USER Protocol as a Guide to Resuscitation of the Patient with Septic Shock in the Emergency Department.

Open Access Emergency Medicine : OAEM Pub Date : 2021-02-12 eCollection Date: 2021-01-01 DOI:10.2147/OAEM.S289148
German Devia Jaramillo, Salvador Menendez Ramirez
{"title":"USER Protocol as a Guide to Resuscitation of the Patient with Septic Shock in the Emergency Department.","authors":"German Devia Jaramillo,&nbsp;Salvador Menendez Ramirez","doi":"10.2147/OAEM.S289148","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Sepsis is a disease that is still associated with high mortality, in which timely interventions are related to better results.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine if there is a difference in in-hospital mortality, fluid balances, norepinephrine initiation and recovery time of blood pressure, when comparing the resuscitation of the patient who is admitted to the emergency room in septic shock by applying the ultrasound protocol (USER) versus the standard of care.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>This is a prospective, cohort study conducted in the emergency room of a highly complex hospital of patients with septic shock.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>83 patients recruited in total. The groups were comparable in demographics, mean baseline blood pressure, disease severity given by the SOFA value, and arterial lactate. A statistically significant difference was documented in the fluid balances at 4 hours, median 1325mL (IQR:451-2455mL) in Group C versus 900mL (IQR:440-1292) in Group U (p=0.048) and at 6 hours, median 1658mL (IQR:610-2925mL) versus 1107mL (IQR:600-1500mL), p=0.026, as well as in the total fluid balance of hospital stay, median 14,564mL (IQR:8660-18,705mL) versus 8660mL (IQR:5309-16,974mL), p=0.049. On the other hand, in the USER Group, the mean blood pressure ≥ 65mmHg was achieved in 97.4% of the patients 4 hours after the start of the protocol versus 50% in Group C (p=<0.001). Mortality with the use of the protocol compared with conventional therapy was (56.4% vs 61.36%, p=0.647).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The use of the USER protocol in patients with septic shock in the emergency room showed lower fluid balances at 4 and 6 hours, and of the total hospital stay, as well as earlier initiation of norepinephrine and statistically significant faster improvement in blood pressure. Although a statistically significant difference was not found in the days of ICU stay, hospitalization and in-hospital mortality, a trend was observed in the reduction of these parameters.</p>","PeriodicalId":503614,"journal":{"name":"Open Access Emergency Medicine : OAEM","volume":"13 ","pages":"33-43"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/c2/6d/oaem-13-33.PMC7886247.pdf","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Access Emergency Medicine : OAEM","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/OAEM.S289148","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Introduction: Sepsis is a disease that is still associated with high mortality, in which timely interventions are related to better results.

Objective: To determine if there is a difference in in-hospital mortality, fluid balances, norepinephrine initiation and recovery time of blood pressure, when comparing the resuscitation of the patient who is admitted to the emergency room in septic shock by applying the ultrasound protocol (USER) versus the standard of care.

Patients and methods: This is a prospective, cohort study conducted in the emergency room of a highly complex hospital of patients with septic shock.

Results: 83 patients recruited in total. The groups were comparable in demographics, mean baseline blood pressure, disease severity given by the SOFA value, and arterial lactate. A statistically significant difference was documented in the fluid balances at 4 hours, median 1325mL (IQR:451-2455mL) in Group C versus 900mL (IQR:440-1292) in Group U (p=0.048) and at 6 hours, median 1658mL (IQR:610-2925mL) versus 1107mL (IQR:600-1500mL), p=0.026, as well as in the total fluid balance of hospital stay, median 14,564mL (IQR:8660-18,705mL) versus 8660mL (IQR:5309-16,974mL), p=0.049. On the other hand, in the USER Group, the mean blood pressure ≥ 65mmHg was achieved in 97.4% of the patients 4 hours after the start of the protocol versus 50% in Group C (p=<0.001). Mortality with the use of the protocol compared with conventional therapy was (56.4% vs 61.36%, p=0.647).

Conclusion: The use of the USER protocol in patients with septic shock in the emergency room showed lower fluid balances at 4 and 6 hours, and of the total hospital stay, as well as earlier initiation of norepinephrine and statistically significant faster improvement in blood pressure. Although a statistically significant difference was not found in the days of ICU stay, hospitalization and in-hospital mortality, a trend was observed in the reduction of these parameters.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

作为急诊科脓毒性休克患者复苏指南的用户方案。
简介:脓毒症是一种死亡率仍然很高的疾病,及时干预可以获得更好的结果。目的:比较应用超声方案(USER)与标准护理方案对急诊感染性休克患者的复苏,确定住院死亡率、体液平衡、去甲肾上腺素启动和血压恢复时间是否存在差异。患者和方法:这是一项前瞻性队列研究,在一家高度复杂的医院的感染性休克患者急诊室进行。结果:共纳入83例患者。两组在人口统计学、平均基线血压、SOFA值给出的疾病严重程度和动脉乳酸水平方面具有可比性。4小时时C组液体平衡中位数为1325mL (IQR:451-2455mL), U组为900mL (IQR:440-1292) (p=0.048); 6小时时C组液体平衡中位数为1658mL (IQR: 670 - 2925ml), U组为1107mL (IQR:600-1500mL), p=0.026;住院总液体平衡中位数为14,564mL (IQR:8660-18,705mL), U组为8660mL (IQR:5309-16,974mL), p=0.049。另一方面,用户组,平均血压≥65毫米汞柱在97.4%的患者达到4小时后开始的协议与C组的50% (p =结论:用户的使用协议脓毒性休克患者在急诊室显示较低的流体平衡在4和6个小时,和总住院的,以及实施早期去甲肾上腺素血压显著更快的提高。虽然在ICU住院天数、住院天数和住院死亡率方面没有发现统计学上的显著差异,但这些参数有降低的趋势。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信