting to be sure. Doing this may mean that she has difficulty meeting financial or administrative benchmarks established by her practice. I don’t know. But I have no doubt that the likelihood of her missing something in her clinical care is small, and what I suspect is even smaller is the risk that one of her patients would bring a lawsuit against her, given the time she takes to listen and remain connected throughout the office visit.

STAYING CONNECTED, IN SPITE OF EVERYTHING

Be the attentive, compassionate healer you hoped to be when you first entered practice

My point is not to suggest that everyone must conform to the same practice philosophy, particularly with the economic pressures in the medical field. What I am suggesting is that it is not easy to stay connected in a healthcare system in which the system’s structure is driving physicians and other members of the healthcare team towards disconnection. Quality healthcare means making every effort to remain engaged at all times with your patient’s care, which will reduce the likelihood of a bad outcome and may preserve the physician-patient relationship even when a bad outcome occurs.

In the end, perhaps it is not possible to avoid being named as a defendant in a malpractice case, just as it is not possible to avoid all bad medical outcomes despite exceptional care. In law, as in medicine, there are always factors beyond your control. My aspiration is to find a pathway to get providers through the system unbroken—also not an easy task. But one thing I know is true: the more you can stay engaged in the care you provide and in your documentation, the more you will preclude a plaintiff’s attorney from exploiting the effects of the forces within the system that drive providers toward disconnection. As long as you stay engaged and supported by the knowledge that the care provided was appropriate, it is my hope that the voice of the critic will not count as much in the aftermath of a malpractice case. But more importantly, it may allow you to draw meaning and reconciliation from the fact that throughout the patient’s illness, undeterred by the complexities of today’s healthcare system, you remained the attentive and compassionate healer you hoped to be when you first became a healthcare professional.

During my 25 years as a defense attorney, I have seen the traumatic impact that the allegation of medical malpractice can have on healthcare providers. And I have seen many times that in the aftermath of a case it remains difficult, if not impossible, for the practitioner to return to the clinical setting unscarred by the process. Although vindication by the jury provides some solace, by itself it does not create healing. Instead, the critic’s voice continues to resonate long after the trial.

See related editorial

During a lawsuit, physicians and other providers are commonly confronted with incidental imperfections in the care they provided, errors in their documentation, or both. Consequently, a provider’s perception of events and ultimately the meaning derived from the experience is shaped less by the valid defenses and opinions of the supportive defense experts than by the inconsequential flaws and errors that can often be found in any medical record.

A RECENT CASE

Recently, I defended a hospital team consisting of a hospitalist, trauma surgeon, three residents, and a nurse. The case involved a 74-year-old man who was admitted to the hospital with pancreatitis of unknown cause. Six days after admission, he died of complications of acute respiratory distress syndrome. The team was accused of causing the patient’s death. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that although the patient’s liver enzyme levels were improving, his condition was deteriorating, and he ultimately developed hemorrhagic pancreatitis. It was the plaintiff’s contention that proper ongoing evaluation, including computed tomographic imaging, would have led to treatment that would have avoided the worsening of pancreatitis, development of an ileus, and ultimately the insult to his bowel and lungs that they claim caused acute respiratory distress syndrome and death. The patient was survived by his wife and their three children. After his death, hospital representatives and the hospitalist met with her in an effort to explain the events that led to her husband’s death. Unfortunately, these discussions did not ameliorate her feelings of loss and anger. She filed a lawsuit, and 4 years later, the case went to trial.

Vindication provides some solace, but the critic’s voice can resonate long after the trial

During the trial, the plaintiff’s attorney highlighted errors in the electronic medical record. Entries had been cut and pasted, saving time, but without updating information that had changed in the interim. The inaccuracies included “assessment: worsening pancreatitis” on a day it was considered to have improved. Another entry contained “persistent fever” on a day when no fever was present. Other mistakes involved notes that contained care plans made after morning rounds that were not revised later in the day after changes in the patient’s condition necessitated a change in the plan. In fact, most references to medication dosing in the progress notes on the last 2 days did not match the medication dosing documented in the medication administration record.

In the end, the plaintiff’s counsel did not convince the jury that the healthcare team had been negligent, but unfortunately, she planted doubt in the minds of the caregivers themselves. Perhaps in part, these doubts were the result of having to defend a bad outcome in the face of criticism that was based solely in retrospect. But the providers’ doubts seemed mostly to emanate from the inadequacies in their documentation as they observed how every entry in a far-from-perfect medical record was scrutinized and then manipulated to challenge its textual integrity—and to portray the healthcare team as unengaged and substandard clinicians.

Despite the team’s high level of engagement and the quality of care they provided, any imperfection—whether a documentation error or a minor omission in some aspect of the care provided to this complex patient—became a source of self-doubt and self-criticism.

THE ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD: A MIXED BLESSING

Documentation failures have long been used to “prove” that physicians are disconnected from the clinical situation. The electronic medical record has not proved to be a strong shield against malpractice allegations. In fact, because the electronic medical record absorbs more of the physician’s time and that of the care team’s members, efforts to save time through work-arounds and shortcuts have increased the risk of errors in entering information.

For instance, drop-down menus have led to wrong selections. Cutting and pasting has led to entries that contain data superseded by clinical events, thus creating contradictions within the record itself, and worse, with the physician’s own testimony pertaining to the basis of the clinical decision-making. And boilerplate language has created difficulties when the language does not completely fit the context or when inapplicable verbiage that fills itself in automatically goes unedited. An emergency department physician I represented at trial had to awkwardly explain that some of the data reported in his physical exam findings were inaccurate because of programmed language and should have been deleted; he had no explanation for his oversight.

But my experience has been that juries can forgive imperfections in documentation and even incidental aspects of care. They want to trust that the clinician was there for, and there with, the patient. This emphasis is what allowed us to defend the case involving the patient with pancreatitis. Clinical judgment means being engaged enough to choose what you pay attention to and to process the data you receive.

The electronic medical record has not proved to be a strong shield against malpractice allegations

Unfortunately, the electronic medical record seems designed more for billing and for guarding against claims of fraud than for communication among clinicians or documenting clinically significant events. Many clinicians believe that redundancy and standardized phraseology have weakened the meaningful use of the medical record, as the clinical information is now of questionable reliability or value or is simply hard to find. Consequently, the electronic medical record has become less effective as a communication tool for providing continuity of care.

More importantly, the electronic medical record too often places the physician in front of a computer, so that the computer becomes the focus, not the patient. Studies suggest that the way the electronic medical record is currently used in the examination room affects the quality of physician-patient communication as well as the physician’s cognitive processing of information. Unless the physician is alert and attuned, the electronic medical record can be a barrier to connection. This not only creates the potential for mistakes, but it can also cause patients to question the quality of care they are getting and to distrust the level of the provider’s engagement. In this context, the likelihood that the patient retains an attorney increases when a bad outcome occurs, avoidable or not.

WHAT PATIENTS WANT FROM PHYSICIANS

When I first began seeing my own primary care physician, her office was 5 minutes from my home. Then she relocated to a practice 15 minutes away. And then, because of office consolidation and acquisition, her office was relocated 40 minutes away.

So why do I still go to her? Her training is not better than that of most internists, and my medical history is not so complex that I require more care than most 55-year-old men. I am only speculating, but I would guess that she is not the most financially productive physician in her group. I know that her transition to the electronic medical record has been difficult. Recently, I asked her about it. Except in some situations, she does not type while taking a history, and she stays totally away from the computer while in the examination room with me. She sits a couple of feet from me, and it feels like the days before the electronic medical record. She is clearly more comfortable listening and taking notes first and worrying about the electronic record later. I imagine she stays later to do her notes than most of the other physicians, or she finishes them at home.

The reason I continue to see her as my primary care physician is that she remains totally engaged during my office visit. What tells me that is not just her avoidance of the computer or her body language, but the depth of questions she asks. My responses often prompt her to look back at an earlier office note, and she will then ask follow-up questions to confirm what she had previously recorded. Her examination is thorough, with testing to confirm and retesting to be sure. Doing this may mean that she has difficulty meeting financial or administrative benchmarks established by her practice. I don’t know. But I have no doubt that the likelihood of her missing something in her clinical care is small, and what I suspect is even smaller is the risk that one of her patients would bring a lawsuit against her, given the time she takes to listen and remain connected throughout the office visit.

STAYING CONNECTED, IN SPITE OF EVERYTHING

Be the attentive, compassionate healer you hoped to be when you first entered practice

My point is not to suggest that everyone must conform to the same practice philosophy, particularly with the economic pressures in the medical field. What I am suggesting is that it is not easy to stay connected in a healthcare system in which the system’s structure is driving physicians and other members of the healthcare team towards disconnection. Quality healthcare means making every effort to remain engaged at all times with your patient’s care, which will reduce the likelihood of a bad outcome and may preserve the physician-patient relationship even when a bad outcome occurs.

In the end, perhaps it is not possible to avoid being named as a defendant in a malpractice case, just as it is not possible to avoid all bad medical outcomes despite exceptional care. In law, as in medicine, there are always factors beyond your control. My aspiration is to find a pathway to get providers through the system unbroken—also not an easy task. But one thing I know is true: the more you can stay engaged in the care you provide and in your documentation, the more you will preclude a plaintiff’s attorney from exploiting the effects of the forces within the system that drive providers toward disconnection. As long as you stay engaged and supported by the knowledge that the care provided was appropriate, it is my hope that the voice of the critic will not count as much in the aftermath of a malpractice case. But more importantly, it may allow you to draw meaning and reconciliation from the fact that throughout the patient’s illness, undeterred by the complexities of today’s healthcare system, you remained the attentive and compassionate healer you hoped to be when you first became a healthcare professional.

In 1975, Julia and Joseph Quinlan approached the administrator of St. Clare’s Hospital in Denville, New Jersey, and requested that the mechanical ventilator on which their adopted daughter, Karen, was dependent be turned off. Karen Ann Quinlan, 21 years old, was in a permanent vegetative state after a severe anoxic event, and her parents had been informed by the hospital’s medical staff that she would never regain consciousness.

See related article

To the Quinlans’ request to withdraw the ventilator, the hospital administrator replied, “You have to understand our position, Mrs. Quinlan. In this hospital we don’t kill people.”¹

The administrator’s response was consistent with prevailing ethical and legal perspectives, analyses, and directives at that time related to discontinuation of life-sustaining treatment. In the mid-1970s, the American Medical Association’s position was that it was permissible to not put a patient on a ventilator (ie, a physician could withhold a life-sustaining treatment), but once a patient was on a ventilator, it was not permissible to take the patient off if the intention was to allow death to occur.¹ However, the New Jersey Supreme Court ultimately found this distinction between withholding and withdrawing unconvincing, and ruled unanimously that Karen Quinlan’s ventilator could be turned off.²

THE HASTINGS CENTER REPORT: STOPPING IS THE SAME AS NOT STARTING

During the subsequent decade, further ethical analysis and additional legal cases resulted in new insights and more nuanced thinking about forgoing life-sustaining treatment.

These developments were summarized in a 1987 report by the Hastings Center,³ a leading bioethics research and policy institute. The report provided normative guidance for the termination of life-sustaining treatment and for the care of dying patients. It acknowledged that deciding not to start a life-sustaining treatment can emotionally and psychologically affect healthcare professionals differently than deciding to stop such a treatment. However, the report also asserted that there is no morally important difference between withholding and withdrawing such treatments.

There is no ethical requirement that treatment, once started, must continue against the patient’s wishes

Reflecting a partnership model between patients and professionals for healthcare decision-making, and affirming the ethical significance of both a burden-benefit analysis and patient autonomy, the report stated that when a patient or surrogate in collaboration with a responsible healthcare professional decides that a treatment under way and the life it supports have become more burdensome than beneficial to the patient, that is sufficient reason to stop. There is no ethical requirement that treatment, once initiated, must continue against the patient’s wishes or when the surrogate determines that it is more burdensome than beneficial from the patient’s perspective. In fact, imposing treatment in such circumstances violates the patient’s right to self-determination.³

The report noted further that, because of frequent uncertainty about the efficacy of proposed treatments, it is preferable to initiate time-limited trials of treatments and then later stop them if they prove ineffective or become overly burdensome from a patient’s perspective.

ICDs ARE LIKE OTHER LIFE-SUSTAINING THERAPIES

In this issue of Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine, Baibars et al⁴ address the question of how implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) should be managed at the end of life. The historical events and developments recounted above regarding withdrawing life-sustaining technologies are an appropriate context for ethically assessing the management of ICDs for dying patients.

ICDs are not ventilators, but like ventilators, they are a life-sustaining therapy

Obviously, ICDs are not ventilators, but like ventilators, they are life-sustaining therapy, as are dialysis machines, blood transfusions, medically supplied nutrition and hydration, ventricular assist devices, and other implantable electronic cardiac devices such as pacemakers. Each of these life-sustaining therapies, depending on a patient’s clinical condition, underlying illness, and comorbidities, can become a death-prolonging technology.

An ethical framework and analysis about whether to continue any life-sustaining therapy, including an ICD, must include an assessment of the benefit-to-burden ratio from the patient’s perspective. Does the therapy enhance or maintain a quality of life acceptable to the patient? Or has it become overly burdensome and does it maintain a quality of life the patient finds (or would find) unacceptable? If the latter is true, and especially in the context of an underlying terminal condition, then shifting the goals of care to focus on comfort is always appropriate and ethically justified. Treatments—including ICDs—that do not contribute to patient comfort should be withdrawn.

TOWARD COMPETENCY IN ETHICAL MANAGEMENT

Baibars et al note that much more needs to be done to enhance competencies, increase proficiencies, and mitigate the moral distress of healthcare professionals caring for dying patients with ICDs and other devices. To help clinicians achieve a personal and professional “comfort zone” for ethically managing patients with ICDs, we recommend that healthcare institutions, medical schools, and nursing schools take the following steps:

Develop comprehensive end-of-life policies, procedures, and protocols that incorporate specific guidance for managing cardiac devices and that have been endorsed by a hospital ethics committee. Such guidance can be informative and educational and can ensure that decisions and resulting actions (including stopping cardiac devices) are ethically supportable.

Provide more palliative care training in medical and nursing schools, residency programs, and continuing education activities so that front-line clinicians can deliver “basic,” “primary” palliative care not requiring specialty palliative medicine. This training, called for in the Institute of Medicine’s 2014 report, Dying in America,⁵ should include explicit ethics discussions about managing cardiac devices at the end of life.

Provide ongoing training in communication skills needed for all patient-professional encounters. Effectively engaging patients in goals-of-care discussions, especially patients with life-limiting illnesses such as heart failure, cannot be achieved without these skills.

In 1975, Julia and Joseph Quinlan approached the administrator of St. Clare’s Hospital in Denville, New Jersey, and requested that the mechanical ventilator on which their adopted daughter, Karen, was dependent be turned off. Karen Ann Quinlan, 21 years old, was in a permanent vegetative state after a severe anoxic event, and her parents had been informed by the hospital’s medical staff that she would never regain consciousness.

See related article

To the Quinlans’ request to withdraw the ventilator, the hospital administrator replied, “You have to understand our position, Mrs. Quinlan. In this hospital we don’t kill people.”¹

The administrator’s response was consistent with prevailing ethical and legal perspectives, analyses, and directives at that time related to discontinuation of life-sustaining treatment. In the mid-1970s, the American Medical Association’s position was that it was permissible to not put a patient on a ventilator (ie, a physician could withhold a life-sustaining treatment), but once a patient was on a ventilator, it was not permissible to take the patient off if the intention was to allow death to occur.¹ However, the New Jersey Supreme Court ultimately found this distinction between withholding and withdrawing unconvincing, and ruled unanimously that Karen Quinlan’s ventilator could be turned off.²

THE HASTINGS CENTER REPORT: STOPPING IS THE SAME AS NOT STARTING

During the subsequent decade, further ethical analysis and additional legal cases resulted in new insights and more nuanced thinking about forgoing life-sustaining treatment.

These developments were summarized in a 1987 report by the Hastings Center,³ a leading bioethics research and policy institute. The report provided normative guidance for the termination of life-sustaining treatment and for the care of dying patients. It acknowledged that deciding not to start a life-sustaining treatment can emotionally and psychologically affect healthcare professionals differently than deciding to stop such a treatment. However, the report also asserted that there is no morally important difference between withholding and withdrawing such treatments.

There is no ethical requirement that treatment, once started, must continue against the patient’s wishes

Reflecting a partnership model between patients and professionals for healthcare decision-making, and affirming the ethical significance of both a burden-benefit analysis and patient autonomy, the report stated that when a patient or surrogate in collaboration with a responsible healthcare professional decides that a treatment under way and the life it supports have become more burdensome than beneficial to the patient, that is sufficient reason to stop. There is no ethical requirement that treatment, once initiated, must continue against the patient’s wishes or when the surrogate determines that it is more burdensome than beneficial from the patient’s perspective. In fact, imposing treatment in such circumstances violates the patient’s right to self-determination.³

The report noted further that, because of frequent uncertainty about the efficacy of proposed treatments, it is preferable to initiate time-limited trials of treatments and then later stop them if they prove ineffective or become overly burdensome from a patient’s perspective.

ICDs ARE LIKE OTHER LIFE-SUSTAINING THERAPIES

In this issue of Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine, Baibars et al⁴ address the question of how implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) should be managed at the end of life. The historical events and developments recounted above regarding withdrawing life-sustaining technologies are an appropriate context for ethically assessing the management of ICDs for dying patients.

ICDs are not ventilators, but like ventilators, they are a life-sustaining therapy

Obviously, ICDs are not ventilators, but like ventilators, they are life-sustaining therapy, as are dialysis machines, blood transfusions, medically supplied nutrition and hydration, ventricular assist devices, and other implantable electronic cardiac devices such as pacemakers. Each of these life-sustaining therapies, depending on a patient’s clinical condition, underlying illness, and comorbidities, can become a death-prolonging technology.

An ethical framework and analysis about whether to continue any life-sustaining therapy, including an ICD, must include an assessment of the benefit-to-burden ratio from the patient’s perspective. Does the therapy enhance or maintain a quality of life acceptable to the patient? Or has it become overly burdensome and does it maintain a quality of life the patient finds (or would find) unacceptable? If the latter is true, and especially in the context of an underlying terminal condition, then shifting the goals of care to focus on comfort is always appropriate and ethically justified. Treatments—including ICDs—that do not contribute to patient comfort should be withdrawn.

TOWARD COMPETENCY IN ETHICAL MANAGEMENT

Baibars et al note that much more needs to be done to enhance competencies, increase proficiencies, and mitigate the moral distress of healthcare professionals caring for dying patients with ICDs and other devices. To help clinicians achieve a personal and professional “comfort zone” for ethically managing patients with ICDs, we recommend that healthcare institutions, medical schools, and nursing schools take the following steps:

Develop comprehensive end-of-life policies, procedures, and protocols that incorporate specific guidance for managing cardiac devices and that have been endorsed by a hospital ethics committee. Such guidance can be informative and educational and can ensure that decisions and resulting actions (including stopping cardiac devices) are ethically supportable.

Provide more palliative care training in medical and nursing schools, residency programs, and continuing education activities so that front-line clinicians can deliver “basic,” “primary” palliative care not requiring specialty palliative medicine. This training, called for in the Institute of Medicine’s 2014 report, Dying in America,⁵ should include explicit ethics discussions about managing cardiac devices at the end of life.

Provide ongoing training in communication skills needed for all patient-professional encounters. Effectively engaging patients in goals-of-care discussions, especially patients with life-limiting illnesses such as heart failure, cannot be achieved without these skills.

In 1975, Julia and Joseph Quinlan approached the administrator of St. Clare’s Hospital in Denville, New Jersey, and requested that the mechanical ventilator on which their adopted daughter, Karen, was dependent be turned off. Karen Ann Quinlan, 21 years old, was in a permanent vegetative state after a severe anoxic event, and her parents had been informed by the hospital’s medical staff that she would never regain consciousness.

See related article

To the Quinlans’ request to withdraw the ventilator, the hospital administrator replied, “You have to understand our position, Mrs. Quinlan. In this hospital we don’t kill people.”¹

The administrator’s response was consistent with prevailing ethical and legal perspectives, analyses, and directives at that time related to discontinuation of life-sustaining treatment. In the mid-1970s, the American Medical Association’s position was that it was permissible to not put a patient on a ventilator (ie, a physician could withhold a life-sustaining treatment), but once a patient was on a ventilator, it was not permissible to take the patient off if the intention was to allow death to occur.¹ However, the New Jersey Supreme Court ultimately found this distinction between withholding and withdrawing unconvincing, and ruled unanimously that Karen Quinlan’s ventilator could be turned off.²

THE HASTINGS CENTER REPORT: STOPPING IS THE SAME AS NOT STARTING

During the subsequent decade, further ethical analysis and additional legal cases resulted in new insights and more nuanced thinking about forgoing life-sustaining treatment.

These developments were summarized in a 1987 report by the Hastings Center,³ a leading bioethics research and policy institute. The report provided normative guidance for the termination of life-sustaining treatment and for the care of dying patients. It acknowledged that deciding not to start a life-sustaining treatment can emotionally and psychologically affect healthcare professionals differently than deciding to stop such a treatment. However, the report also asserted that there is no morally important difference between withholding and withdrawing such treatments.

There is no ethical requirement that treatment, once started, must continue against the patient’s wishes

Reflecting a partnership model between patients and professionals for healthcare decision-making, and affirming the ethical significance of both a burden-benefit analysis and patient autonomy, the report stated that when a patient or surrogate in collaboration with a responsible healthcare professional decides that a treatment under way and the life it supports have become more burdensome than beneficial to the patient, that is sufficient reason to stop. There is no ethical requirement that treatment, once initiated, must continue against the patient’s wishes or when the surrogate determines that it is more burdensome than beneficial from the patient’s perspective. In fact, imposing treatment in such circumstances violates the patient’s right to self-determination.³

The report noted further that, because of frequent uncertainty about the efficacy of proposed treatments, it is preferable to initiate time-limited trials of treatments and then later stop them if they prove ineffective or become overly burdensome from a patient’s perspective.

ICDs ARE LIKE OTHER LIFE-SUSTAINING THERAPIES

In this issue of Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine, Baibars et al⁴ address the question of how implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) should be managed at the end of life. The historical events and developments recounted above regarding withdrawing life-sustaining technologies are an appropriate context for ethically assessing the management of ICDs for dying patients.

ICDs are not ventilators, but like ventilators, they are a life-sustaining therapy

Obviously, ICDs are not ventilators, but like ventilators, they are life-sustaining therapy, as are dialysis machines, blood transfusions, medically supplied nutrition and hydration, ventricular assist devices, and other implantable electronic cardiac devices such as pacemakers. Each of these life-sustaining therapies, depending on a patient’s clinical condition, underlying illness, and comorbidities, can become a death-prolonging technology.

An ethical framework and analysis about whether to continue any life-sustaining therapy, including an ICD, must include an assessment of the benefit-to-burden ratio from the patient’s perspective. Does the therapy enhance or maintain a quality of life acceptable to the patient? Or has it become overly burdensome and does it maintain a quality of life the patient finds (or would find) unacceptable? If the latter is true, and especially in the context of an underlying terminal condition, then shifting the goals of care to focus on comfort is always appropriate and ethically justified. Treatments—including ICDs—that do not contribute to patient comfort should be withdrawn.

TOWARD COMPETENCY IN ETHICAL MANAGEMENT

Baibars et al note that much more needs to be done to enhance competencies, increase proficiencies, and mitigate the moral distress of healthcare professionals caring for dying patients with ICDs and other devices. To help clinicians achieve a personal and professional “comfort zone” for ethically managing patients with ICDs, we recommend that healthcare institutions, medical schools, and nursing schools take the following steps:

Develop comprehensive end-of-life policies, procedures, and protocols that incorporate specific guidance for managing cardiac devices and that have been endorsed by a hospital ethics committee. Such guidance can be informative and educational and can ensure that decisions and resulting actions (including stopping cardiac devices) are ethically supportable.

Provide more palliative care training in medical and nursing schools, residency programs, and continuing education activities so that front-line clinicians can deliver “basic,” “primary” palliative care not requiring specialty palliative medicine. This training, called for in the Institute of Medicine’s 2014 report, Dying in America,⁵ should include explicit ethics discussions about managing cardiac devices at the end of life.

Provide ongoing training in communication skills needed for all patient-professional encounters. Effectively engaging patients in goals-of-care discussions, especially patients with life-limiting illnesses such as heart failure, cannot be achieved without these skills.

Yes. Although implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) prevent sudden cardiac death in patients with advanced heart failure, their benefit in terminally ill patients is small.¹ Furthermore, the shocks they deliver at the end of life can cause distress. Therefore, it is reasonable to consider ICD deactivation if the patient or family wishes.

See related commentary

A DIFFICULT DECISION

End-of-life decisions place significant emotional burdens on patients, their families, and their healthcare providers and can have social and legal consequences.

Turning off an ICD is an especially difficult decision, considering that these devices protect against sudden cardiac death and fatal arrhythmias. Also, patients and their representatives may find it more difficult to withdraw from active care than to forgo further interventions (more on this below), and they may misunderstand discussions about ICD deactivation, perceiving them as the beginning of abandonment.

ICD DEACTIVATION IS OFTEN DONE HAPHAZARDLY OR NOT AT ALL

Many healthcare providers are not trained in or comfortable with discussing end-of-life issues, and many hospitals and hospice programs lack policies and protocols for managing implanted devices at the end of life. Consequently, ICD management at the end of life varies among providers and tends to be suboptimal.²

In a report of a survey in 414 hospice facilities, 97% of facilities reported that they admitted patients with ICDs, but only 10% had a policy on device deactivation.³

In a survey of 47 European medical centers, only 4% said they addressed ICD deactivation with their patients.⁴

A study of 125 patients with ICDs who had died found that 52% had do-not-resuscitate orders. Nevertheless, in 100 patients the ICD had remained active in the last 24 hours of their life, and 31 of these patients had received shocks during their last 24 hours.⁵

In a survey of next of kin of patients with ICDs who had died of any cause,⁶ in only 27 of 100 cases had the clinician discussed ICD deactivation, and about three-fourths of these discussions had occurred during the last few days of life. Twenty-seven patients had received ICD discharges in the last month of life, and 8% had received a discharge during the final minutes.

TRAINING AND PROTOCOLS ARE NEEDED

Healthcare professionals need education about device deactivation at the end of life so that they are comfortable communicating with patients and families about this critical issue. To this end, several cardiac and palliative care societies have jointly released an expert statement on managing ICDs and other implantable devices in end-of-life situations.⁷

Many providers harbor a misunderstanding of the difference between withholding a device and withdrawing (or turning off) a device that is already implanted.² Some mistakenly believe they would be committing a crime by deactivating an implanted life-sustaining device. Legally and ethically, there is no difference between withholding a device and withdrawing a device. Legally, carrying out a request to withdraw life-sustaining treatment is neither physician-assisted suicide nor euthanasia.

DISCUSSION SHOULD BEGIN EARLY AND SHOULD BE ONGOING

The discussion of ICD deactivation should begin before the device is implanted and should continue as the patient’s health status changes. In a survey, 40% of patients said they felt that ICD deactivation should be discussed before the device is implanted, and only 5% felt that this discussion should be undertaken in the last days of life.⁸

At the least, it is important to identify patients with ICDs on admission to hospice and to have policies in place that ensure adequate patient education to make an informed decision about ICD deactivation at the end of life.

The topic should be discussed when goals of care change and when do-not-resuscitate status is addressed, and also when advanced directives are being acknowledged. If the patient or his or her legal representative wishes to keep the ICD turned on, that wish should be respected. The essence of a discussion is not to impose the providers’ choice on the patient, but to help the patient make the right decision for himself or herself. Of note, patients entering hospice do not have to have do-not-resuscitate status.

We believe that device management in end-of-life circumstances should be part of the discussion of the goals of care. Accordingly, healthcare providers need to be familiar with device management and to have a higher comfort level in addressing such sensitive topics with patients facing the end of life, as well as with their families.

It is also advisable to apply protocols within hospice services to address ICD management options for the patient and the legal representative. An early decision regarding end-of-life deactivation will help patients avoid distressing ICD discharges and the related emotional distress in their last moments.

Yes. Although implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) prevent sudden cardiac death in patients with advanced heart failure, their benefit in terminally ill patients is small.¹ Furthermore, the shocks they deliver at the end of life can cause distress. Therefore, it is reasonable to consider ICD deactivation if the patient or family wishes.

See related commentary

A DIFFICULT DECISION

End-of-life decisions place significant emotional burdens on patients, their families, and their healthcare providers and can have social and legal consequences.

Turning off an ICD is an especially difficult decision, considering that these devices protect against sudden cardiac death and fatal arrhythmias. Also, patients and their representatives may find it more difficult to withdraw from active care than to forgo further interventions (more on this below), and they may misunderstand discussions about ICD deactivation, perceiving them as the beginning of abandonment.

ICD DEACTIVATION IS OFTEN DONE HAPHAZARDLY OR NOT AT ALL

Many healthcare providers are not trained in or comfortable with discussing end-of-life issues, and many hospitals and hospice programs lack policies and protocols for managing implanted devices at the end of life. Consequently, ICD management at the end of life varies among providers and tends to be suboptimal.²

In a report of a survey in 414 hospice facilities, 97% of facilities reported that they admitted patients with ICDs, but only 10% had a policy on device deactivation.³

In a survey of 47 European medical centers, only 4% said they addressed ICD deactivation with their patients.⁴

A study of 125 patients with ICDs who had died found that 52% had do-not-resuscitate orders. Nevertheless, in 100 patients the ICD had remained active in the last 24 hours of their life, and 31 of these patients had received shocks during their last 24 hours.⁵

In a survey of next of kin of patients with ICDs who had died of any cause,⁶ in only 27 of 100 cases had the clinician discussed ICD deactivation, and about three-fourths of these discussions had occurred during the last few days of life. Twenty-seven patients had received ICD discharges in the last month of life, and 8% had received a discharge during the final minutes.

TRAINING AND PROTOCOLS ARE NEEDED

Healthcare professionals need education about device deactivation at the end of life so that they are comfortable communicating with patients and families about this critical issue. To this end, several cardiac and palliative care societies have jointly released an expert statement on managing ICDs and other implantable devices in end-of-life situations.⁷

Many providers harbor a misunderstanding of the difference between withholding a device and withdrawing (or turning off) a device that is already implanted.² Some mistakenly believe they would be committing a crime by deactivating an implanted life-sustaining device. Legally and ethically, there is no difference between withholding a device and withdrawing a device. Legally, carrying out a request to withdraw life-sustaining treatment is neither physician-assisted suicide nor euthanasia.

DISCUSSION SHOULD BEGIN EARLY AND SHOULD BE ONGOING

The discussion of ICD deactivation should begin before the device is implanted and should continue as the patient’s health status changes. In a survey, 40% of patients said they felt that ICD deactivation should be discussed before the device is implanted, and only 5% felt that this discussion should be undertaken in the last days of life.⁸

At the least, it is important to identify patients with ICDs on admission to hospice and to have policies in place that ensure adequate patient education to make an informed decision about ICD deactivation at the end of life.

The topic should be discussed when goals of care change and when do-not-resuscitate status is addressed, and also when advanced directives are being acknowledged. If the patient or his or her legal representative wishes to keep the ICD turned on, that wish should be respected. The essence of a discussion is not to impose the providers’ choice on the patient, but to help the patient make the right decision for himself or herself. Of note, patients entering hospice do not have to have do-not-resuscitate status.

We believe that device management in end-of-life circumstances should be part of the discussion of the goals of care. Accordingly, healthcare providers need to be familiar with device management and to have a higher comfort level in addressing such sensitive topics with patients facing the end of life, as well as with their families.

It is also advisable to apply protocols within hospice services to address ICD management options for the patient and the legal representative. An early decision regarding end-of-life deactivation will help patients avoid distressing ICD discharges and the related emotional distress in their last moments.

Yes. Although implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) prevent sudden cardiac death in patients with advanced heart failure, their benefit in terminally ill patients is small.¹ Furthermore, the shocks they deliver at the end of life can cause distress. Therefore, it is reasonable to consider ICD deactivation if the patient or family wishes.

See related commentary

A DIFFICULT DECISION

End-of-life decisions place significant emotional burdens on patients, their families, and their healthcare providers and can have social and legal consequences.

Turning off an ICD is an especially difficult decision, considering that these devices protect against sudden cardiac death and fatal arrhythmias. Also, patients and their representatives may find it more difficult to withdraw from active care than to forgo further interventions (more on this below), and they may misunderstand discussions about ICD deactivation, perceiving them as the beginning of abandonment.

ICD DEACTIVATION IS OFTEN DONE HAPHAZARDLY OR NOT AT ALL

Many healthcare providers are not trained in or comfortable with discussing end-of-life issues, and many hospitals and hospice programs lack policies and protocols for managing implanted devices at the end of life. Consequently, ICD management at the end of life varies among providers and tends to be suboptimal.²

In a report of a survey in 414 hospice facilities, 97% of facilities reported that they admitted patients with ICDs, but only 10% had a policy on device deactivation.³

In a survey of 47 European medical centers, only 4% said they addressed ICD deactivation with their patients.⁴

A study of 125 patients with ICDs who had died found that 52% had do-not-resuscitate orders. Nevertheless, in 100 patients the ICD had remained active in the last 24 hours of their life, and 31 of these patients had received shocks during their last 24 hours.⁵

In a survey of next of kin of patients with ICDs who had died of any cause,⁶ in only 27 of 100 cases had the clinician discussed ICD deactivation, and about three-fourths of these discussions had occurred during the last few days of life. Twenty-seven patients had received ICD discharges in the last month of life, and 8% had received a discharge during the final minutes.

TRAINING AND PROTOCOLS ARE NEEDED

Healthcare professionals need education about device deactivation at the end of life so that they are comfortable communicating with patients and families about this critical issue. To this end, several cardiac and palliative care societies have jointly released an expert statement on managing ICDs and other implantable devices in end-of-life situations.⁷

Many providers harbor a misunderstanding of the difference between withholding a device and withdrawing (or turning off) a device that is already implanted.² Some mistakenly believe they would be committing a crime by deactivating an implanted life-sustaining device. Legally and ethically, there is no difference between withholding a device and withdrawing a device. Legally, carrying out a request to withdraw life-sustaining treatment is neither physician-assisted suicide nor euthanasia.

DISCUSSION SHOULD BEGIN EARLY AND SHOULD BE ONGOING

The discussion of ICD deactivation should begin before the device is implanted and should continue as the patient’s health status changes. In a survey, 40% of patients said they felt that ICD deactivation should be discussed before the device is implanted, and only 5% felt that this discussion should be undertaken in the last days of life.⁸

At the least, it is important to identify patients with ICDs on admission to hospice and to have policies in place that ensure adequate patient education to make an informed decision about ICD deactivation at the end of life.

The topic should be discussed when goals of care change and when do-not-resuscitate status is addressed, and also when advanced directives are being acknowledged. If the patient or his or her legal representative wishes to keep the ICD turned on, that wish should be respected. The essence of a discussion is not to impose the providers’ choice on the patient, but to help the patient make the right decision for himself or herself. Of note, patients entering hospice do not have to have do-not-resuscitate status.

We believe that device management in end-of-life circumstances should be part of the discussion of the goals of care. Accordingly, healthcare providers need to be familiar with device management and to have a higher comfort level in addressing such sensitive topics with patients facing the end of life, as well as with their families.

It is also advisable to apply protocols within hospice services to address ICD management options for the patient and the legal representative. An early decision regarding end-of-life deactivation will help patients avoid distressing ICD discharges and the related emotional distress in their last moments.

Neurologic emergencies such as acute stroke, status epilepticus, subarachnoid hemorrhage, neuromuscular weakness, and spinal cord injury affect millions of Americans yearly.^1,2 These conditions can be difficult to diagnose, and delays in recognition and treatment can have devastating results. Consequently, it is important for nonneurologists to be able to quickly recognize these conditions and initiate timely management, often while awaiting neurologic consultation.

Here, we review how to recognize and treat these common, serious conditions.

ACUTE ISCHEMIC STROKE: TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE

Stroke is the fourth leading cause of death in the United States and is one of the most common causes of disability worldwide.^3–5 About 85% of strokes are ischemic, resulting from diminished vascular supply to the brain. Symptoms such as facial droop, unilateral weakness or numbness, aphasia, gaze deviation, and unsteadiness of gait may be seen. Time is of the essence, as all currently available interventions are safe and effective only within defined time windows.

Diagnosis and assessment

When acute ischemic stroke is suspected, the clinical history, time of onset, and basic neurologic examination should be obtained quickly.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) stroke scale is an objective marker for assessing stroke severity as well as evolution of disease and should be obtained in all stroke patients. Scores range from 0 (best) to 42 (worst) (www.ninds.nih.gov/doctors/NIH_Stroke_Scale.pdf).

Time of onset of symptoms is essential to determine, since it guides eligibility for acute therapies. Clinicians should ascertain the last time the patient was seen to be neurologically well in order to estimate this time window as closely as possible.

Laboratory tests should include a fingerstick blood glucose measurement, coagulation studies, complete blood cell count, and basic metabolic profile.

Computed tomography (CT) of the head without contrast should be obtained immediately to exclude acute hemorrhage and any alternative diagnoses that could explain the patient’s symptoms. Acute brain ischemia is often not apparent on CT during the first few hours of injury. Therefore, a patient presenting with new focal neurologic deficits and an unremarkable result on CT of the head should be treated as having had an acute ischemic stroke, and interventional therapies should be considered.

Stroke mimics should be considered and treated, as appropriate (Table 1).

Acute management of ischemic stroke

Acute treatment should not be delayed by obtaining chest radiography, inserting a Foley catheter, or obtaining an electrocardiogram. The longer the time that elapses before treatment, the worse the functional outcome, underscoring the need for rapid decision-making.^6–8

Lowering the head of the bed may provide benefit by promoting blood flow to ischemic brain tissue.⁹ However, this should not be done in patients with significantly elevated intracerebral pressure and concern for herniation.

Permissive hypertension (antihypertensive treatment only for blood pressure greater than 220/110 mm Hg) should be allowed per national guidelines to provide adequate perfusion to brain areas at risk of injury.¹⁰

Tissue plasminogen activator. Patients with ischemic stroke who present within 3 hours of symptom onset should be considered for intravenous administration of tissue plasminogen activator (tPA), a safe and effective therapy with nearly 2 decades of evidence to support its use.¹⁰ The treating physician should carefully review the risks and benefits of this therapy.

To receive tPA, the patient must have all of the following:

• Clinical diagnosis of ischemic stroke with measurable neurologic deficit
• Onset of symptoms within the past 3 hours
• Age 18 or older.

The patient must not have any of the following:

• Significant stroke within the past 3 months
• Severe traumatic head injury within the past 3 months
• History of significant intracerebral hemorrhage
• Previously ruptured arteriovenous malformation or intracranial aneurysm
• Central nervous system neoplasm
• Arterial puncture at a noncompressible site within the past 7 days
• Evidence of hemorrhage on CT of the head
• Evidence of ischemia in greater than 33% of the cerebral hemisphere on head CT
• History and symptoms strongly suggesting subarachnoid hemorrhage
• Persistent hypertension (systolic pressure ≥ 185 mm Hg or diastolic pressure ≥ 110 mm Hg)
• Evidence of acute significant bleeding (external or internal)
• Hypoglycemia—ie, serum glucose less than 50 mg/dL (< 2.8 mmol/L)
• Thrombocytopenia (platelet count < 100 × 10⁹/L)
• Significant coagulopathy (international normalized ratio > 1.7, prothrombin time > 15 seconds, or abnormally elevated activated partial thromboplastin time)
• Current use of a factor Xa inhibitor or direct thrombin inhibitor.

Relative contraindications:

• Minor or rapidly resolving symptoms
• Major surgery or trauma within the past 14 days
• Gastrointestinal or urinary tract bleeding within the past 21 days
• Myocardial infarction in the past 3 months
• Unruptured intracranial aneurysm
• Seizure occurring at stroke onset
• Pregnancy.

If these criteria are satisfied, tPA should be given at a dose of 0.9 mg/kg intravenously over 60 minutes. Ten percent  of the dose should be given as an initial bolus, followed by a constant infusion of the remaining 90% over 1 hour.

If tPA is given, the blood pressure must be kept lower than 185/110 mm Hg to minimize the risk of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage.

A subset of patients may benefit from receiving intravenous tPA between 3 and 4.5 hours after the onset of stroke symptoms. These include patients who are no more than 80 years old, who have not recently used oral anticoagulants, who do not have severe neurologic injury (ie, do not have NIH Stroke Scale scores > 25), and who do not have diabetes mellitus or a history of ischemic stroke.¹¹ Although many hospitals have such a protocol for tPA up to 4.5 hours after the onset of stroke symptoms, this time window is not currently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration.

Intra-arterial therapy. Based on recent trials, some patients may benefit further from intra-arterial thrombolysis or mechanical thrombectomy, both delivered during catheter-based cerebral angiography, independent of intravenous tPA administration.^12,13 These patients should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis by a neurologist and neurointerventional team. Time windows for these treatments generally extend to 6 hours from stroke onset and perhaps even longer in some situations (eg, basilar artery occlusion).

An antiplatelet agent should be started quickly in all stroke patients who do not receive tPA. Patients who receive tPA can begin receiving an antiplatelet agent 24 hours afterward.

Unfractionated heparin. There is no evidence to support the use of unfractionated heparin in most cases of acute ischemic stroke.¹⁰

Glucose control (in the range of 140–180 mg/dL) and fever control remain essential elements of post-acute stroke care to provide additional protection to the damaged brain.

For ischemic stroke due to atrial fibrillation

In ischemic stroke due to atrial fibrillation, early anticoagulation should be considered, based on the CHA₂DS₂-VASC risk of ischemic stroke vs the HAS-BLED risk of hemorrhage (calculators available at www.mdcalc.com).

In general, anticoagulation may be withheld during the first 72 hours while further stroke workup and evaluation of extent of injury are carried out, as there is an increased risk of hemorrhagic transformation of the ischemic stroke. Often, anticoagulation is resumed at a full dose between 72 hours and 2 weeks of the ischemic stroke.

ACUTE HEMORRHAGIC STROKE: BLOOD PRESSURE, COAGULATION

Approximately 15% of strokes are caused by intracerebral hemorrhage, which can be detected with noncontrast head CT with a sensitivity of 98.6% within 6 hours of the onset of bleeding.¹⁴ A common underlying cause of intracerebral hemorrhage is chronic poorly controlled hypertension, causing rupture of damaged (or “lipohyalinized”) vessels with resultant blood extravasation into the brain parenchyma. Other causes are less common (Table 2).

Treatment of acute hemorrhagic stroke

Acute treatment of intracerebral hemorrhage includes blood pressure control, reversal of underlying coagulopathy or anticoagulation, and sometimes intracranial pressure control. There is little role for surgery in most cases, based on findings of randomized trials.¹⁵

Blood pressure control. Many studies have investigated optimal blood pressure goals in acute intracerebral hemorrhage. Recent data suggest that early aggressive therapy, targeting a systolic blood pressure goal less than 140 mm Hg within the first hour, is safe and can lead to better functional outcomes than a more conservative blood-pressure-lowering target.¹⁶ Rapid-onset, short-acting antihypertensive agents in intravenous form, such as nicardipine and labetalol, are frequently used. Of note, this treatment strategy for hemorrhagic stroke is in direct contrast to the treatment of ischemic stroke, in which permissive hypertension (blood pressure goal < 220/110 mm Hg) is often pursued.

Reversal of any coagulation abnormalities should be done quickly in intracranial hemorrhage. Warfarin use has been shown to be a strong independent predictor of intracranial hemorrhage expansion, which increases the risk of death.^17,18

Increasingly, agents other than vitamin K or fresh-frozen plasma are being used to rapidly reverse anticoagulation, including prothrombin complex concentrate (available in three- and four-factor preparations) and recombinant factor VIIa. While four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate and recombinant factor VIIa have been shown to be more efficacious than fresh-frozen plasma, there are limited data directly comparing these newer reversal agents against each other.¹⁹ The use of these medications is limited by availability and practitioner familiarity.^20–22

Reversing anticoagulation due to target-specific oral anticoagulants. The acute management of intracranial hemorrhage in patients taking the new target-specific oral anticoagulants (eg, dabigatran, apixaban, rivaroxaban, edoxaban) remains challenging. Laboratory tests such as factor Xa levels are not readily available in many institutions and do not provide results in a timely fashion, and in the interim, acute hemorrhage and clinical deterioration may occur. Management strategies involve giving fresh-frozen plasma, prothrombin complex concentrate, and consideration of hemodialysis.²³ Dabigatran reversal with idarucizumab has recently been shown to have efficacy.²⁴

Vigilance for elevated intracranial pressure. Intracranial hemorrhage can occasionally cause elevated intracranial pressure, which should be treated rapidly. Any acute decline in mental status in a patient with intracranial hemorrhage requires emergency imaging to evaluate for expansion of hemorrhage.

SUBARACHNOID HEMORRHAGE

The sudden onset of a “thunderclap” headache (often described by patients as “the worst headache of my life”) suggests subarachnoid hemorrhage.

In contrast to intracranial hemorrhage, in subarachnoid hemorrhage blood collects mainly in the cerebral spinal fluid-containing spaces surrounding the brain, leading to a higher incidence of hydrocephalus from impaired drainage of cerebrospinal fluid. Nontraumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage is most often caused by rupture of an intracranial aneurysm, which can be a devastating event, with death rates approaching 50%.²⁵

Diagnosis of subarachnoid hemorrhage

Noncontrast CT of the head is the main modality for diagnosing subarachnoid hemorrhage. Blood within the subarachnoid space is demonstrable in 92% of cases if CT is performed within the first 24 hours of hemorrhage, with an initial sensitivity of about 95% within the first 6 hours of onset.^14,26,27 The longer CT is delayed, the lower the sensitivity.

Some studies suggest that a protocol of CT followed by CT angiography can safely exclude aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage and obviate the need for lumbar puncture. However, further research is required to validate this approach.²⁸

Lumbar puncture. If clinical suspicion of subarachnoid hemorrhage remains strong even though initial CT is negative, lumbar puncture must be performed for cerebrospinal fluid analysis.²⁹ Xanthochromia (a yellowish pigmentation of the cerebrospinal fluid due to the degeneration of blood products that occurs within 8 to 12 hours of bleeding) should raise the alarm for subarachnoid hemorrhage; this sign may be present up to 4 weeks after the bleeding event.³⁰

If lumbar puncture is contraindicated, then aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage has not been ruled out, and further neurologic consultation should be pursued.

Management of subarachnoid hemorrhage

Early management of blood pressure for a ruptured intracranial aneurysm follows strategies similar to those for intracranial hemorrhage. Further investigation is rapidly directed toward an underlying vascular malformation, with intracranial vessel imaging such as CT angiography, magnetic resonance angiography, or the gold standard test—catheter-based cerebral angiography.

Aneurysms are treated (or “secured”) either by surgical clipping or by endovascular coiling. Endovascular coiling is preferable in cases in which both can be safely attempted.³¹ If the facility lacks the resources to do these procedures, the patient should be referred to a nearby tertiary care center.

INTRACRANIAL HYPERTENSION: DANGER OF BRAIN HERNIATION

A number of conditions can cause an acute intracranial pressure elevation. The danger of brain herniation requires that therapies be implemented rapidly to prevent catastrophic neurologic injury. In many situations, nonneurologists are the first responders and therefore should be familiar with basic intracranial pressure management.

Initial symptoms of acute rise in intracranial pressure

As intracranial pressure rises, pressure is typically equally distributed throughout the cranial vault, leading to dysfunction of the ascending reticular activating system, which clinically manifests as the inability to stay alert despite varying degrees of noxious stimulation. Progressive cranial neuropathies (often starting with pupillary abnormalities) and coma are often seen in this setting as the upper brainstem begins to be compressed.

Initial assessment and treatment of elevated intracranial pressure

Noncontrast CT of the head is often obtained immediately when acutely elevated intracranial pressure is suspected. If clinical examination and radiographic findings are consistent with intracranial hypertension, prompt measures can be started at the bedside.

Elevate the head of the bed to 30 degrees to promote venous drainage and reduce intracranial pressure. (In contrast, most other hemodynamically unstable patients are placed flat or in the Trendelenburg position.)

Intubation should be done quickly in cases of airway compromise, and hyperventilation should be started with a goal Paco₂ of 30 to 35 mm Hg. This hypocarbic strategy promotes cerebral vasoconstriction and a transient decrease in intracranial pressure.

Hyperosmolar therapy allows for transient intracranial volume decompression and is the mainstay of emergency medical treatment of intracranial hypertension. Mannitol is a hyper­osmolar polysaccharide that promotes osmotic diuresis and removes excessive cerebral water. In the acute setting, it can be given as an intravenous bolus of 1 to 2 g/kg through a peripheral intravenous line, followed by a bolus every 4 to 6 hours. Hypotension can occur after diuresis, and renal function should be closely monitored since frequent mannitol use can promote acute tubular necrosis. In patients who are anuric, the medication is typically not used.

Hypertonic saline (typically 3% sodium chloride, though different concentrations are available) is an alternative that helps draw interstitial fluid into the intravascular space, decreasing cerebral edema and maintaining hemodynamic stability. Relative contraindications include congestive heart failure or renal failure leading to pulmonary edema from volume overload. Hypertonic saline can be given as a bolus or a constant infusion. Some institutions have rapid access to 23.4% saline, which can be given as a 30-mL bolus but typically requires a central venous catheter for rapid infusion.

Comatose patients with radiographic findings of hydrocephalus, epidural or subdural hematoma, or mass effect with midline shift warrant prompt neurosurgical consultation for further surgical measures of intracranial pressure control and monitoring.

The ‘blown’ pupil

The physician should be concerned about elevated intracranial pressure if a patient has mydriasis, ie, an abnormally dilated (“blown”) pupil, which is a worrisome sign in the setting of true intracranial hypertension. However, many different processes can cause mydriasis and should be kept in mind when evaluating this finding (Table 3).³² If radiographic findings do not suggest elevated intracranial pressure, further workup into these other processes should be pursued.

STATUS EPILEPTICUS: SEIZURE CONTROL IS IMPORTANT

A continuous unremitting seizure lasting longer than 5 minutes or recurrent seizure activity in a patient who does not regain consciousness between seizures should be treated as status epilepticus. All seizure types carry the risk of progressing to status epilepticus, and responsiveness to antiepileptic drug therapy is inversely related to the duration of seizures. It is imperative that seizure activity be treated early and aggressively to prevent recalcitrant seizure activity, neuronal damage, and progression to status epilepticus.³³

Once the ABCs of emergency stabilization have been performed (ie, airway, breathing, circulation), antiepileptic drug therapy should start immediately using established algorithms (Figure 1).^34–36 During the course of treatment, the reliability of the neurologic examination may be limited due to medication effects or continued status epilepticus, making continuous video electroencephalographic monitoring often necessary to guide further therapy in patients who are not rapidly recovering.^34–38

Once status epilepticus has resolved, further investigation into the underlying cause should be pursued quickly, especially in patients without a previous diagnosis of epilepsy. Head CT with contrast or magnetic resonance imaging can be used to look for any structural abnormality that may explain seizures. Basic laboratory tests including toxicology screening can identify a common trigger such as hypoglycemia or stimulant use. Fever or other possible signs of meningitis should be investigated further with cerebrospinal fluid analysis.

SPINAL CORD INJURY

Acute spinal cord injury can lead to substantial long-term neurologic impairment and should be suspected in any patient presenting with focal motor loss, sensory loss, or both with sparing of the cranial nerves and mental status. Causes of injury include compression (traumatic or nontraumatic) and inflammatory and noninflammatory myelopathies.

The location of the injury can be inferred by analyzing the symptoms, which can point to the cord level and indicate whether the anterior or posterior of the cord is involved. Anterior cord injury tends to affect the descending corticospinal and pyramidal tracts, resulting in motor deficits and weakness. Posterior cord injury involves the dorsal columns, leading to deficits of vibration sensation and proprioception. High cervical cord injuries tend to involve varying degrees of quadriparesis, sensory loss, and sometimes respiratory compromise. A clinical history of bilateral lower-extremity weakness, a “band-like” sensory complaint around the lower chest or abdomen, or both, can suggest thoracic cord involvement. Symptoms isolated to one or both lower extremities along with lower back pain and bowel or bladder involvement may point to injury of the lumbosacral cord.

Basic management of spinal cord injury includes decompression of the bladder and initial protection against further injury with a stabilizing collar or brace.

Magnetic resonance imaging with and without contrast is the ideal study to evaluate injuries to the spinal cord itself. While CT is helpful in identifying bony disease of the spinal column (eg, evaluating traumatic fractures), it is not helpful in viewing intrinsic cord pathology.

Traumatic myelopathy

Traumatic spinal cord injury is usually suggested by the clinical history and confirmed with CT. In this setting, early consultation with a neurosurgeon is required to prevent permanent cord injury.

Guidelines suggest maintaining a mean arterial pressure greater than 85 to 90 mm Hg for the first 7 days after traumatic spinal cord injury, a particular problem in the setting of hemodynamic instability, which can accompany lesions above the midthoracic level.^39,40

Patients with vertebral body misalignment should be placed in an appropriate stabilizing collar or brace until a medically trained professional deems it appropriate to discontinue the device, or until surgical stabilization is performed.

Methylprednisone is a controversial intervention for acute spinal cord trauma, lacking clear benefit in meta-analyses.⁴¹

Nontraumatic compressive myelopathy

Patients with nontraumatic compressive myelopathy tend to present with varying degrees of back pain and worsening sensorimotor function. The differential diagnosis includes epidural abscesses, hematoma, metastatic neoplasm, and osteophyte compression (Table 4). The clinical history helps to guide therapy and should involve assessment for previous spinal column injury, immunocompromised state, travel history (which provides information on risks of exposure to a variety of diseases, including infections), and constitutional symptoms such as fever and weight loss.

Epidural abscess can have devastating results if missed. Red flags such as recent illness, intravenous drug use, focal back pain, fever, worsening numbness or weakness, and bowel or bladder incontinence should raise suspicion of this disorder. Emergency magnetic resonance imaging is required to diagnose this condition, and treatment involves urgent administration of antibiotics and consideration of surgical drainage.

Noncompressive myelopathies

There are numerous causes of noncompressive spinal cord injury (Table 4), and the etiology may be inflammatory (eg, “myelitis”) or noninflammatory. The diagnostic workup may require both magnetic resonance imaging and cerebrospinal fluid analysis. Acute disease-targeted therapy is rarely indicated and can be deferred until a full diagnostic workup has been completed.

NEUROMUSCULAR DISEASE: IS VENTILATION NEEDED?

Diseases involving the motor components of the peripheral nervous system (Table 5) share the common risk of causing ventilatory failure due to weakness of the diaphragm, intercostal muscles, and upper-airway muscles. Clinicians need to be aware of this risk and view these disorders as neurologic emergencies.

Determining when these patients require mechanical intubation is a challenge. Serial measurements of maximum inspiratory force and vital capacity are important and can be accomplished quickly at the bedside by a respiratory therapist. A maximum inspiratory force less than –30 cm H₂O or a vital capacity less than 20 mL/kg, or both, are worrisome markers that raise concern for impending ventilatory failure. Serial measurements can detect changes in these values that might indicate the need for elective intubation. In any patient presenting with weakness of the limbs, these measurements are an important step in the initial evaluation.

Myasthenic crisis

Myasthenia gravis is caused by autoantibodies directed against postsynaptic acetylcholine receptors. Patients demonstrate muscle weakness, usually in a proximal pattern, with fatigue, respiratory distress, nasal speech, ophthalmoparesis, and dysphagia. Exacerbations can occur as a response to recent infection, surgery, or medications such as neuromuscular blocking agents or aminoglycosides.

Myasthenic crisis, while uncommon, is a life-threatening emergency characterized by bulbar or respiratory failure secondary to muscle weakness. It can occur in patients already diagnosed with myasthenia gravis or may be the initial manifestation of the disease.^42–49 Intubation and mechanical ventilation are frequently required. Postoperative myasthenic patients in whom extubation has been delayed more than 24 hours should be considered in crisis.⁴⁵

The diagnosis of myasthenia gravis can be made by serum autoantibody testing, electromyography, and nerve conduction studies (with repetitive stimulation) or administration of edrophonium in patients with obvious ptosis.

The mainstay of therapy for myasthenic crisis is either intravenous immunoglobulin at a dose of 2 g/kg over 2 to 5 days or plasmapheresis (5–7 exchanges over 7–14 days). Corticosteroids are not recommended in myasthenic crisis in patients who are not intubated, as they can potentiate an initial worsening of crisis. Once the patient begins to show clinical improvement, outpatient pyridostigmine and immunosuppressive medications can be resumed at a low dose and titrated as tolerated.

Acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (Guillain-Barré syndrome)

Acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy is an autoimmune disorder involving autoantibodies against axons or myelin in the peripheral nervous system.

This disease should be suspected in a patient who is developing worsening muscle weakness (usually with areflexia) over the course of days to weeks. Occasionally, a recent diarrheal or other systemic infectious trigger can be identified. Blood pressure instability and cardiac arrhythmia can also be seen due to autonomic nerve involvement. Although classically described as an “ascending paralysis,” other variants of this disease have distinct clinical presentations (eg, the descending paralysis, ataxia, areflexia, ophthalmoparesis of the Miller Fisher syndrome).

Acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy is diagnosed by electromyography and nerve conduction studies. A cerebrospinal fluid profile demonstrating elevated protein and few white blood cells is typical.

Treatment, as in myasthenic crisis, involves intravenous immunoglobulin or plasmapheresis. Corticosteroids are ineffective. Anticipation of ventilatory failure and expectant intubation is essential, given the progressive nature of the disorder.⁵⁰

Neurologic emergencies such as acute stroke, status epilepticus, subarachnoid hemorrhage, neuromuscular weakness, and spinal cord injury affect millions of Americans yearly.^1,2 These conditions can be difficult to diagnose, and delays in recognition and treatment can have devastating results. Consequently, it is important for nonneurologists to be able to quickly recognize these conditions and initiate timely management, often while awaiting neurologic consultation.

Here, we review how to recognize and treat these common, serious conditions.

ACUTE ISCHEMIC STROKE: TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE

Stroke is the fourth leading cause of death in the United States and is one of the most common causes of disability worldwide.^3–5 About 85% of strokes are ischemic, resulting from diminished vascular supply to the brain. Symptoms such as facial droop, unilateral weakness or numbness, aphasia, gaze deviation, and unsteadiness of gait may be seen. Time is of the essence, as all currently available interventions are safe and effective only within defined time windows.

Diagnosis and assessment

When acute ischemic stroke is suspected, the clinical history, time of onset, and basic neurologic examination should be obtained quickly.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) stroke scale is an objective marker for assessing stroke severity as well as evolution of disease and should be obtained in all stroke patients. Scores range from 0 (best) to 42 (worst) (www.ninds.nih.gov/doctors/NIH_Stroke_Scale.pdf).

Time of onset of symptoms is essential to determine, since it guides eligibility for acute therapies. Clinicians should ascertain the last time the patient was seen to be neurologically well in order to estimate this time window as closely as possible.

Laboratory tests should include a fingerstick blood glucose measurement, coagulation studies, complete blood cell count, and basic metabolic profile.

Computed tomography (CT) of the head without contrast should be obtained immediately to exclude acute hemorrhage and any alternative diagnoses that could explain the patient’s symptoms. Acute brain ischemia is often not apparent on CT during the first few hours of injury. Therefore, a patient presenting with new focal neurologic deficits and an unremarkable result on CT of the head should be treated as having had an acute ischemic stroke, and interventional therapies should be considered.

Stroke mimics should be considered and treated, as appropriate (Table 1).

Acute management of ischemic stroke

Acute treatment should not be delayed by obtaining chest radiography, inserting a Foley catheter, or obtaining an electrocardiogram. The longer the time that elapses before treatment, the worse the functional outcome, underscoring the need for rapid decision-making.^6–8

Lowering the head of the bed may provide benefit by promoting blood flow to ischemic brain tissue.⁹ However, this should not be done in patients with significantly elevated intracerebral pressure and concern for herniation.

Permissive hypertension (antihypertensive treatment only for blood pressure greater than 220/110 mm Hg) should be allowed per national guidelines to provide adequate perfusion to brain areas at risk of injury.¹⁰

Tissue plasminogen activator. Patients with ischemic stroke who present within 3 hours of symptom onset should be considered for intravenous administration of tissue plasminogen activator (tPA), a safe and effective therapy with nearly 2 decades of evidence to support its use.¹⁰ The treating physician should carefully review the risks and benefits of this therapy.

To receive tPA, the patient must have all of the following:

• Clinical diagnosis of ischemic stroke with measurable neurologic deficit
• Onset of symptoms within the past 3 hours
• Age 18 or older.

The patient must not have any of the following:

• Significant stroke within the past 3 months
• Severe traumatic head injury within the past 3 months
• History of significant intracerebral hemorrhage
• Previously ruptured arteriovenous malformation or intracranial aneurysm
• Central nervous system neoplasm
• Arterial puncture at a noncompressible site within the past 7 days
• Evidence of hemorrhage on CT of the head
• Evidence of ischemia in greater than 33% of the cerebral hemisphere on head CT
• History and symptoms strongly suggesting subarachnoid hemorrhage
• Persistent hypertension (systolic pressure ≥ 185 mm Hg or diastolic pressure ≥ 110 mm Hg)
• Evidence of acute significant bleeding (external or internal)
• Hypoglycemia—ie, serum glucose less than 50 mg/dL (< 2.8 mmol/L)
• Thrombocytopenia (platelet count < 100 × 10⁹/L)
• Significant coagulopathy (international normalized ratio > 1.7, prothrombin time > 15 seconds, or abnormally elevated activated partial thromboplastin time)
• Current use of a factor Xa inhibitor or direct thrombin inhibitor.

Relative contraindications:

• Minor or rapidly resolving symptoms
• Major surgery or trauma within the past 14 days
• Gastrointestinal or urinary tract bleeding within the past 21 days
• Myocardial infarction in the past 3 months
• Unruptured intracranial aneurysm
• Seizure occurring at stroke onset
• Pregnancy.

If these criteria are satisfied, tPA should be given at a dose of 0.9 mg/kg intravenously over 60 minutes. Ten percent  of the dose should be given as an initial bolus, followed by a constant infusion of the remaining 90% over 1 hour.

If tPA is given, the blood pressure must be kept lower than 185/110 mm Hg to minimize the risk of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage.

A subset of patients may benefit from receiving intravenous tPA between 3 and 4.5 hours after the onset of stroke symptoms. These include patients who are no more than 80 years old, who have not recently used oral anticoagulants, who do not have severe neurologic injury (ie, do not have NIH Stroke Scale scores > 25), and who do not have diabetes mellitus or a history of ischemic stroke.¹¹ Although many hospitals have such a protocol for tPA up to 4.5 hours after the onset of stroke symptoms, this time window is not currently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration.

Intra-arterial therapy. Based on recent trials, some patients may benefit further from intra-arterial thrombolysis or mechanical thrombectomy, both delivered during catheter-based cerebral angiography, independent of intravenous tPA administration.^12,13 These patients should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis by a neurologist and neurointerventional team. Time windows for these treatments generally extend to 6 hours from stroke onset and perhaps even longer in some situations (eg, basilar artery occlusion).

An antiplatelet agent should be started quickly in all stroke patients who do not receive tPA. Patients who receive tPA can begin receiving an antiplatelet agent 24 hours afterward.

Unfractionated heparin. There is no evidence to support the use of unfractionated heparin in most cases of acute ischemic stroke.¹⁰

Glucose control (in the range of 140–180 mg/dL) and fever control remain essential elements of post-acute stroke care to provide additional protection to the damaged brain.

For ischemic stroke due to atrial fibrillation

In ischemic stroke due to atrial fibrillation, early anticoagulation should be considered, based on the CHA₂DS₂-VASC risk of ischemic stroke vs the HAS-BLED risk of hemorrhage (calculators available at www.mdcalc.com).

In general, anticoagulation may be withheld during the first 72 hours while further stroke workup and evaluation of extent of injury are carried out, as there is an increased risk of hemorrhagic transformation of the ischemic stroke. Often, anticoagulation is resumed at a full dose between 72 hours and 2 weeks of the ischemic stroke.

ACUTE HEMORRHAGIC STROKE: BLOOD PRESSURE, COAGULATION

Approximately 15% of strokes are caused by intracerebral hemorrhage, which can be detected with noncontrast head CT with a sensitivity of 98.6% within 6 hours of the onset of bleeding.¹⁴ A common underlying cause of intracerebral hemorrhage is chronic poorly controlled hypertension, causing rupture of damaged (or “lipohyalinized”) vessels with resultant blood extravasation into the brain parenchyma. Other causes are less common (Table 2).

Treatment of acute hemorrhagic stroke

Acute treatment of intracerebral hemorrhage includes blood pressure control, reversal of underlying coagulopathy or anticoagulation, and sometimes intracranial pressure control. There is little role for surgery in most cases, based on findings of randomized trials.¹⁵

Blood pressure control. Many studies have investigated optimal blood pressure goals in acute intracerebral hemorrhage. Recent data suggest that early aggressive therapy, targeting a systolic blood pressure goal less than 140 mm Hg within the first hour, is safe and can lead to better functional outcomes than a more conservative blood-pressure-lowering target.¹⁶ Rapid-onset, short-acting antihypertensive agents in intravenous form, such as nicardipine and labetalol, are frequently used. Of note, this treatment strategy for hemorrhagic stroke is in direct contrast to the treatment of ischemic stroke, in which permissive hypertension (blood pressure goal < 220/110 mm Hg) is often pursued.

Reversal of any coagulation abnormalities should be done quickly in intracranial hemorrhage. Warfarin use has been shown to be a strong independent predictor of intracranial hemorrhage expansion, which increases the risk of death.^17,18

Increasingly, agents other than vitamin K or fresh-frozen plasma are being used to rapidly reverse anticoagulation, including prothrombin complex concentrate (available in three- and four-factor preparations) and recombinant factor VIIa. While four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate and recombinant factor VIIa have been shown to be more efficacious than fresh-frozen plasma, there are limited data directly comparing these newer reversal agents against each other.¹⁹ The use of these medications is limited by availability and practitioner familiarity.^20–22

Reversing anticoagulation due to target-specific oral anticoagulants. The acute management of intracranial hemorrhage in patients taking the new target-specific oral anticoagulants (eg, dabigatran, apixaban, rivaroxaban, edoxaban) remains challenging. Laboratory tests such as factor Xa levels are not readily available in many institutions and do not provide results in a timely fashion, and in the interim, acute hemorrhage and clinical deterioration may occur. Management strategies involve giving fresh-frozen plasma, prothrombin complex concentrate, and consideration of hemodialysis.²³ Dabigatran reversal with idarucizumab has recently been shown to have efficacy.²⁴

Vigilance for elevated intracranial pressure. Intracranial hemorrhage can occasionally cause elevated intracranial pressure, which should be treated rapidly. Any acute decline in mental status in a patient with intracranial hemorrhage requires emergency imaging to evaluate for expansion of hemorrhage.

SUBARACHNOID HEMORRHAGE

The sudden onset of a “thunderclap” headache (often described by patients as “the worst headache of my life”) suggests subarachnoid hemorrhage.

In contrast to intracranial hemorrhage, in subarachnoid hemorrhage blood collects mainly in the cerebral spinal fluid-containing spaces surrounding the brain, leading to a higher incidence of hydrocephalus from impaired drainage of cerebrospinal fluid. Nontraumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage is most often caused by rupture of an intracranial aneurysm, which can be a devastating event, with death rates approaching 50%.²⁵

Diagnosis of subarachnoid hemorrhage

Noncontrast CT of the head is the main modality for diagnosing subarachnoid hemorrhage. Blood within the subarachnoid space is demonstrable in 92% of cases if CT is performed within the first 24 hours of hemorrhage, with an initial sensitivity of about 95% within the first 6 hours of onset.^14,26,27 The longer CT is delayed, the lower the sensitivity.

Some studies suggest that a protocol of CT followed by CT angiography can safely exclude aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage and obviate the need for lumbar puncture. However, further research is required to validate this approach.²⁸

Lumbar puncture. If clinical suspicion of subarachnoid hemorrhage remains strong even though initial CT is negative, lumbar puncture must be performed for cerebrospinal fluid analysis.²⁹ Xanthochromia (a yellowish pigmentation of the cerebrospinal fluid due to the degeneration of blood products that occurs within 8 to 12 hours of bleeding) should raise the alarm for subarachnoid hemorrhage; this sign may be present up to 4 weeks after the bleeding event.³⁰

If lumbar puncture is contraindicated, then aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage has not been ruled out, and further neurologic consultation should be pursued.

Management of subarachnoid hemorrhage

Early management of blood pressure for a ruptured intracranial aneurysm follows strategies similar to those for intracranial hemorrhage. Further investigation is rapidly directed toward an underlying vascular malformation, with intracranial vessel imaging such as CT angiography, magnetic resonance angiography, or the gold standard test—catheter-based cerebral angiography.

Aneurysms are treated (or “secured”) either by surgical clipping or by endovascular coiling. Endovascular coiling is preferable in cases in which both can be safely attempted.³¹ If the facility lacks the resources to do these procedures, the patient should be referred to a nearby tertiary care center.

INTRACRANIAL HYPERTENSION: DANGER OF BRAIN HERNIATION

A number of conditions can cause an acute intracranial pressure elevation. The danger of brain herniation requires that therapies be implemented rapidly to prevent catastrophic neurologic injury. In many situations, nonneurologists are the first responders and therefore should be familiar with basic intracranial pressure management.

Initial symptoms of acute rise in intracranial pressure

As intracranial pressure rises, pressure is typically equally distributed throughout the cranial vault, leading to dysfunction of the ascending reticular activating system, which clinically manifests as the inability to stay alert despite varying degrees of noxious stimulation. Progressive cranial neuropathies (often starting with pupillary abnormalities) and coma are often seen in this setting as the upper brainstem begins to be compressed.

Initial assessment and treatment of elevated intracranial pressure

Noncontrast CT of the head is often obtained immediately when acutely elevated intracranial pressure is suspected. If clinical examination and radiographic findings are consistent with intracranial hypertension, prompt measures can be started at the bedside.

Elevate the head of the bed to 30 degrees to promote venous drainage and reduce intracranial pressure. (In contrast, most other hemodynamically unstable patients are placed flat or in the Trendelenburg position.)

Intubation should be done quickly in cases of airway compromise, and hyperventilation should be started with a goal Paco₂ of 30 to 35 mm Hg. This hypocarbic strategy promotes cerebral vasoconstriction and a transient decrease in intracranial pressure.

Hyperosmolar therapy allows for transient intracranial volume decompression and is the mainstay of emergency medical treatment of intracranial hypertension. Mannitol is a hyper­osmolar polysaccharide that promotes osmotic diuresis and removes excessive cerebral water. In the acute setting, it can be given as an intravenous bolus of 1 to 2 g/kg through a peripheral intravenous line, followed by a bolus every 4 to 6 hours. Hypotension can occur after diuresis, and renal function should be closely monitored since frequent mannitol use can promote acute tubular necrosis. In patients who are anuric, the medication is typically not used.

Hypertonic saline (typically 3% sodium chloride, though different concentrations are available) is an alternative that helps draw interstitial fluid into the intravascular space, decreasing cerebral edema and maintaining hemodynamic stability. Relative contraindications include congestive heart failure or renal failure leading to pulmonary edema from volume overload. Hypertonic saline can be given as a bolus or a constant infusion. Some institutions have rapid access to 23.4% saline, which can be given as a 30-mL bolus but typically requires a central venous catheter for rapid infusion.

Comatose patients with radiographic findings of hydrocephalus, epidural or subdural hematoma, or mass effect with midline shift warrant prompt neurosurgical consultation for further surgical measures of intracranial pressure control and monitoring.

The ‘blown’ pupil

The physician should be concerned about elevated intracranial pressure if a patient has mydriasis, ie, an abnormally dilated (“blown”) pupil, which is a worrisome sign in the setting of true intracranial hypertension. However, many different processes can cause mydriasis and should be kept in mind when evaluating this finding (Table 3).³² If radiographic findings do not suggest elevated intracranial pressure, further workup into these other processes should be pursued.

STATUS EPILEPTICUS: SEIZURE CONTROL IS IMPORTANT

A continuous unremitting seizure lasting longer than 5 minutes or recurrent seizure activity in a patient who does not regain consciousness between seizures should be treated as status epilepticus. All seizure types carry the risk of progressing to status epilepticus, and responsiveness to antiepileptic drug therapy is inversely related to the duration of seizures. It is imperative that seizure activity be treated early and aggressively to prevent recalcitrant seizure activity, neuronal damage, and progression to status epilepticus.³³

Once the ABCs of emergency stabilization have been performed (ie, airway, breathing, circulation), antiepileptic drug therapy should start immediately using established algorithms (Figure 1).^34–36 During the course of treatment, the reliability of the neurologic examination may be limited due to medication effects or continued status epilepticus, making continuous video electroencephalographic monitoring often necessary to guide further therapy in patients who are not rapidly recovering.^34–38

Once status epilepticus has resolved, further investigation into the underlying cause should be pursued quickly, especially in patients without a previous diagnosis of epilepsy. Head CT with contrast or magnetic resonance imaging can be used to look for any structural abnormality that may explain seizures. Basic laboratory tests including toxicology screening can identify a common trigger such as hypoglycemia or stimulant use. Fever or other possible signs of meningitis should be investigated further with cerebrospinal fluid analysis.

SPINAL CORD INJURY

Acute spinal cord injury can lead to substantial long-term neurologic impairment and should be suspected in any patient presenting with focal motor loss, sensory loss, or both with sparing of the cranial nerves and mental status. Causes of injury include compression (traumatic or nontraumatic) and inflammatory and noninflammatory myelopathies.

The location of the injury can be inferred by analyzing the symptoms, which can point to the cord level and indicate whether the anterior or posterior of the cord is involved. Anterior cord injury tends to affect the descending corticospinal and pyramidal tracts, resulting in motor deficits and weakness. Posterior cord injury involves the dorsal columns, leading to deficits of vibration sensation and proprioception. High cervical cord injuries tend to involve varying degrees of quadriparesis, sensory loss, and sometimes respiratory compromise. A clinical history of bilateral lower-extremity weakness, a “band-like” sensory complaint around the lower chest or abdomen, or both, can suggest thoracic cord involvement. Symptoms isolated to one or both lower extremities along with lower back pain and bowel or bladder involvement may point to injury of the lumbosacral cord.

Basic management of spinal cord injury includes decompression of the bladder and initial protection against further injury with a stabilizing collar or brace.

Magnetic resonance imaging with and without contrast is the ideal study to evaluate injuries to the spinal cord itself. While CT is helpful in identifying bony disease of the spinal column (eg, evaluating traumatic fractures), it is not helpful in viewing intrinsic cord pathology.

Traumatic myelopathy

Traumatic spinal cord injury is usually suggested by the clinical history and confirmed with CT. In this setting, early consultation with a neurosurgeon is required to prevent permanent cord injury.

Guidelines suggest maintaining a mean arterial pressure greater than 85 to 90 mm Hg for the first 7 days after traumatic spinal cord injury, a particular problem in the setting of hemodynamic instability, which can accompany lesions above the midthoracic level.^39,40

Patients with vertebral body misalignment should be placed in an appropriate stabilizing collar or brace until a medically trained professional deems it appropriate to discontinue the device, or until surgical stabilization is performed.

Methylprednisone is a controversial intervention for acute spinal cord trauma, lacking clear benefit in meta-analyses.⁴¹

Nontraumatic compressive myelopathy

Patients with nontraumatic compressive myelopathy tend to present with varying degrees of back pain and worsening sensorimotor function. The differential diagnosis includes epidural abscesses, hematoma, metastatic neoplasm, and osteophyte compression (Table 4). The clinical history helps to guide therapy and should involve assessment for previous spinal column injury, immunocompromised state, travel history (which provides information on risks of exposure to a variety of diseases, including infections), and constitutional symptoms such as fever and weight loss.

Epidural abscess can have devastating results if missed. Red flags such as recent illness, intravenous drug use, focal back pain, fever, worsening numbness or weakness, and bowel or bladder incontinence should raise suspicion of this disorder. Emergency magnetic resonance imaging is required to diagnose this condition, and treatment involves urgent administration of antibiotics and consideration of surgical drainage.

Noncompressive myelopathies

There are numerous causes of noncompressive spinal cord injury (Table 4), and the etiology may be inflammatory (eg, “myelitis”) or noninflammatory. The diagnostic workup may require both magnetic resonance imaging and cerebrospinal fluid analysis. Acute disease-targeted therapy is rarely indicated and can be deferred until a full diagnostic workup has been completed.

NEUROMUSCULAR DISEASE: IS VENTILATION NEEDED?

Diseases involving the motor components of the peripheral nervous system (Table 5) share the common risk of causing ventilatory failure due to weakness of the diaphragm, intercostal muscles, and upper-airway muscles. Clinicians need to be aware of this risk and view these disorders as neurologic emergencies.

Determining when these patients require mechanical intubation is a challenge. Serial measurements of maximum inspiratory force and vital capacity are important and can be accomplished quickly at the bedside by a respiratory therapist. A maximum inspiratory force less than –30 cm H₂O or a vital capacity less than 20 mL/kg, or both, are worrisome markers that raise concern for impending ventilatory failure. Serial measurements can detect changes in these values that might indicate the need for elective intubation. In any patient presenting with weakness of the limbs, these measurements are an important step in the initial evaluation.

Myasthenic crisis

Myasthenia gravis is caused by autoantibodies directed against postsynaptic acetylcholine receptors. Patients demonstrate muscle weakness, usually in a proximal pattern, with fatigue, respiratory distress, nasal speech, ophthalmoparesis, and dysphagia. Exacerbations can occur as a response to recent infection, surgery, or medications such as neuromuscular blocking agents or aminoglycosides.

Myasthenic crisis, while uncommon, is a life-threatening emergency characterized by bulbar or respiratory failure secondary to muscle weakness. It can occur in patients already diagnosed with myasthenia gravis or may be the initial manifestation of the disease.^42–49 Intubation and mechanical ventilation are frequently required. Postoperative myasthenic patients in whom extubation has been delayed more than 24 hours should be considered in crisis.⁴⁵

The diagnosis of myasthenia gravis can be made by serum autoantibody testing, electromyography, and nerve conduction studies (with repetitive stimulation) or administration of edrophonium in patients with obvious ptosis.

The mainstay of therapy for myasthenic crisis is either intravenous immunoglobulin at a dose of 2 g/kg over 2 to 5 days or plasmapheresis (5–7 exchanges over 7–14 days). Corticosteroids are not recommended in myasthenic crisis in patients who are not intubated, as they can potentiate an initial worsening of crisis. Once the patient begins to show clinical improvement, outpatient pyridostigmine and immunosuppressive medications can be resumed at a low dose and titrated as tolerated.

Acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (Guillain-Barré syndrome)

Acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy is an autoimmune disorder involving autoantibodies against axons or myelin in the peripheral nervous system.

This disease should be suspected in a patient who is developing worsening muscle weakness (usually with areflexia) over the course of days to weeks. Occasionally, a recent diarrheal or other systemic infectious trigger can be identified. Blood pressure instability and cardiac arrhythmia can also be seen due to autonomic nerve involvement. Although classically described as an “ascending paralysis,” other variants of this disease have distinct clinical presentations (eg, the descending paralysis, ataxia, areflexia, ophthalmoparesis of the Miller Fisher syndrome).

Acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy is diagnosed by electromyography and nerve conduction studies. A cerebrospinal fluid profile demonstrating elevated protein and few white blood cells is typical.

Treatment, as in myasthenic crisis, involves intravenous immunoglobulin or plasmapheresis. Corticosteroids are ineffective. Anticipation of ventilatory failure and expectant intubation is essential, given the progressive nature of the disorder.⁵⁰

Neurologic emergencies such as acute stroke, status epilepticus, subarachnoid hemorrhage, neuromuscular weakness, and spinal cord injury affect millions of Americans yearly.^1,2 These conditions can be difficult to diagnose, and delays in recognition and treatment can have devastating results. Consequently, it is important for nonneurologists to be able to quickly recognize these conditions and initiate timely management, often while awaiting neurologic consultation.

Here, we review how to recognize and treat these common, serious conditions.

ACUTE ISCHEMIC STROKE: TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE

Stroke is the fourth leading cause of death in the United States and is one of the most common causes of disability worldwide.^3–5 About 85% of strokes are ischemic, resulting from diminished vascular supply to the brain. Symptoms such as facial droop, unilateral weakness or numbness, aphasia, gaze deviation, and unsteadiness of gait may be seen. Time is of the essence, as all currently available interventions are safe and effective only within defined time windows.

Diagnosis and assessment

When acute ischemic stroke is suspected, the clinical history, time of onset, and basic neurologic examination should be obtained quickly.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) stroke scale is an objective marker for assessing stroke severity as well as evolution of disease and should be obtained in all stroke patients. Scores range from 0 (best) to 42 (worst) (www.ninds.nih.gov/doctors/NIH_Stroke_Scale.pdf).

Time of onset of symptoms is essential to determine, since it guides eligibility for acute therapies. Clinicians should ascertain the last time the patient was seen to be neurologically well in order to estimate this time window as closely as possible.

Laboratory tests should include a fingerstick blood glucose measurement, coagulation studies, complete blood cell count, and basic metabolic profile.

Computed tomography (CT) of the head without contrast should be obtained immediately to exclude acute hemorrhage and any alternative diagnoses that could explain the patient’s symptoms. Acute brain ischemia is often not apparent on CT during the first few hours of injury. Therefore, a patient presenting with new focal neurologic deficits and an unremarkable result on CT of the head should be treated as having had an acute ischemic stroke, and interventional therapies should be considered.

Stroke mimics should be considered and treated, as appropriate (Table 1).

Acute management of ischemic stroke

Acute treatment should not be delayed by obtaining chest radiography, inserting a Foley catheter, or obtaining an electrocardiogram. The longer the time that elapses before treatment, the worse the functional outcome, underscoring the need for rapid decision-making.^6–8

Lowering the head of the bed may provide benefit by promoting blood flow to ischemic brain tissue.⁹ However, this should not be done in patients with significantly elevated intracerebral pressure and concern for herniation.

Permissive hypertension (antihypertensive treatment only for blood pressure greater than 220/110 mm Hg) should be allowed per national guidelines to provide adequate perfusion to brain areas at risk of injury.¹⁰

Tissue plasminogen activator. Patients with ischemic stroke who present within 3 hours of symptom onset should be considered for intravenous administration of tissue plasminogen activator (tPA), a safe and effective therapy with nearly 2 decades of evidence to support its use.¹⁰ The treating physician should carefully review the risks and benefits of this therapy.

To receive tPA, the patient must have all of the following:

• Clinical diagnosis of ischemic stroke with measurable neurologic deficit
• Onset of symptoms within the past 3 hours
• Age 18 or older.

The patient must not have any of the following:

• Significant stroke within the past 3 months
• Severe traumatic head injury within the past 3 months
• History of significant intracerebral hemorrhage
• Previously ruptured arteriovenous malformation or intracranial aneurysm
• Central nervous system neoplasm
• Arterial puncture at a noncompressible site within the past 7 days
• Evidence of hemorrhage on CT of the head
• Evidence of ischemia in greater than 33% of the cerebral hemisphere on head CT
• History and symptoms strongly suggesting subarachnoid hemorrhage
• Persistent hypertension (systolic pressure ≥ 185 mm Hg or diastolic pressure ≥ 110 mm Hg)
• Evidence of acute significant bleeding (external or internal)
• Hypoglycemia—ie, serum glucose less than 50 mg/dL (< 2.8 mmol/L)
• Thrombocytopenia (platelet count < 100 × 10⁹/L)
• Significant coagulopathy (international normalized ratio > 1.7, prothrombin time > 15 seconds, or abnormally elevated activated partial thromboplastin time)
• Current use of a factor Xa inhibitor or direct thrombin inhibitor.

Relative contraindications:

• Minor or rapidly resolving symptoms
• Major surgery or trauma within the past 14 days
• Gastrointestinal or urinary tract bleeding within the past 21 days
• Myocardial infarction in the past 3 months
• Unruptured intracranial aneurysm
• Seizure occurring at stroke onset
• Pregnancy.

If these criteria are satisfied, tPA should be given at a dose of 0.9 mg/kg intravenously over 60 minutes. Ten percent  of the dose should be given as an initial bolus, followed by a constant infusion of the remaining 90% over 1 hour.

If tPA is given, the blood pressure must be kept lower than 185/110 mm Hg to minimize the risk of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage.

A subset of patients may benefit from receiving intravenous tPA between 3 and 4.5 hours after the onset of stroke symptoms. These include patients who are no more than 80 years old, who have not recently used oral anticoagulants, who do not have severe neurologic injury (ie, do not have NIH Stroke Scale scores > 25), and who do not have diabetes mellitus or a history of ischemic stroke.¹¹ Although many hospitals have such a protocol for tPA up to 4.5 hours after the onset of stroke symptoms, this time window is not currently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration.

Intra-arterial therapy. Based on recent trials, some patients may benefit further from intra-arterial thrombolysis or mechanical thrombectomy, both delivered during catheter-based cerebral angiography, independent of intravenous tPA administration.^12,13 These patients should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis by a neurologist and neurointerventional team. Time windows for these treatments generally extend to 6 hours from stroke onset and perhaps even longer in some situations (eg, basilar artery occlusion).

An antiplatelet agent should be started quickly in all stroke patients who do not receive tPA. Patients who receive tPA can begin receiving an antiplatelet agent 24 hours afterward.

Unfractionated heparin. There is no evidence to support the use of unfractionated heparin in most cases of acute ischemic stroke.¹⁰

Glucose control (in the range of 140–180 mg/dL) and fever control remain essential elements of post-acute stroke care to provide additional protection to the damaged brain.

For ischemic stroke due to atrial fibrillation

In ischemic stroke due to atrial fibrillation, early anticoagulation should be considered, based on the CHA₂DS₂-VASC risk of ischemic stroke vs the HAS-BLED risk of hemorrhage (calculators available at www.mdcalc.com).

In general, anticoagulation may be withheld during the first 72 hours while further stroke workup and evaluation of extent of injury are carried out, as there is an increased risk of hemorrhagic transformation of the ischemic stroke. Often, anticoagulation is resumed at a full dose between 72 hours and 2 weeks of the ischemic stroke.

ACUTE HEMORRHAGIC STROKE: BLOOD PRESSURE, COAGULATION

Approximately 15% of strokes are caused by intracerebral hemorrhage, which can be detected with noncontrast head CT with a sensitivity of 98.6% within 6 hours of the onset of bleeding.¹⁴ A common underlying cause of intracerebral hemorrhage is chronic poorly controlled hypertension, causing rupture of damaged (or “lipohyalinized”) vessels with resultant blood extravasation into the brain parenchyma. Other causes are less common (Table 2).

Treatment of acute hemorrhagic stroke

Acute treatment of intracerebral hemorrhage includes blood pressure control, reversal of underlying coagulopathy or anticoagulation, and sometimes intracranial pressure control. There is little role for surgery in most cases, based on findings of randomized trials.¹⁵

Blood pressure control. Many studies have investigated optimal blood pressure goals in acute intracerebral hemorrhage. Recent data suggest that early aggressive therapy, targeting a systolic blood pressure goal less than 140 mm Hg within the first hour, is safe and can lead to better functional outcomes than a more conservative blood-pressure-lowering target.¹⁶ Rapid-onset, short-acting antihypertensive agents in intravenous form, such as nicardipine and labetalol, are frequently used. Of note, this treatment strategy for hemorrhagic stroke is in direct contrast to the treatment of ischemic stroke, in which permissive hypertension (blood pressure goal < 220/110 mm Hg) is often pursued.

Reversal of any coagulation abnormalities should be done quickly in intracranial hemorrhage. Warfarin use has been shown to be a strong independent predictor of intracranial hemorrhage expansion, which increases the risk of death.^17,18

Increasingly, agents other than vitamin K or fresh-frozen plasma are being used to rapidly reverse anticoagulation, including prothrombin complex concentrate (available in three- and four-factor preparations) and recombinant factor VIIa. While four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate and recombinant factor VIIa have been shown to be more efficacious than fresh-frozen plasma, there are limited data directly comparing these newer reversal agents against each other.¹⁹ The use of these medications is limited by availability and practitioner familiarity.^20–22

Reversing anticoagulation due to target-specific oral anticoagulants. The acute management of intracranial hemorrhage in patients taking the new target-specific oral anticoagulants (eg, dabigatran, apixaban, rivaroxaban, edoxaban) remains challenging. Laboratory tests such as factor Xa levels are not readily available in many institutions and do not provide results in a timely fashion, and in the interim, acute hemorrhage and clinical deterioration may occur. Management strategies involve giving fresh-frozen plasma, prothrombin complex concentrate, and consideration of hemodialysis.²³ Dabigatran reversal with idarucizumab has recently been shown to have efficacy.²⁴

Vigilance for elevated intracranial pressure. Intracranial hemorrhage can occasionally cause elevated intracranial pressure, which should be treated rapidly. Any acute decline in mental status in a patient with intracranial hemorrhage requires emergency imaging to evaluate for expansion of hemorrhage.

SUBARACHNOID HEMORRHAGE

The sudden onset of a “thunderclap” headache (often described by patients as “the worst headache of my life”) suggests subarachnoid hemorrhage.

In contrast to intracranial hemorrhage, in subarachnoid hemorrhage blood collects mainly in the cerebral spinal fluid-containing spaces surrounding the brain, leading to a higher incidence of hydrocephalus from impaired drainage of cerebrospinal fluid. Nontraumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage is most often caused by rupture of an intracranial aneurysm, which can be a devastating event, with death rates approaching 50%.²⁵

Diagnosis of subarachnoid hemorrhage

Noncontrast CT of the head is the main modality for diagnosing subarachnoid hemorrhage. Blood within the subarachnoid space is demonstrable in 92% of cases if CT is performed within the first 24 hours of hemorrhage, with an initial sensitivity of about 95% within the first 6 hours of onset.^14,26,27 The longer CT is delayed, the lower the sensitivity.

Some studies suggest that a protocol of CT followed by CT angiography can safely exclude aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage and obviate the need for lumbar puncture. However, further research is required to validate this approach.²⁸

Lumbar puncture. If clinical suspicion of subarachnoid hemorrhage remains strong even though initial CT is negative, lumbar puncture must be performed for cerebrospinal fluid analysis.²⁹ Xanthochromia (a yellowish pigmentation of the cerebrospinal fluid due to the degeneration of blood products that occurs within 8 to 12 hours of bleeding) should raise the alarm for subarachnoid hemorrhage; this sign may be present up to 4 weeks after the bleeding event.³⁰

If lumbar puncture is contraindicated, then aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage has not been ruled out, and further neurologic consultation should be pursued.

Management of subarachnoid hemorrhage

Early management of blood pressure for a ruptured intracranial aneurysm follows strategies similar to those for intracranial hemorrhage. Further investigation is rapidly directed toward an underlying vascular malformation, with intracranial vessel imaging such as CT angiography, magnetic resonance angiography, or the gold standard test—catheter-based cerebral angiography.

Aneurysms are treated (or “secured”) either by surgical clipping or by endovascular coiling. Endovascular coiling is preferable in cases in which both can be safely attempted.³¹ If the facility lacks the resources to do these procedures, the patient should be referred to a nearby tertiary care center.

INTRACRANIAL HYPERTENSION: DANGER OF BRAIN HERNIATION

A number of conditions can cause an acute intracranial pressure elevation. The danger of brain herniation requires that therapies be implemented rapidly to prevent catastrophic neurologic injury. In many situations, nonneurologists are the first responders and therefore should be familiar with basic intracranial pressure management.

Initial symptoms of acute rise in intracranial pressure

As intracranial pressure rises, pressure is typically equally distributed throughout the cranial vault, leading to dysfunction of the ascending reticular activating system, which clinically manifests as the inability to stay alert despite varying degrees of noxious stimulation. Progressive cranial neuropathies (often starting with pupillary abnormalities) and coma are often seen in this setting as the upper brainstem begins to be compressed.

Initial assessment and treatment of elevated intracranial pressure

Noncontrast CT of the head is often obtained immediately when acutely elevated intracranial pressure is suspected. If clinical examination and radiographic findings are consistent with intracranial hypertension, prompt measures can be started at the bedside.

Elevate the head of the bed to 30 degrees to promote venous drainage and reduce intracranial pressure. (In contrast, most other hemodynamically unstable patients are placed flat or in the Trendelenburg position.)

Intubation should be done quickly in cases of airway compromise, and hyperventilation should be started with a goal Paco₂ of 30 to 35 mm Hg. This hypocarbic strategy promotes cerebral vasoconstriction and a transient decrease in intracranial pressure.

Hyperosmolar therapy allows for transient intracranial volume decompression and is the mainstay of emergency medical treatment of intracranial hypertension. Mannitol is a hyper­osmolar polysaccharide that promotes osmotic diuresis and removes excessive cerebral water. In the acute setting, it can be given as an intravenous bolus of 1 to 2 g/kg through a peripheral intravenous line, followed by a bolus every 4 to 6 hours. Hypotension can occur after diuresis, and renal function should be closely monitored since frequent mannitol use can promote acute tubular necrosis. In patients who are anuric, the medication is typically not used.

Hypertonic saline (typically 3% sodium chloride, though different concentrations are available) is an alternative that helps draw interstitial fluid into the intravascular space, decreasing cerebral edema and maintaining hemodynamic stability. Relative contraindications include congestive heart failure or renal failure leading to pulmonary edema from volume overload. Hypertonic saline can be given as a bolus or a constant infusion. Some institutions have rapid access to 23.4% saline, which can be given as a 30-mL bolus but typically requires a central venous catheter for rapid infusion.

Comatose patients with radiographic findings of hydrocephalus, epidural or subdural hematoma, or mass effect with midline shift warrant prompt neurosurgical consultation for further surgical measures of intracranial pressure control and monitoring.

The ‘blown’ pupil

The physician should be concerned about elevated intracranial pressure if a patient has mydriasis, ie, an abnormally dilated (“blown”) pupil, which is a worrisome sign in the setting of true intracranial hypertension. However, many different processes can cause mydriasis and should be kept in mind when evaluating this finding (Table 3).³² If radiographic findings do not suggest elevated intracranial pressure, further workup into these other processes should be pursued.

STATUS EPILEPTICUS: SEIZURE CONTROL IS IMPORTANT

A continuous unremitting seizure lasting longer than 5 minutes or recurrent seizure activity in a patient who does not regain consciousness between seizures should be treated as status epilepticus. All seizure types carry the risk of progressing to status epilepticus, and responsiveness to antiepileptic drug therapy is inversely related to the duration of seizures. It is imperative that seizure activity be treated early and aggressively to prevent recalcitrant seizure activity, neuronal damage, and progression to status epilepticus.³³

Once the ABCs of emergency stabilization have been performed (ie, airway, breathing, circulation), antiepileptic drug therapy should start immediately using established algorithms (Figure 1).^34–36 During the course of treatment, the reliability of the neurologic examination may be limited due to medication effects or continued status epilepticus, making continuous video electroencephalographic monitoring often necessary to guide further therapy in patients who are not rapidly recovering.^34–38

Once status epilepticus has resolved, further investigation into the underlying cause should be pursued quickly, especially in patients without a previous diagnosis of epilepsy. Head CT with contrast or magnetic resonance imaging can be used to look for any structural abnormality that may explain seizures. Basic laboratory tests including toxicology screening can identify a common trigger such as hypoglycemia or stimulant use. Fever or other possible signs of meningitis should be investigated further with cerebrospinal fluid analysis.

SPINAL CORD INJURY

Acute spinal cord injury can lead to substantial long-term neurologic impairment and should be suspected in any patient presenting with focal motor loss, sensory loss, or both with sparing of the cranial nerves and mental status. Causes of injury include compression (traumatic or nontraumatic) and inflammatory and noninflammatory myelopathies.

The location of the injury can be inferred by analyzing the symptoms, which can point to the cord level and indicate whether the anterior or posterior of the cord is involved. Anterior cord injury tends to affect the descending corticospinal and pyramidal tracts, resulting in motor deficits and weakness. Posterior cord injury involves the dorsal columns, leading to deficits of vibration sensation and proprioception. High cervical cord injuries tend to involve varying degrees of quadriparesis, sensory loss, and sometimes respiratory compromise. A clinical history of bilateral lower-extremity weakness, a “band-like” sensory complaint around the lower chest or abdomen, or both, can suggest thoracic cord involvement. Symptoms isolated to one or both lower extremities along with lower back pain and bowel or bladder involvement may point to injury of the lumbosacral cord.

Basic management of spinal cord injury includes decompression of the bladder and initial protection against further injury with a stabilizing collar or brace.

Magnetic resonance imaging with and without contrast is the ideal study to evaluate injuries to the spinal cord itself. While CT is helpful in identifying bony disease of the spinal column (eg, evaluating traumatic fractures), it is not helpful in viewing intrinsic cord pathology.

Traumatic myelopathy

Traumatic spinal cord injury is usually suggested by the clinical history and confirmed with CT. In this setting, early consultation with a neurosurgeon is required to prevent permanent cord injury.

Guidelines suggest maintaining a mean arterial pressure greater than 85 to 90 mm Hg for the first 7 days after traumatic spinal cord injury, a particular problem in the setting of hemodynamic instability, which can accompany lesions above the midthoracic level.^39,40

Patients with vertebral body misalignment should be placed in an appropriate stabilizing collar or brace until a medically trained professional deems it appropriate to discontinue the device, or until surgical stabilization is performed.

Methylprednisone is a controversial intervention for acute spinal cord trauma, lacking clear benefit in meta-analyses.⁴¹

Nontraumatic compressive myelopathy

Patients with nontraumatic compressive myelopathy tend to present with varying degrees of back pain and worsening sensorimotor function. The differential diagnosis includes epidural abscesses, hematoma, metastatic neoplasm, and osteophyte compression (Table 4). The clinical history helps to guide therapy and should involve assessment for previous spinal column injury, immunocompromised state, travel history (which provides information on risks of exposure to a variety of diseases, including infections), and constitutional symptoms such as fever and weight loss.

Epidural abscess can have devastating results if missed. Red flags such as recent illness, intravenous drug use, focal back pain, fever, worsening numbness or weakness, and bowel or bladder incontinence should raise suspicion of this disorder. Emergency magnetic resonance imaging is required to diagnose this condition, and treatment involves urgent administration of antibiotics and consideration of surgical drainage.

Noncompressive myelopathies

There are numerous causes of noncompressive spinal cord injury (Table 4), and the etiology may be inflammatory (eg, “myelitis”) or noninflammatory. The diagnostic workup may require both magnetic resonance imaging and cerebrospinal fluid analysis. Acute disease-targeted therapy is rarely indicated and can be deferred until a full diagnostic workup has been completed.

NEUROMUSCULAR DISEASE: IS VENTILATION NEEDED?

Diseases involving the motor components of the peripheral nervous system (Table 5) share the common risk of causing ventilatory failure due to weakness of the diaphragm, intercostal muscles, and upper-airway muscles. Clinicians need to be aware of this risk and view these disorders as neurologic emergencies.

Determining when these patients require mechanical intubation is a challenge. Serial measurements of maximum inspiratory force and vital capacity are important and can be accomplished quickly at the bedside by a respiratory therapist. A maximum inspiratory force less than –30 cm H₂O or a vital capacity less than 20 mL/kg, or both, are worrisome markers that raise concern for impending ventilatory failure. Serial measurements can detect changes in these values that might indicate the need for elective intubation. In any patient presenting with weakness of the limbs, these measurements are an important step in the initial evaluation.

Myasthenic crisis

Myasthenia gravis is caused by autoantibodies directed against postsynaptic acetylcholine receptors. Patients demonstrate muscle weakness, usually in a proximal pattern, with fatigue, respiratory distress, nasal speech, ophthalmoparesis, and dysphagia. Exacerbations can occur as a response to recent infection, surgery, or medications such as neuromuscular blocking agents or aminoglycosides.

Myasthenic crisis, while uncommon, is a life-threatening emergency characterized by bulbar or respiratory failure secondary to muscle weakness. It can occur in patients already diagnosed with myasthenia gravis or may be the initial manifestation of the disease.^42–49 Intubation and mechanical ventilation are frequently required. Postoperative myasthenic patients in whom extubation has been delayed more than 24 hours should be considered in crisis.⁴⁵

The diagnosis of myasthenia gravis can be made by serum autoantibody testing, electromyography, and nerve conduction studies (with repetitive stimulation) or administration of edrophonium in patients with obvious ptosis.

The mainstay of therapy for myasthenic crisis is either intravenous immunoglobulin at a dose of 2 g/kg over 2 to 5 days or plasmapheresis (5–7 exchanges over 7–14 days). Corticosteroids are not recommended in myasthenic crisis in patients who are not intubated, as they can potentiate an initial worsening of crisis. Once the patient begins to show clinical improvement, outpatient pyridostigmine and immunosuppressive medications can be resumed at a low dose and titrated as tolerated.

Acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (Guillain-Barré syndrome)

Acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy is an autoimmune disorder involving autoantibodies against axons or myelin in the peripheral nervous system.

This disease should be suspected in a patient who is developing worsening muscle weakness (usually with areflexia) over the course of days to weeks. Occasionally, a recent diarrheal or other systemic infectious trigger can be identified. Blood pressure instability and cardiac arrhythmia can also be seen due to autonomic nerve involvement. Although classically described as an “ascending paralysis,” other variants of this disease have distinct clinical presentations (eg, the descending paralysis, ataxia, areflexia, ophthalmoparesis of the Miller Fisher syndrome).

Acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy is diagnosed by electromyography and nerve conduction studies. A cerebrospinal fluid profile demonstrating elevated protein and few white blood cells is typical.

Treatment, as in myasthenic crisis, involves intravenous immunoglobulin or plasmapheresis. Corticosteroids are ineffective. Anticipation of ventilatory failure and expectant intubation is essential, given the progressive nature of the disorder.⁵⁰

A 25-year-old woman presents to the emergency department with a 7-day history of fatigue and nausea. On presentation she denies having abdominal pain, headache, fever, chills, night sweats, vomiting, diarrhea, melena, hematochezia, or weight loss. She recalls changes in the colors of her eyes and darkening urine over the last few days. Her medical history before this is unremarkable. She takes no prescription, over-the-counter, or herbal medications. She works as a librarian and has no occupational toxic exposures. She is single and has one sister with no prior medical history. She denies recent travel, sick contacts, smoking, recreational drug use, or pets at home.

On physical examination, her vital signs are temperature 37.3°C (99.1°F), heart rate 90 beats per minute, blood pressure 125/80 mm Hg, respiration rate 14 per minute, and oxygen saturation 97% on room air. She has icteric sclera and her skin is jaundiced. Cardiac examination is normal. Lungs are clear to auscultation and percussion bilaterally. Her abdomen is soft with no visceromegaly, masses, or tenderness. Extremities are normal with no edema. She is alert and oriented, but she has mild asterixis of the outstretched hands. The neurologic examination is otherwise unremarkable.

The patient’s basic laboratory values are listed in Table 1. Shortly after admission, she develops changes in her mental status, remaining alert but becoming agitated and oriented to person only. In view of her symptoms and laboratory findings, acute liver failure is suspected.

ACUTE LIVER FAILURE

1. The diagnostic criteria for acute liver failure include all of the following except which one?

• Acute elevation of liver biochemical tests
• Presence of preexisting liver disease
• Coagulopathy, defined by an international normalized ratio (INR) of 1.5 or greater
• Encephalopathy
• Duration of symptoms less than 26 weeks

Acute liver failure is defined by acute onset of worsening liver tests, coagulopathy (INR ≥ 1.5), and encephalopathy in patients with no preexisting liver disease and with symptom duration of less than 26 weeks.¹ With a few exceptions, a history of preexisting liver disease negates the diagnosis of acute liver failure. Our patient meets the diagnostic criteria for acute liver failure.

Immediate management

Once acute liver failure is identified or suspected, the next step is to transfer the patient to the intensive care unit for close monitoring of mental status. Serial neurologic evaluations permit early detection of cerebral edema, which is considered the most common cause of death in patients with acute liver failure. Additionally, close monitoring of electrolytes and plasma glucose is necessary since these patients are susceptible to electrolyte disturbances and hypoglycemia.

Patients with acute liver failure are at increased risk of infections and should be routinely screened by obtaining urine and blood cultures.

Gastrointestinal bleeding is not uncommon in patients with acute liver failure and is usually due to gastric stress ulceration. Prophylaxis with a histamine 2 receptor antagonist or proton pump inhibitor should be considered in order to prevent gastrointestinal bleeding.

Treatment with N-acetylcysteine is beneficial, not only in patients with acute liver failure due to acetaminophen overdose, but also in those with acute liver failure from other causes.

CASE CONTINUES:
TRANSFER TO THE INTENSIVE CARE UNIT

The patient, now diagnosed with acute liver failure, is transferred to the intensive care unit. Arterial blood gas measurement shows:

• pH 7.38 (reference range 7.35–7.45)
• Pco₂ 40 mm Hg (36–46)
• Po₂ 97 mm Hg (85–95)
• Hco₃ 22 mmol/L (22–26).

A chest radiograph is obtained and is clear. Computed tomography (CT) of the brain reveals no edema. Transcranial Doppler ultrasonography does not show any intracranial fluid collections.

Blood and urine cultures are negative. Her hemoglobin level remains stable, and she does not develop signs of bleeding. She is started on a proton pump inhibitor for stress ulcer prophylaxis and is empirically given intravenous N-acetylcysteine until the cause of acute liver failure can be determined.

CAUSES OF ACUTE LIVER FAILURE

2. Which of the following can cause acute liver failure?

• Acetaminophen overdose
• Viral hepatitis
• Autoimmune hepatitis
• Wilson disease
• Alcoholic hepatitis

Drug-induced liver injury is the most common cause of acute liver failure in the United States,^2,3 and of all drugs, acetaminophen overdose is the number-one cause. In acetaminophen-induced liver injury, serum aminotransferase levels are usually elevated to more than 1,000 U/L, while serum bilirubin remains normal in the early stages. Antimicrobial agents, antiepileptic drugs, and herbal supplements have also been implicated in acute liver failure. Our patient has denied taking herbal supplements or medications, including over-the-counter ones.

Acute viral hepatitis can explain the patient’s condition. It is a common cause of acute liver failure in the United States.² Hepatitis A and E are more common in developing countries. Other viruses such as cytomegalovirus, Epstein-Barr virus, herpes simplex virus type 1 and 2, and varicella zoster virus can also cause acute liver failure. Serum aminotransferase levels may exceed 1,000 U/L in patients with viral hepatitis.

A young woman presents with acute liver failure: What is the cause? Is her sister at risk?

Autoimmune hepatitis is a rare cause of acute liver failure, but it should be considered in the differential diagnosis, particularly in middle-aged women with autoimmune disorders such as hypothyroidism. Autoimmune hepatitis can cause marked elevation in aminotransferase levels (> 1,000 U/L).

Wilson disease is an autosomal-recessive disease in which there is excessive accumulation of copper in the liver and other organs because of an inherited defect in the biliary excretion of copper. Wilson disease can cause acute liver failure and should be excluded in any patient, particularly if under age 40 with acute onset of unexplained hepatic, neurologic, or psychiatric disease.

Alcoholic hepatitis usually occurs in patients with a long-standing history of heavy alcohol use. As a result, most patients with alcoholic hepatitis have manifestations of chronic liver disease due to alcohol use. Therefore, by definition, it is not a cause of acute liver failure. Additionally, in patients with alcoholic hepatitis, the aspartate aminotransferase (AST) level is elevated but less than 300 IU/mL, and the ratio of AST to alanine aminotransferase (ALT) is usually more than 2.

CASE CONTINUES: FURTHER TESTING

The results of our patient’s serologic tests are shown in Table 2. Other test results:

• Autoimmune markers including antinuclear antibodies, antimitochondrial antibodies, antismooth muscle antibodies, and liver and kidney microsomal antibodies are negative; her immunoglobulin G (IgG) level is normal
• Serum ceruloplasmin 25 mg/dL (normal 21–45)
• Free serum copper 120 µg/dL (normal 8–12)
• Abdominal ultrasonography is unremarkable, with normal liver parenchyma and no intrahepatic or extrahepatic biliary dilatation
• Doppler ultrasonography of the liver shows patent blood vessels.

3. Based on the new data, which of the following statements is correct?

• Hepatitis B is the cause of acute liver failure in this patient
• Herpetic hepatitis cannot be excluded on the basis of the available data
• Wilson disease is most likely the diagnosis, given her elevated free serum copper
• A normal serum ceruloplasmin level is not sufficient to rule out acute liver failure secondary to Wilson disease

Hepatitis B surface antigen and hepatitis B core antibodies were negative in our patient, excluding hepatitis B virus infection. The positive hepatitis B surface antibody indicates prior immunization.

Herpetic hepatitis is an uncommon but important cause of acute liver failure because the mortality rate is high if the patient is not treated early with acyclovir. Fever, elevated aminotransferases, and leukopenia are common with herpetic hepatitis. Fewer than 50% of patients with herpetic hepatitis have vesicular rash.^4,5 The value of antibody serologic testing is limited due to high rates of false-positive and false-negative results. The gold standard diagnostic tests are viral load (detection of viral RNA by polymerase chain reaction), viral staining on liver biopsy, or both. In our patient, herpes simplex virus polymerase chain reaction testing was negative, which makes herpetic hepatitis unlikely.

Wilson disease is a genetic condition in which the ability to excrete copper in the bile is impaired, resulting in accumulation of copper in the hepatocytes. Subsequently, copper is released into the bloodstream and eventually into the urine.

However, copper excretion into the bile is impaired in patients with acute liver failure regardless of the etiology. Therefore, elevated free serum copper and 24-hour urine copper levels are not specific for the diagnosis of acute liver failure secondary to Wilson disease. Moreover, Kayser-Fleischer rings, which represent copper deposition in the limbus of the cornea, may not be apparent in the early stages of Wilson disease.

Wilson disease involves accumulation of copper in the liver and other organs as the result of a genetic defect

Since it is challenging to diagnose Wilson disease in the context of acute liver failure, Korman et al⁶ compared patients with acute liver failure secondary to Wilson disease with patients with acute liver failure secondary to other conditions. They found that alkaline phosphatase levels are frequently decreased in patients with acute liver failure secondary to Wilson disease,⁶ and that a ratio of alkaline phosphatase to total bilirubin of less than 4 is 94% sensitive and 96% specific for the diagnosis.⁶

Hemolysis is common in acute liver failure due to Wilson disease. This leads to disproportionate elevation of AST compared with ALT, since AST is present in red blood cells. Consequently, the ratio of AST to ALT is usually greater than 2.2, which provides a sensitivity of 94% and a specificity of 86% for the diagnosis.⁶ These two ratios together provide 100% sensitivity and 100% specificity for the diagnosis of Wilson disease in the context of acute liver failure.⁶

Ceruloplasmin. Patients with Wilson disease typically have a low ceruloplasmin level. However, because it is an acute-phase reaction protein, ceruloplasmin can be normal or elevated in patients with acute liver failure from Wilson disease.⁶ Therefore, a normal ceruloplasmin level is not sufficient to rule out acute liver failure secondary to Wilson disease.

CASE CONTINUES: A DEFINITIVE DIAGNOSIS

Our patient undergoes further testing, which reveals the following:

• Her 24-hour urinary excretion of copper is 150 µg (reference value < 30)
• Slit-lamp examination is normal and shows no evidence of Kayser-Fleischer rings
• Her ratio of alkaline phosphatase to total bilirubin is 0.77 based on her initial laboratory results (Table 1)
• Her AST-ALT ratio is 3.4.

The diagnosis in our patient is acute liver failure secondary to Wilson disease.

4. What is the most appropriate next step?

• Liver biopsy
• d-penicillamine by mouth
• Trientine by mouth
• Liver transplant
• Plasmapheresis

Liver biopsy. Accumulation of copper in the liver parenchyma in patients with Wilson disease is sporadic. Therefore, qualitative copper staining on liver biopsy can be falsely negative. Quantitative copper measurement in liver tissue is the gold standard for the diagnosis of Wilson disease. However, the test is time-consuming and is not rapidly available in the context of acute liver failure.

Chelating agents such as d-pencillamine and trientine are used to treat the chronic manifestations of Wilson disease but are not useful for acute liver failure secondary to Wilson disease.

Acute liver failure secondary to Wilson disease is life-threatening, and liver transplant is considered the only definitive life-saving therapy.

Therapeutic plasmapheresis has been reported to be a successful adjunctive therapy to bridge patients with acute liver failure secondary to Wilson disease to transplant.⁷ However, liver transplant is still the only definitive treatment.

CASE CONTINUES: THE PATIENT’S SISTER SEEKS CARE

The patient undergoes liver transplantation, with no perioperative or postoperative complications.

The patient’s 18-year-old sister is now seeking medical attention in the outpatient clinic, concerned that she may have Wilson disease. She is otherwise healthy and denies any symptoms or complaints.

5. What is the next step for the patient’s sister?

• Reassurance
• Prophylaxis with trientine
• Check liver enzyme levels, serum ceruloplasmin level, and urine copper, and order a slit-lamp examination
• Genetic testing

Wilson disease can be asymptomatic in its early stages and may be diagnosed incidentally during routine blood tests that reveal abnormal liver enzyme levels. All patients with a confirmed family history of Wilson disease should be screened even if they are asymptomatic. The diagnosis of Wilson disease should be established in first-degree relatives before specific treatment for the relatives is prescribed.

Based on information in Roberts EA, Schilsky ML; American Association for Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD). Diagnosis and treatment of Wilson disease: an update. Hepatology 2008; 7:2089–2111.

The first step in screening a first-degree relative for Wilson disease is to check liver enzyme levels (specifically aminotransferases, alkaline phosphatase, and bilirubin), serum ceruloplasmin level, and 24-hour urine copper, and order an ophthalmologic slit-lamp examination. If any of these tests is abnormal, liver biopsy should be performed for histopathologic evaluation and quantitative copper measurement. Kayser-Fleischer  rings are seen in only 50% of patients with Wilson disease and hepatic involvement, but they are pathognomic. Guidelines⁸ for screening first-degree relatives of Wilson disease patients are shown in Figure 1.

Genetic analysis. ATP7B, the Wilson disease gene, is located on chromosome 13. At least 300 mutations of the gene have been described,² and the most common mutation is present in only 15% to 30% of the Wilson disease population.^8–10 Routine molecular testing of the ATP7B

CASE CONTINUES: WORKUP OF THE PATIENT’S SISTER

The patient’s sister has no symptoms and her physical examination is normal. Slit-lamp examination reveals no evidence of Kayser-Fleischer rings. Her laboratory values, including complete blood counts, complete metabolic panel, and INR, are within normal ranges. Other test results, however, are abnormal:

• Free serum copper level 27 µg/dL (normal 8–12)
• Serum ceruloplasmin 9.0 mg/dL (normal 20–50)
• 24-hour urinary copper excretion 135 µg (normal < 30).

She undergoes liver biopsy for quantitative copper measurement, and the result is very high at 1,118 µg/g dry weight (reference range 10–35). The diagnosis of Wilson disease is established.

TREATING CHRONIC WILSON DISEASE

6. Which of the following is not an appropriate next step for the patient’s sister?

• Tetrathiomolybdate
• d-penicillamine
• Trientine
• Zinc salts
• Prednisone

The goal of medical treatment of chronic Wilson disease is to improve symptoms and prevent progression of the disease.

Chelating agents and zinc salts are the most commonly used medicines in the management of Wilson disease. Chelating agents remove copper from tissue, whereas zinc blocks the intestinal absorption of copper and stimulates the synthesis of endogenous chelators such as metallothioneins. Tetrathiomolybdate is an alternative agent developed to interfere with the distribution of excess body copper to susceptible target sites by reducing free serum copper (Table 3). There are no data to support the use of prednisone in the treatment of Wilson disease.

During treatment with chelating agents, 24-hour urinary excretion of copper is routinely monitored to determine the efficacy of therapy and adherence to treatment. Once de-coppering is achieved, as evidenced by a normalization of 24-hour urine copper excretion, the chelating agent can be switched to zinc salts to prevent intestinal absorption of copper.

Clinical and biochemical stabilization is achieved typically within 2 to 6 months of the initial treatment with chelating agents.⁸ Organ meats, nuts, shellfish, and chocolate are rich in copper and should be avoided.

The patient’s sister is started on trientine 250 mg orally three times daily on an empty stomach at least 1 hour before meals. Treatment is monitored by following 24-hour urine copper measurement. A 24-hour urine copper measurement at 3 months after starting treatment has increased from 54 at baseline to 350 µg, which indicates that the copper is being removed from tissues. The plan is for early substitution of zinc for long-term maintenance once de-coppering is completed.

KEY POINTS

• Acute liver failure is severe acute liver injury characterized by coagulopathy (INR ≥ 1.5) and encephalopathy in a patient with no preexisting liver disease and with duration of symptoms less than 26 weeks.
• Acute liver failure secondary to Wilson disease is uncommon but should be excluded, particularly in young patients.
• The diagnosis of Wilson disease in the setting of acute liver failure is challenging because the serum ceruloplasmin level may be normal in acute liver failure secondary to Wilson disease, and free serum copper and 24-hour urine copper are usually elevated in all acute liver failure patients regardless of the etiology.
• A ratio of alkaline phosphatase to total bilirubin of less than 4 plus an AST-ALT ratio greater than 2.2 in a patient with acute liver failure should be regarded as Wilson disease until proven otherwise (Figure 2).
• Acute liver failure secondary to Wilson disease is usually fatal, and emergency liver transplant is a life-saving procedure.
• Screening of first-degree relatives of Wilson disease patients should include a history and physical examination, liver enzyme tests, complete blood cell count, serum ceruloplasmin level, serum free copper level, slit-lamp examination of the eyes, and 24-hour urinary copper measurement. Genetic tests are supplementary for screening but are not routinely available.

A 25-year-old woman presents to the emergency department with a 7-day history of fatigue and nausea. On presentation she denies having abdominal pain, headache, fever, chills, night sweats, vomiting, diarrhea, melena, hematochezia, or weight loss. She recalls changes in the colors of her eyes and darkening urine over the last few days. Her medical history before this is unremarkable. She takes no prescription, over-the-counter, or herbal medications. She works as a librarian and has no occupational toxic exposures. She is single and has one sister with no prior medical history. She denies recent travel, sick contacts, smoking, recreational drug use, or pets at home.

On physical examination, her vital signs are temperature 37.3°C (99.1°F), heart rate 90 beats per minute, blood pressure 125/80 mm Hg, respiration rate 14 per minute, and oxygen saturation 97% on room air. She has icteric sclera and her skin is jaundiced. Cardiac examination is normal. Lungs are clear to auscultation and percussion bilaterally. Her abdomen is soft with no visceromegaly, masses, or tenderness. Extremities are normal with no edema. She is alert and oriented, but she has mild asterixis of the outstretched hands. The neurologic examination is otherwise unremarkable.

The patient’s basic laboratory values are listed in Table 1. Shortly after admission, she develops changes in her mental status, remaining alert but becoming agitated and oriented to person only. In view of her symptoms and laboratory findings, acute liver failure is suspected.

ACUTE LIVER FAILURE

1. The diagnostic criteria for acute liver failure include all of the following except which one?

• Acute elevation of liver biochemical tests
• Presence of preexisting liver disease
• Coagulopathy, defined by an international normalized ratio (INR) of 1.5 or greater
• Encephalopathy
• Duration of symptoms less than 26 weeks

Acute liver failure is defined by acute onset of worsening liver tests, coagulopathy (INR ≥ 1.5), and encephalopathy in patients with no preexisting liver disease and with symptom duration of less than 26 weeks.¹ With a few exceptions, a history of preexisting liver disease negates the diagnosis of acute liver failure. Our patient meets the diagnostic criteria for acute liver failure.

Immediate management

Once acute liver failure is identified or suspected, the next step is to transfer the patient to the intensive care unit for close monitoring of mental status. Serial neurologic evaluations permit early detection of cerebral edema, which is considered the most common cause of death in patients with acute liver failure. Additionally, close monitoring of electrolytes and plasma glucose is necessary since these patients are susceptible to electrolyte disturbances and hypoglycemia.

Patients with acute liver failure are at increased risk of infections and should be routinely screened by obtaining urine and blood cultures.

Gastrointestinal bleeding is not uncommon in patients with acute liver failure and is usually due to gastric stress ulceration. Prophylaxis with a histamine 2 receptor antagonist or proton pump inhibitor should be considered in order to prevent gastrointestinal bleeding.

Treatment with N-acetylcysteine is beneficial, not only in patients with acute liver failure due to acetaminophen overdose, but also in those with acute liver failure from other causes.

CASE CONTINUES:
TRANSFER TO THE INTENSIVE CARE UNIT

The patient, now diagnosed with acute liver failure, is transferred to the intensive care unit. Arterial blood gas measurement shows:

• pH 7.38 (reference range 7.35–7.45)
• Pco₂ 40 mm Hg (36–46)
• Po₂ 97 mm Hg (85–95)
• Hco₃ 22 mmol/L (22–26).

A chest radiograph is obtained and is clear. Computed tomography (CT) of the brain reveals no edema. Transcranial Doppler ultrasonography does not show any intracranial fluid collections.

Blood and urine cultures are negative. Her hemoglobin level remains stable, and she does not develop signs of bleeding. She is started on a proton pump inhibitor for stress ulcer prophylaxis and is empirically given intravenous N-acetylcysteine until the cause of acute liver failure can be determined.

CAUSES OF ACUTE LIVER FAILURE

2. Which of the following can cause acute liver failure?

• Acetaminophen overdose
• Viral hepatitis
• Autoimmune hepatitis
• Wilson disease
• Alcoholic hepatitis

Drug-induced liver injury is the most common cause of acute liver failure in the United States,^2,3 and of all drugs, acetaminophen overdose is the number-one cause. In acetaminophen-induced liver injury, serum aminotransferase levels are usually elevated to more than 1,000 U/L, while serum bilirubin remains normal in the early stages. Antimicrobial agents, antiepileptic drugs, and herbal supplements have also been implicated in acute liver failure. Our patient has denied taking herbal supplements or medications, including over-the-counter ones.

Acute viral hepatitis can explain the patient’s condition. It is a common cause of acute liver failure in the United States.² Hepatitis A and E are more common in developing countries. Other viruses such as cytomegalovirus, Epstein-Barr virus, herpes simplex virus type 1 and 2, and varicella zoster virus can also cause acute liver failure. Serum aminotransferase levels may exceed 1,000 U/L in patients with viral hepatitis.

A young woman presents with acute liver failure: What is the cause? Is her sister at risk?

Autoimmune hepatitis is a rare cause of acute liver failure, but it should be considered in the differential diagnosis, particularly in middle-aged women with autoimmune disorders such as hypothyroidism. Autoimmune hepatitis can cause marked elevation in aminotransferase levels (> 1,000 U/L).

Wilson disease is an autosomal-recessive disease in which there is excessive accumulation of copper in the liver and other organs because of an inherited defect in the biliary excretion of copper. Wilson disease can cause acute liver failure and should be excluded in any patient, particularly if under age 40 with acute onset of unexplained hepatic, neurologic, or psychiatric disease.

Alcoholic hepatitis usually occurs in patients with a long-standing history of heavy alcohol use. As a result, most patients with alcoholic hepatitis have manifestations of chronic liver disease due to alcohol use. Therefore, by definition, it is not a cause of acute liver failure. Additionally, in patients with alcoholic hepatitis, the aspartate aminotransferase (AST) level is elevated but less than 300 IU/mL, and the ratio of AST to alanine aminotransferase (ALT) is usually more than 2.

CASE CONTINUES: FURTHER TESTING

The results of our patient’s serologic tests are shown in Table 2. Other test results:

• Autoimmune markers including antinuclear antibodies, antimitochondrial antibodies, antismooth muscle antibodies, and liver and kidney microsomal antibodies are negative; her immunoglobulin G (IgG) level is normal
• Serum ceruloplasmin 25 mg/dL (normal 21–45)
• Free serum copper 120 µg/dL (normal 8–12)
• Abdominal ultrasonography is unremarkable, with normal liver parenchyma and no intrahepatic or extrahepatic biliary dilatation
• Doppler ultrasonography of the liver shows patent blood vessels.

3. Based on the new data, which of the following statements is correct?

• Hepatitis B is the cause of acute liver failure in this patient
• Herpetic hepatitis cannot be excluded on the basis of the available data
• Wilson disease is most likely the diagnosis, given her elevated free serum copper
• A normal serum ceruloplasmin level is not sufficient to rule out acute liver failure secondary to Wilson disease

Hepatitis B surface antigen and hepatitis B core antibodies were negative in our patient, excluding hepatitis B virus infection. The positive hepatitis B surface antibody indicates prior immunization.

Herpetic hepatitis is an uncommon but important cause of acute liver failure because the mortality rate is high if the patient is not treated early with acyclovir. Fever, elevated aminotransferases, and leukopenia are common with herpetic hepatitis. Fewer than 50% of patients with herpetic hepatitis have vesicular rash.^4,5 The value of antibody serologic testing is limited due to high rates of false-positive and false-negative results. The gold standard diagnostic tests are viral load (detection of viral RNA by polymerase chain reaction), viral staining on liver biopsy, or both. In our patient, herpes simplex virus polymerase chain reaction testing was negative, which makes herpetic hepatitis unlikely.

Wilson disease is a genetic condition in which the ability to excrete copper in the bile is impaired, resulting in accumulation of copper in the hepatocytes. Subsequently, copper is released into the bloodstream and eventually into the urine.

However, copper excretion into the bile is impaired in patients with acute liver failure regardless of the etiology. Therefore, elevated free serum copper and 24-hour urine copper levels are not specific for the diagnosis of acute liver failure secondary to Wilson disease. Moreover, Kayser-Fleischer rings, which represent copper deposition in the limbus of the cornea, may not be apparent in the early stages of Wilson disease.

Wilson disease involves accumulation of copper in the liver and other organs as the result of a genetic defect

Since it is challenging to diagnose Wilson disease in the context of acute liver failure, Korman et al⁶ compared patients with acute liver failure secondary to Wilson disease with patients with acute liver failure secondary to other conditions. They found that alkaline phosphatase levels are frequently decreased in patients with acute liver failure secondary to Wilson disease,⁶ and that a ratio of alkaline phosphatase to total bilirubin of less than 4 is 94% sensitive and 96% specific for the diagnosis.⁶

Hemolysis is common in acute liver failure due to Wilson disease. This leads to disproportionate elevation of AST compared with ALT, since AST is present in red blood cells. Consequently, the ratio of AST to ALT is usually greater than 2.2, which provides a sensitivity of 94% and a specificity of 86% for the diagnosis.⁶ These two ratios together provide 100% sensitivity and 100% specificity for the diagnosis of Wilson disease in the context of acute liver failure.⁶

Ceruloplasmin. Patients with Wilson disease typically have a low ceruloplasmin level. However, because it is an acute-phase reaction protein, ceruloplasmin can be normal or elevated in patients with acute liver failure from Wilson disease.⁶ Therefore, a normal ceruloplasmin level is not sufficient to rule out acute liver failure secondary to Wilson disease.

CASE CONTINUES: A DEFINITIVE DIAGNOSIS

Our patient undergoes further testing, which reveals the following:

• Her 24-hour urinary excretion of copper is 150 µg (reference value < 30)
• Slit-lamp examination is normal and shows no evidence of Kayser-Fleischer rings
• Her ratio of alkaline phosphatase to total bilirubin is 0.77 based on her initial laboratory results (Table 1)
• Her AST-ALT ratio is 3.4.

The diagnosis in our patient is acute liver failure secondary to Wilson disease.

4. What is the most appropriate next step?

• Liver biopsy
• d-penicillamine by mouth
• Trientine by mouth
• Liver transplant
• Plasmapheresis

Liver biopsy. Accumulation of copper in the liver parenchyma in patients with Wilson disease is sporadic. Therefore, qualitative copper staining on liver biopsy can be falsely negative. Quantitative copper measurement in liver tissue is the gold standard for the diagnosis of Wilson disease. However, the test is time-consuming and is not rapidly available in the context of acute liver failure.

Chelating agents such as d-pencillamine and trientine are used to treat the chronic manifestations of Wilson disease but are not useful for acute liver failure secondary to Wilson disease.

Acute liver failure secondary to Wilson disease is life-threatening, and liver transplant is considered the only definitive life-saving therapy.

Therapeutic plasmapheresis has been reported to be a successful adjunctive therapy to bridge patients with acute liver failure secondary to Wilson disease to transplant.⁷ However, liver transplant is still the only definitive treatment.

CASE CONTINUES: THE PATIENT’S SISTER SEEKS CARE

The patient undergoes liver transplantation, with no perioperative or postoperative complications.

The patient’s 18-year-old sister is now seeking medical attention in the outpatient clinic, concerned that she may have Wilson disease. She is otherwise healthy and denies any symptoms or complaints.

5. What is the next step for the patient’s sister?

• Reassurance
• Prophylaxis with trientine
• Check liver enzyme levels, serum ceruloplasmin level, and urine copper, and order a slit-lamp examination
• Genetic testing

Wilson disease can be asymptomatic in its early stages and may be diagnosed incidentally during routine blood tests that reveal abnormal liver enzyme levels. All patients with a confirmed family history of Wilson disease should be screened even if they are asymptomatic. The diagnosis of Wilson disease should be established in first-degree relatives before specific treatment for the relatives is prescribed.

Based on information in Roberts EA, Schilsky ML; American Association for Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD). Diagnosis and treatment of Wilson disease: an update. Hepatology 2008; 7:2089–2111.

The first step in screening a first-degree relative for Wilson disease is to check liver enzyme levels (specifically aminotransferases, alkaline phosphatase, and bilirubin), serum ceruloplasmin level, and 24-hour urine copper, and order an ophthalmologic slit-lamp examination. If any of these tests is abnormal, liver biopsy should be performed for histopathologic evaluation and quantitative copper measurement. Kayser-Fleischer  rings are seen in only 50% of patients with Wilson disease and hepatic involvement, but they are pathognomic. Guidelines⁸ for screening first-degree relatives of Wilson disease patients are shown in Figure 1.

Genetic analysis. ATP7B, the Wilson disease gene, is located on chromosome 13. At least 300 mutations of the gene have been described,² and the most common mutation is present in only 15% to 30% of the Wilson disease population.^8–10 Routine molecular testing of the ATP7B

CASE CONTINUES: WORKUP OF THE PATIENT’S SISTER

The patient’s sister has no symptoms and her physical examination is normal. Slit-lamp examination reveals no evidence of Kayser-Fleischer rings. Her laboratory values, including complete blood counts, complete metabolic panel, and INR, are within normal ranges. Other test results, however, are abnormal:

• Free serum copper level 27 µg/dL (normal 8–12)
• Serum ceruloplasmin 9.0 mg/dL (normal 20–50)
• 24-hour urinary copper excretion 135 µg (normal < 30).

She undergoes liver biopsy for quantitative copper measurement, and the result is very high at 1,118 µg/g dry weight (reference range 10–35). The diagnosis of Wilson disease is established.

TREATING CHRONIC WILSON DISEASE

6. Which of the following is not an appropriate next step for the patient’s sister?

• Tetrathiomolybdate
• d-penicillamine
• Trientine
• Zinc salts
• Prednisone

The goal of medical treatment of chronic Wilson disease is to improve symptoms and prevent progression of the disease.

Chelating agents and zinc salts are the most commonly used medicines in the management of Wilson disease. Chelating agents remove copper from tissue, whereas zinc blocks the intestinal absorption of copper and stimulates the synthesis of endogenous chelators such as metallothioneins. Tetrathiomolybdate is an alternative agent developed to interfere with the distribution of excess body copper to susceptible target sites by reducing free serum copper (Table 3). There are no data to support the use of prednisone in the treatment of Wilson disease.

During treatment with chelating agents, 24-hour urinary excretion of copper is routinely monitored to determine the efficacy of therapy and adherence to treatment. Once de-coppering is achieved, as evidenced by a normalization of 24-hour urine copper excretion, the chelating agent can be switched to zinc salts to prevent intestinal absorption of copper.

Clinical and biochemical stabilization is achieved typically within 2 to 6 months of the initial treatment with chelating agents.⁸ Organ meats, nuts, shellfish, and chocolate are rich in copper and should be avoided.

The patient’s sister is started on trientine 250 mg orally three times daily on an empty stomach at least 1 hour before meals. Treatment is monitored by following 24-hour urine copper measurement. A 24-hour urine copper measurement at 3 months after starting treatment has increased from 54 at baseline to 350 µg, which indicates that the copper is being removed from tissues. The plan is for early substitution of zinc for long-term maintenance once de-coppering is completed.

KEY POINTS

• Acute liver failure is severe acute liver injury characterized by coagulopathy (INR ≥ 1.5) and encephalopathy in a patient with no preexisting liver disease and with duration of symptoms less than 26 weeks.
• Acute liver failure secondary to Wilson disease is uncommon but should be excluded, particularly in young patients.
• The diagnosis of Wilson disease in the setting of acute liver failure is challenging because the serum ceruloplasmin level may be normal in acute liver failure secondary to Wilson disease, and free serum copper and 24-hour urine copper are usually elevated in all acute liver failure patients regardless of the etiology.
• A ratio of alkaline phosphatase to total bilirubin of less than 4 plus an AST-ALT ratio greater than 2.2 in a patient with acute liver failure should be regarded as Wilson disease until proven otherwise (Figure 2).
• Acute liver failure secondary to Wilson disease is usually fatal, and emergency liver transplant is a life-saving procedure.
• Screening of first-degree relatives of Wilson disease patients should include a history and physical examination, liver enzyme tests, complete blood cell count, serum ceruloplasmin level, serum free copper level, slit-lamp examination of the eyes, and 24-hour urinary copper measurement. Genetic tests are supplementary for screening but are not routinely available.

A 25-year-old woman presents to the emergency department with a 7-day history of fatigue and nausea. On presentation she denies having abdominal pain, headache, fever, chills, night sweats, vomiting, diarrhea, melena, hematochezia, or weight loss. She recalls changes in the colors of her eyes and darkening urine over the last few days. Her medical history before this is unremarkable. She takes no prescription, over-the-counter, or herbal medications. She works as a librarian and has no occupational toxic exposures. She is single and has one sister with no prior medical history. She denies recent travel, sick contacts, smoking, recreational drug use, or pets at home.

On physical examination, her vital signs are temperature 37.3°C (99.1°F), heart rate 90 beats per minute, blood pressure 125/80 mm Hg, respiration rate 14 per minute, and oxygen saturation 97% on room air. She has icteric sclera and her skin is jaundiced. Cardiac examination is normal. Lungs are clear to auscultation and percussion bilaterally. Her abdomen is soft with no visceromegaly, masses, or tenderness. Extremities are normal with no edema. She is alert and oriented, but she has mild asterixis of the outstretched hands. The neurologic examination is otherwise unremarkable.

The patient’s basic laboratory values are listed in Table 1. Shortly after admission, she develops changes in her mental status, remaining alert but becoming agitated and oriented to person only. In view of her symptoms and laboratory findings, acute liver failure is suspected.

ACUTE LIVER FAILURE

1. The diagnostic criteria for acute liver failure include all of the following except which one?

• Acute elevation of liver biochemical tests
• Presence of preexisting liver disease
• Coagulopathy, defined by an international normalized ratio (INR) of 1.5 or greater
• Encephalopathy
• Duration of symptoms less than 26 weeks

Acute liver failure is defined by acute onset of worsening liver tests, coagulopathy (INR ≥ 1.5), and encephalopathy in patients with no preexisting liver disease and with symptom duration of less than 26 weeks.¹ With a few exceptions, a history of preexisting liver disease negates the diagnosis of acute liver failure. Our patient meets the diagnostic criteria for acute liver failure.

Immediate management

Once acute liver failure is identified or suspected, the next step is to transfer the patient to the intensive care unit for close monitoring of mental status. Serial neurologic evaluations permit early detection of cerebral edema, which is considered the most common cause of death in patients with acute liver failure. Additionally, close monitoring of electrolytes and plasma glucose is necessary since these patients are susceptible to electrolyte disturbances and hypoglycemia.

Patients with acute liver failure are at increased risk of infections and should be routinely screened by obtaining urine and blood cultures.

Gastrointestinal bleeding is not uncommon in patients with acute liver failure and is usually due to gastric stress ulceration. Prophylaxis with a histamine 2 receptor antagonist or proton pump inhibitor should be considered in order to prevent gastrointestinal bleeding.

Treatment with N-acetylcysteine is beneficial, not only in patients with acute liver failure due to acetaminophen overdose, but also in those with acute liver failure from other causes.

CASE CONTINUES:
TRANSFER TO THE INTENSIVE CARE UNIT

The patient, now diagnosed with acute liver failure, is transferred to the intensive care unit. Arterial blood gas measurement shows:

• pH 7.38 (reference range 7.35–7.45)
• Pco₂ 40 mm Hg (36–46)
• Po₂ 97 mm Hg (85–95)
• Hco₃ 22 mmol/L (22–26).

A chest radiograph is obtained and is clear. Computed tomography (CT) of the brain reveals no edema. Transcranial Doppler ultrasonography does not show any intracranial fluid collections.

Blood and urine cultures are negative. Her hemoglobin level remains stable, and she does not develop signs of bleeding. She is started on a proton pump inhibitor for stress ulcer prophylaxis and is empirically given intravenous N-acetylcysteine until the cause of acute liver failure can be determined.

CAUSES OF ACUTE LIVER FAILURE

2. Which of the following can cause acute liver failure?

• Acetaminophen overdose
• Viral hepatitis
• Autoimmune hepatitis
• Wilson disease
• Alcoholic hepatitis

Drug-induced liver injury is the most common cause of acute liver failure in the United States,^2,3 and of all drugs, acetaminophen overdose is the number-one cause. In acetaminophen-induced liver injury, serum aminotransferase levels are usually elevated to more than 1,000 U/L, while serum bilirubin remains normal in the early stages. Antimicrobial agents, antiepileptic drugs, and herbal supplements have also been implicated in acute liver failure. Our patient has denied taking herbal supplements or medications, including over-the-counter ones.

Acute viral hepatitis can explain the patient’s condition. It is a common cause of acute liver failure in the United States.² Hepatitis A and E are more common in developing countries. Other viruses such as cytomegalovirus, Epstein-Barr virus, herpes simplex virus type 1 and 2, and varicella zoster virus can also cause acute liver failure. Serum aminotransferase levels may exceed 1,000 U/L in patients with viral hepatitis.

A young woman presents with acute liver failure: What is the cause? Is her sister at risk?

Autoimmune hepatitis is a rare cause of acute liver failure, but it should be considered in the differential diagnosis, particularly in middle-aged women with autoimmune disorders such as hypothyroidism. Autoimmune hepatitis can cause marked elevation in aminotransferase levels (> 1,000 U/L).

Wilson disease is an autosomal-recessive disease in which there is excessive accumulation of copper in the liver and other organs because of an inherited defect in the biliary excretion of copper. Wilson disease can cause acute liver failure and should be excluded in any patient, particularly if under age 40 with acute onset of unexplained hepatic, neurologic, or psychiatric disease.

Alcoholic hepatitis usually occurs in patients with a long-standing history of heavy alcohol use. As a result, most patients with alcoholic hepatitis have manifestations of chronic liver disease due to alcohol use. Therefore, by definition, it is not a cause of acute liver failure. Additionally, in patients with alcoholic hepatitis, the aspartate aminotransferase (AST) level is elevated but less than 300 IU/mL, and the ratio of AST to alanine aminotransferase (ALT) is usually more than 2.

CASE CONTINUES: FURTHER TESTING

The results of our patient’s serologic tests are shown in Table 2. Other test results:

• Autoimmune markers including antinuclear antibodies, antimitochondrial antibodies, antismooth muscle antibodies, and liver and kidney microsomal antibodies are negative; her immunoglobulin G (IgG) level is normal
• Serum ceruloplasmin 25 mg/dL (normal 21–45)
• Free serum copper 120 µg/dL (normal 8–12)
• Abdominal ultrasonography is unremarkable, with normal liver parenchyma and no intrahepatic or extrahepatic biliary dilatation
• Doppler ultrasonography of the liver shows patent blood vessels.

3. Based on the new data, which of the following statements is correct?

• Hepatitis B is the cause of acute liver failure in this patient
• Herpetic hepatitis cannot be excluded on the basis of the available data
• Wilson disease is most likely the diagnosis, given her elevated free serum copper
• A normal serum ceruloplasmin level is not sufficient to rule out acute liver failure secondary to Wilson disease

Hepatitis B surface antigen and hepatitis B core antibodies were negative in our patient, excluding hepatitis B virus infection. The positive hepatitis B surface antibody indicates prior immunization.

Herpetic hepatitis is an uncommon but important cause of acute liver failure because the mortality rate is high if the patient is not treated early with acyclovir. Fever, elevated aminotransferases, and leukopenia are common with herpetic hepatitis. Fewer than 50% of patients with herpetic hepatitis have vesicular rash.^4,5 The value of antibody serologic testing is limited due to high rates of false-positive and false-negative results. The gold standard diagnostic tests are viral load (detection of viral RNA by polymerase chain reaction), viral staining on liver biopsy, or both. In our patient, herpes simplex virus polymerase chain reaction testing was negative, which makes herpetic hepatitis unlikely.

Wilson disease is a genetic condition in which the ability to excrete copper in the bile is impaired, resulting in accumulation of copper in the hepatocytes. Subsequently, copper is released into the bloodstream and eventually into the urine.

However, copper excretion into the bile is impaired in patients with acute liver failure regardless of the etiology. Therefore, elevated free serum copper and 24-hour urine copper levels are not specific for the diagnosis of acute liver failure secondary to Wilson disease. Moreover, Kayser-Fleischer rings, which represent copper deposition in the limbus of the cornea, may not be apparent in the early stages of Wilson disease.

Wilson disease involves accumulation of copper in the liver and other organs as the result of a genetic defect

Since it is challenging to diagnose Wilson disease in the context of acute liver failure, Korman et al⁶ compared patients with acute liver failure secondary to Wilson disease with patients with acute liver failure secondary to other conditions. They found that alkaline phosphatase levels are frequently decreased in patients with acute liver failure secondary to Wilson disease,⁶ and that a ratio of alkaline phosphatase to total bilirubin of less than 4 is 94% sensitive and 96% specific for the diagnosis.⁶

Hemolysis is common in acute liver failure due to Wilson disease. This leads to disproportionate elevation of AST compared with ALT, since AST is present in red blood cells. Consequently, the ratio of AST to ALT is usually greater than 2.2, which provides a sensitivity of 94% and a specificity of 86% for the diagnosis.⁶ These two ratios together provide 100% sensitivity and 100% specificity for the diagnosis of Wilson disease in the context of acute liver failure.⁶

Ceruloplasmin. Patients with Wilson disease typically have a low ceruloplasmin level. However, because it is an acute-phase reaction protein, ceruloplasmin can be normal or elevated in patients with acute liver failure from Wilson disease.⁶ Therefore, a normal ceruloplasmin level is not sufficient to rule out acute liver failure secondary to Wilson disease.

CASE CONTINUES: A DEFINITIVE DIAGNOSIS

Our patient undergoes further testing, which reveals the following:

• Her 24-hour urinary excretion of copper is 150 µg (reference value < 30)
• Slit-lamp examination is normal and shows no evidence of Kayser-Fleischer rings
• Her ratio of alkaline phosphatase to total bilirubin is 0.77 based on her initial laboratory results (Table 1)
• Her AST-ALT ratio is 3.4.

The diagnosis in our patient is acute liver failure secondary to Wilson disease.

4. What is the most appropriate next step?

• Liver biopsy
• d-penicillamine by mouth
• Trientine by mouth
• Liver transplant
• Plasmapheresis

Liver biopsy. Accumulation of copper in the liver parenchyma in patients with Wilson disease is sporadic. Therefore, qualitative copper staining on liver biopsy can be falsely negative. Quantitative copper measurement in liver tissue is the gold standard for the diagnosis of Wilson disease. However, the test is time-consuming and is not rapidly available in the context of acute liver failure.

Chelating agents such as d-pencillamine and trientine are used to treat the chronic manifestations of Wilson disease but are not useful for acute liver failure secondary to Wilson disease.

Acute liver failure secondary to Wilson disease is life-threatening, and liver transplant is considered the only definitive life-saving therapy.

Therapeutic plasmapheresis has been reported to be a successful adjunctive therapy to bridge patients with acute liver failure secondary to Wilson disease to transplant.⁷ However, liver transplant is still the only definitive treatment.

CASE CONTINUES: THE PATIENT’S SISTER SEEKS CARE

The patient undergoes liver transplantation, with no perioperative or postoperative complications.

The patient’s 18-year-old sister is now seeking medical attention in the outpatient clinic, concerned that she may have Wilson disease. She is otherwise healthy and denies any symptoms or complaints.

5. What is the next step for the patient’s sister?

• Reassurance
• Prophylaxis with trientine
• Check liver enzyme levels, serum ceruloplasmin level, and urine copper, and order a slit-lamp examination
• Genetic testing

Wilson disease can be asymptomatic in its early stages and may be diagnosed incidentally during routine blood tests that reveal abnormal liver enzyme levels. All patients with a confirmed family history of Wilson disease should be screened even if they are asymptomatic. The diagnosis of Wilson disease should be established in first-degree relatives before specific treatment for the relatives is prescribed.

Based on information in Roberts EA, Schilsky ML; American Association for Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD). Diagnosis and treatment of Wilson disease: an update. Hepatology 2008; 7:2089–2111.

The first step in screening a first-degree relative for Wilson disease is to check liver enzyme levels (specifically aminotransferases, alkaline phosphatase, and bilirubin), serum ceruloplasmin level, and 24-hour urine copper, and order an ophthalmologic slit-lamp examination. If any of these tests is abnormal, liver biopsy should be performed for histopathologic evaluation and quantitative copper measurement. Kayser-Fleischer  rings are seen in only 50% of patients with Wilson disease and hepatic involvement, but they are pathognomic. Guidelines⁸ for screening first-degree relatives of Wilson disease patients are shown in Figure 1.

Genetic analysis. ATP7B, the Wilson disease gene, is located on chromosome 13. At least 300 mutations of the gene have been described,² and the most common mutation is present in only 15% to 30% of the Wilson disease population.^8–10 Routine molecular testing of the ATP7B

CASE CONTINUES: WORKUP OF THE PATIENT’S SISTER

The patient’s sister has no symptoms and her physical examination is normal. Slit-lamp examination reveals no evidence of Kayser-Fleischer rings. Her laboratory values, including complete blood counts, complete metabolic panel, and INR, are within normal ranges. Other test results, however, are abnormal:

• Free serum copper level 27 µg/dL (normal 8–12)
• Serum ceruloplasmin 9.0 mg/dL (normal 20–50)
• 24-hour urinary copper excretion 135 µg (normal < 30).

She undergoes liver biopsy for quantitative copper measurement, and the result is very high at 1,118 µg/g dry weight (reference range 10–35). The diagnosis of Wilson disease is established.

TREATING CHRONIC WILSON DISEASE

6. Which of the following is not an appropriate next step for the patient’s sister?

• Tetrathiomolybdate
• d-penicillamine
• Trientine
• Zinc salts
• Prednisone

The goal of medical treatment of chronic Wilson disease is to improve symptoms and prevent progression of the disease.

Chelating agents and zinc salts are the most commonly used medicines in the management of Wilson disease. Chelating agents remove copper from tissue, whereas zinc blocks the intestinal absorption of copper and stimulates the synthesis of endogenous chelators such as metallothioneins. Tetrathiomolybdate is an alternative agent developed to interfere with the distribution of excess body copper to susceptible target sites by reducing free serum copper (Table 3). There are no data to support the use of prednisone in the treatment of Wilson disease.

During treatment with chelating agents, 24-hour urinary excretion of copper is routinely monitored to determine the efficacy of therapy and adherence to treatment. Once de-coppering is achieved, as evidenced by a normalization of 24-hour urine copper excretion, the chelating agent can be switched to zinc salts to prevent intestinal absorption of copper.

Clinical and biochemical stabilization is achieved typically within 2 to 6 months of the initial treatment with chelating agents.⁸ Organ meats, nuts, shellfish, and chocolate are rich in copper and should be avoided.

The patient’s sister is started on trientine 250 mg orally three times daily on an empty stomach at least 1 hour before meals. Treatment is monitored by following 24-hour urine copper measurement. A 24-hour urine copper measurement at 3 months after starting treatment has increased from 54 at baseline to 350 µg, which indicates that the copper is being removed from tissues. The plan is for early substitution of zinc for long-term maintenance once de-coppering is completed.

KEY POINTS

• Acute liver failure is severe acute liver injury characterized by coagulopathy (INR ≥ 1.5) and encephalopathy in a patient with no preexisting liver disease and with duration of symptoms less than 26 weeks.
• Acute liver failure secondary to Wilson disease is uncommon but should be excluded, particularly in young patients.
• The diagnosis of Wilson disease in the setting of acute liver failure is challenging because the serum ceruloplasmin level may be normal in acute liver failure secondary to Wilson disease, and free serum copper and 24-hour urine copper are usually elevated in all acute liver failure patients regardless of the etiology.
• A ratio of alkaline phosphatase to total bilirubin of less than 4 plus an AST-ALT ratio greater than 2.2 in a patient with acute liver failure should be regarded as Wilson disease until proven otherwise (Figure 2).
• Acute liver failure secondary to Wilson disease is usually fatal, and emergency liver transplant is a life-saving procedure.
• Screening of first-degree relatives of Wilson disease patients should include a history and physical examination, liver enzyme tests, complete blood cell count, serum ceruloplasmin level, serum free copper level, slit-lamp examination of the eyes, and 24-hour urinary copper measurement. Genetic tests are supplementary for screening but are not routinely available.