Fluid deresuscitation in critically ill children: comparing perspectives of intensivists and nephrologists.

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q2 PEDIATRICS
Frontiers in Pediatrics Pub Date : 2024-10-28 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fped.2024.1484893
Chloe G Braun, David J Askenazi, Javier A Neyra, Priya Prabhakaran, A K M Fazlur Rahman, Tennille N Webb, James D Odum
{"title":"Fluid deresuscitation in critically ill children: comparing perspectives of intensivists and nephrologists.","authors":"Chloe G Braun, David J Askenazi, Javier A Neyra, Priya Prabhakaran, A K M Fazlur Rahman, Tennille N Webb, James D Odum","doi":"10.3389/fped.2024.1484893","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Fluid accumulation, presently defined as a pathologic state of overhydration/volume overload associated with clinical impact, is common and associated with worse outcomes. At times, deresuscitation, the active removal of fluid via diuretics or ultrafiltration, is necessary. There is no consensus regarding deresuscitation in children admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit. Little is known regarding perceptions and practices among pediatric intensivists and nephrologists regarding fluid provision and deresuscitation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Cross-sectional electronic survey of pediatric nephrologists and intensivists from academic societies in the United States designed to better understand fluid management between disciplines. A clinical vignette was used to characterize the perceptions of optimal timing and method of deresuscitation initiation at four timepoints that correspond to different stages of shock.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 179 respondents (140 intensivists, 39 nephrologists) completed the survey. Most 75.4% (135/179) providers believe discussing fluid balance and initiating fluid deresuscitation in pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) patients is \"very important\". The first clinical vignette time point (corresponding to resuscitation phase of early shock) had the most dissimilarity between intensivists and nephrologists (<i>p</i> = 0.01) with regards to initiation of deresuscitation. However, providers demonstrated increasing agreement in their responses to initiate deresuscitation as the clinical vignette progressed. Compared to intensivists, nephrologists were more likely to choose \"dialysis or ultrafiltration\" as a deresuscitation method during the optimization [10.3 vs. 2.9% (<i>p</i> = 0.07)], stabilization [18.0% vs. 3.6% (<i>p</i> < 0.01)], and evacuation [48.7% vs. 23.6% (<i>p</i> < 0.01)] phases of shock. Conversely, intensivists were more likely to utilize scheduled diuretics than nephrologists [47.1% vs. 28.2% (<i>p</i> = 0.04)] later on in the patient course.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Most physicians believe that discussing fluid balance and deresuscitation is important. Nevertheless, when to initiate deresuscitation and how to accomplish it differed between nephrologist and intensivists. Widely understood and operationalizable definitions, further research, and eventually evidence-based guidelines are needed to help guide care.</p>","PeriodicalId":12637,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Pediatrics","volume":"12 ","pages":"1484893"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11551605/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Pediatrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2024.1484893","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Fluid accumulation, presently defined as a pathologic state of overhydration/volume overload associated with clinical impact, is common and associated with worse outcomes. At times, deresuscitation, the active removal of fluid via diuretics or ultrafiltration, is necessary. There is no consensus regarding deresuscitation in children admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit. Little is known regarding perceptions and practices among pediatric intensivists and nephrologists regarding fluid provision and deresuscitation.

Methods: Cross-sectional electronic survey of pediatric nephrologists and intensivists from academic societies in the United States designed to better understand fluid management between disciplines. A clinical vignette was used to characterize the perceptions of optimal timing and method of deresuscitation initiation at four timepoints that correspond to different stages of shock.

Results: In total, 179 respondents (140 intensivists, 39 nephrologists) completed the survey. Most 75.4% (135/179) providers believe discussing fluid balance and initiating fluid deresuscitation in pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) patients is "very important". The first clinical vignette time point (corresponding to resuscitation phase of early shock) had the most dissimilarity between intensivists and nephrologists (p = 0.01) with regards to initiation of deresuscitation. However, providers demonstrated increasing agreement in their responses to initiate deresuscitation as the clinical vignette progressed. Compared to intensivists, nephrologists were more likely to choose "dialysis or ultrafiltration" as a deresuscitation method during the optimization [10.3 vs. 2.9% (p = 0.07)], stabilization [18.0% vs. 3.6% (p < 0.01)], and evacuation [48.7% vs. 23.6% (p < 0.01)] phases of shock. Conversely, intensivists were more likely to utilize scheduled diuretics than nephrologists [47.1% vs. 28.2% (p = 0.04)] later on in the patient course.

Discussion: Most physicians believe that discussing fluid balance and deresuscitation is important. Nevertheless, when to initiate deresuscitation and how to accomplish it differed between nephrologist and intensivists. Widely understood and operationalizable definitions, further research, and eventually evidence-based guidelines are needed to help guide care.

危重症儿童的液体复苏:比较重症监护医师和肾病医师的观点。
导言:液体积聚目前被定义为与临床影响相关的过量脱水/容量超负荷的病理状态,是一种常见病,并与更差的预后有关。有时,有必要通过利尿剂或超滤积极去除体液,从而达到去势的目的。对于儿科重症监护病房收治的患儿如何进行人工呼吸,目前还没有达成共识。儿科重症监护医师和肾脏病医师对液体供应和复苏的看法和做法知之甚少:方法:对美国学术团体的儿科肾脏科医生和重症监护医生进行横断面电子调查,旨在更好地了解各学科之间的液体管理。调查使用了一个临床小故事来描述在四个时间点(对应休克的不同阶段)启动复苏的最佳时机和方法:共有 179 名受访者(140 名重症监护医师和 39 名肾脏科医师)完成了调查。大多数 75.4% 的医疗服务提供者(135/179)认为,讨论儿科重症监护病房 (PICU) 患者的体液平衡和启动液体复苏 "非常重要"。在第一个临床小节时间点(对应于早期休克的复苏阶段),重症监护医师和肾脏科医师在启动液体复苏方面的差异最大(p = 0.01)。不过,随着临床小故事的进展,医护人员在启动复苏方面的反应越来越一致。与重症监护医师相比,肾脏病医师更倾向于选择 "透析或超滤 "作为患者病程优化[10.3% vs. 2.9% (p = 0.07)]、稳定[18.0% vs. 3.6% (p p = 0.04)]后期的复苏方法:讨论:大多数医生认为,讨论体液平衡和复苏非常重要。然而,肾脏科医生和重症监护医生在何时启动复苏以及如何完成复苏的问题上存在分歧。需要广泛理解和可操作的定义、进一步的研究以及最终的循证指南来帮助指导护理工作。
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
Frontiers in Pediatrics
Frontiers in Pediatrics Medicine-Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
7.70%
发文量
2132
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊介绍: Frontiers in Pediatrics (Impact Factor 2.33) publishes rigorously peer-reviewed research broadly across the field, from basic to clinical research that meets ongoing challenges in pediatric patient care and child health. Field Chief Editors Arjan Te Pas at Leiden University and Michael L. Moritz at the Children''s Hospital of Pittsburgh are supported by an outstanding Editorial Board of international experts. This multidisciplinary open-access journal is at the forefront of disseminating and communicating scientific knowledge and impactful discoveries to researchers, academics, clinicians and the public worldwide. Frontiers in Pediatrics also features Research Topics, Frontiers special theme-focused issues managed by Guest Associate Editors, addressing important areas in pediatrics. In this fashion, Frontiers serves as an outlet to publish the broadest aspects of pediatrics in both basic and clinical research, including high-quality reviews, case reports, editorials and commentaries related to all aspects of pediatrics.
×
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