Moderate IV Fluid Resuscitation Is Associated With Decreased Sepsis Mortality.

IF 7.7 1区 医学 Q1 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Keith A Corl, Mitchell M Levy, Andre L Holder, Ivor S Douglas, Walter T Linde-Zwirble, Aftab Alam
{"title":"Moderate IV Fluid Resuscitation Is Associated With Decreased Sepsis Mortality.","authors":"Keith A Corl, Mitchell M Levy, Andre L Holder, Ivor S Douglas, Walter T Linde-Zwirble, Aftab Alam","doi":"10.1097/CCM.0000000000006394","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Significant practice variation exists in the amount of resuscitative IV fluid given to patients with sepsis. Current research suggests equipoise between a tightly restrictive or more liberal strategy but data is lacking on a wider range of resuscitation practices. We sought to examine the relationship between a wide range of fluid resuscitation practices and sepsis mortality and then identify the primary driver of this practice variation.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Retrospective analysis of the Premier Healthcare Database.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Six hundred twelve U.S. hospitals.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>Patients with sepsis and septic shock admitted from the emergency department to the ICU from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2019.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>The volume of resuscitative IV fluid administered before the end of hospital day- 1 and mortality.</p><p><strong>Measurements and main results: </strong>In total, 190,682 patients with sepsis and septic shock were included in the analysis. Based upon patient characteristics and illness severity, we predicted that physicians should prescribe patients with sepsis a narrow mean range of IV fluid (95% range, 3.6-4.5 L). Instead, we observed wide variation in the mean IV fluids administered (95% range, 1.7-7.4 L). After splitting the patients into five groups based upon attending physician practice, we observed patients in the moderate group (4.0 L; interquartile range [IQR], 2.4-5.1 L) experienced a 2.5% reduction in risk-adjusted mortality compared with either the very low (1.6 L; IQR, 1.0-2.5 L) or very high (6.1 L; IQR, 4.0-9.0 L) fluid groups p < 0.01). An analysis of within- and between-hospital IV fluid resuscitation practices showed that physician variation within hospitals instead of practice differences between hospitals accounts for the observed variation.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Individual physician practice drives excess variation in the amount of IV fluid given to patients with sepsis. A moderate approach to IV fluid resuscitation is associated with decreased sepsis mortality and should be tested in future randomized controlled trials.</p>","PeriodicalId":10765,"journal":{"name":"Critical Care Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":7.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Care Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000006394","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Significant practice variation exists in the amount of resuscitative IV fluid given to patients with sepsis. Current research suggests equipoise between a tightly restrictive or more liberal strategy but data is lacking on a wider range of resuscitation practices. We sought to examine the relationship between a wide range of fluid resuscitation practices and sepsis mortality and then identify the primary driver of this practice variation.

Design: Retrospective analysis of the Premier Healthcare Database.

Setting: Six hundred twelve U.S. hospitals.

Patients: Patients with sepsis and septic shock admitted from the emergency department to the ICU from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2019.

Interventions: The volume of resuscitative IV fluid administered before the end of hospital day- 1 and mortality.

Measurements and main results: In total, 190,682 patients with sepsis and septic shock were included in the analysis. Based upon patient characteristics and illness severity, we predicted that physicians should prescribe patients with sepsis a narrow mean range of IV fluid (95% range, 3.6-4.5 L). Instead, we observed wide variation in the mean IV fluids administered (95% range, 1.7-7.4 L). After splitting the patients into five groups based upon attending physician practice, we observed patients in the moderate group (4.0 L; interquartile range [IQR], 2.4-5.1 L) experienced a 2.5% reduction in risk-adjusted mortality compared with either the very low (1.6 L; IQR, 1.0-2.5 L) or very high (6.1 L; IQR, 4.0-9.0 L) fluid groups p < 0.01). An analysis of within- and between-hospital IV fluid resuscitation practices showed that physician variation within hospitals instead of practice differences between hospitals accounts for the observed variation.

Conclusions: Individual physician practice drives excess variation in the amount of IV fluid given to patients with sepsis. A moderate approach to IV fluid resuscitation is associated with decreased sepsis mortality and should be tested in future randomized controlled trials.

适度静脉输液复苏可降低败血症死亡率。
目的:脓毒症患者的静脉注射液复苏量在实践中存在很大差异。目前的研究表明,在严格限制性策略和更为宽松的策略之间存在平衡,但缺乏有关更广泛复苏实践的数据。我们试图研究各种液体复苏方法与败血症死亡率之间的关系,然后找出造成这种方法差异的主要原因:设计:对 Premier Healthcare 数据库进行回顾性分析:患者: 败血症和脓毒症患者患者:2016年1月1日至2019年12月31日期间从急诊科入住重症监护室的脓毒症和脓毒性休克患者:干预措施:住院第1天结束前的复苏静脉输液量和死亡率:共有190682名脓毒症和脓毒性休克患者纳入分析。根据患者特征和病情严重程度,我们预测医生应为脓毒症患者开出的静脉输液量平均范围较窄(95% 范围,3.6-4.5 升)。相反,我们观察到平均静脉输液量差异很大(95% 范围为 1.7-7.4 升)。根据主治医生的做法将患者分成五组后,我们观察到中度组(4.0 升;四分位数间距 [IQR],2.4-5.1 升)患者的风险调整后死亡率比低度组(1.6 升;IQR,1.0-2.5 升)或高度组(6.1 升;IQR,4.0-9.0 升)降低了 2.5%(P < 0.01)。对医院内和医院间静脉输液复苏实践的分析表明,造成观察到的差异的原因是医院内医生的差异,而不是医院间的实践差异:结论:脓毒症患者静脉输液量的过度变化是由医生的个体差异造成的。静脉输液复苏的适度方法与败血症死亡率的降低有关,应在未来的随机对照试验中进行测试。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Critical Care Medicine
Critical Care Medicine 医学-危重病医学
CiteScore
16.30
自引率
5.70%
发文量
728
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Critical Care Medicine is the premier peer-reviewed, scientific publication in critical care medicine. Directed to those specialists who treat patients in the ICU and CCU, including chest physicians, surgeons, pediatricians, pharmacists/pharmacologists, anesthesiologists, critical care nurses, and other healthcare professionals, Critical Care Medicine covers all aspects of acute and emergency care for the critically ill or injured patient. Each issue presents critical care practitioners with clinical breakthroughs that lead to better patient care, the latest news on promising research, and advances in equipment and techniques.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信