脓毒症和脓毒性休克液体复苏后心力衰竭和终末期肾病患者的疗效评估

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q3 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
John Michael Herndon PharmD , Sarah B. Blackwell PharmD , Nathan Pinner PharmD , Thomas S. Achey PharmD, MS , Hillary B. Holder PharmD , Cruz Tidwell PharmD
{"title":"脓毒症和脓毒性休克液体复苏后心力衰竭和终末期肾病患者的疗效评估","authors":"John Michael Herndon PharmD ,&nbsp;Sarah B. Blackwell PharmD ,&nbsp;Nathan Pinner PharmD ,&nbsp;Thomas S. Achey PharmD, MS ,&nbsp;Hillary B. Holder PharmD ,&nbsp;Cruz Tidwell PharmD","doi":"10.1016/j.jemermed.2024.02.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Sepsis fluid resuscitation is controversial, especially for patients with volume overload risk. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign recommends a 30-mL/kg crystalloid fluid bolus for patients with sepsis-induced hypoperfusion. Criticism of this approach includes excessive fluid resuscitation in certain patients.</p></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><p>The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of guideline-concordant fluid resuscitation in patients with sepsis and heart failure (HF) or end-stage kidney disease (ESKD).</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A retrospective cohort study was conducted in patients with sepsis who qualified for guideline-directed fluid resuscitation and concomitant HF or ESKD. Those receiving crystalloid fluid boluses of at least 30 mL/kg within 3 h of sepsis diagnosis were placed in the concordant group and all others in the nonconcordant group. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay (LOS); vasoactive medications and net volume over 24 h; new mechanical ventilation, new or increased volume removal, and acute kidney injury within 48 h; and shock-free survival at 7 days.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>One hundred twenty-five patients were included in each group. In-hospital mortality was 34.4% in the concordant group and 44.8% in the nonconcordant group (<em>p</em> = 0.1205). The concordant group had a shorter ICU LOS (7.6 vs. 10.5 days; <em>p</em> = 0.0214) and hospital LOS (12.9 vs. 18.3 days; <em>p</em> = 0.0163), but increased new mechanical ventilation (37.6 vs. 20.8%; <em>p</em> = 0.0052). No differences in other outcomes were observed.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Receipt of a 30-mL/kg fluid bolus did not affect outcomes in a cohort of patients with mixed types of HF and sepsis-induced hypoperfusion.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":16085,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessment of Outcomes in Patients with Heart Failure and End-Stage Kidney Disease after Fluid Resuscitation for Sepsis and Septic Shock\",\"authors\":\"John Michael Herndon PharmD ,&nbsp;Sarah B. Blackwell PharmD ,&nbsp;Nathan Pinner PharmD ,&nbsp;Thomas S. Achey PharmD, MS ,&nbsp;Hillary B. Holder PharmD ,&nbsp;Cruz Tidwell PharmD\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jemermed.2024.02.001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Sepsis fluid resuscitation is controversial, especially for patients with volume overload risk. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign recommends a 30-mL/kg crystalloid fluid bolus for patients with sepsis-induced hypoperfusion. Criticism of this approach includes excessive fluid resuscitation in certain patients.</p></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><p>The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of guideline-concordant fluid resuscitation in patients with sepsis and heart failure (HF) or end-stage kidney disease (ESKD).</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A retrospective cohort study was conducted in patients with sepsis who qualified for guideline-directed fluid resuscitation and concomitant HF or ESKD. Those receiving crystalloid fluid boluses of at least 30 mL/kg within 3 h of sepsis diagnosis were placed in the concordant group and all others in the nonconcordant group. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay (LOS); vasoactive medications and net volume over 24 h; new mechanical ventilation, new or increased volume removal, and acute kidney injury within 48 h; and shock-free survival at 7 days.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>One hundred twenty-five patients were included in each group. In-hospital mortality was 34.4% in the concordant group and 44.8% in the nonconcordant group (<em>p</em> = 0.1205). The concordant group had a shorter ICU LOS (7.6 vs. 10.5 days; <em>p</em> = 0.0214) and hospital LOS (12.9 vs. 18.3 days; <em>p</em> = 0.0163), but increased new mechanical ventilation (37.6 vs. 20.8%; <em>p</em> = 0.0052). No differences in other outcomes were observed.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Receipt of a 30-mL/kg fluid bolus did not affect outcomes in a cohort of patients with mixed types of HF and sepsis-induced hypoperfusion.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16085,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Emergency Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Emergency Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0736467924000283\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0736467924000283","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景脓毒症液体复苏存在争议,尤其是对有容量超负荷风险的患者。脓毒症生存运动建议对脓毒症引起的低灌注患者给予 30 毫升/千克的晶体液栓塞。本研究旨在评估脓毒症合并心力衰竭(HF)或终末期肾病(ESKD)患者在指南指导下进行液体复苏的有效性和安全性。在脓毒症确诊后 3 小时内接受至少 30 mL/kg 晶体液栓塞的患者被归入同意组,所有其他患者被归入不同意组。主要结果是院内死亡率。次要结果包括重症监护室(ICU)和住院时间(LOS);24 小时内血管活性药物和净容量;48 小时内新的机械通气、新的或增加的排气量和急性肾损伤;以及 7 天内无休克存活率。一致组的院内死亡率为 34.4%,非一致组为 44.8%(P = 0.1205)。一致组的重症监护室生存期(7.6 天 vs. 10.5 天;p = 0.0214)和住院生存期(12.9 天 vs. 18.3 天;p = 0.0163)较短,但新的机械通气次数增加(37.6% vs. 20.8%;p = 0.0052)。结论接受 30 毫升/千克的液体栓剂不会影响混合型心房颤动和脓毒症引起的低灌注患者的预后。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Assessment of Outcomes in Patients with Heart Failure and End-Stage Kidney Disease after Fluid Resuscitation for Sepsis and Septic Shock

Background

Sepsis fluid resuscitation is controversial, especially for patients with volume overload risk. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign recommends a 30-mL/kg crystalloid fluid bolus for patients with sepsis-induced hypoperfusion. Criticism of this approach includes excessive fluid resuscitation in certain patients.

Objective

The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of guideline-concordant fluid resuscitation in patients with sepsis and heart failure (HF) or end-stage kidney disease (ESKD).

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was conducted in patients with sepsis who qualified for guideline-directed fluid resuscitation and concomitant HF or ESKD. Those receiving crystalloid fluid boluses of at least 30 mL/kg within 3 h of sepsis diagnosis were placed in the concordant group and all others in the nonconcordant group. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay (LOS); vasoactive medications and net volume over 24 h; new mechanical ventilation, new or increased volume removal, and acute kidney injury within 48 h; and shock-free survival at 7 days.

Results

One hundred twenty-five patients were included in each group. In-hospital mortality was 34.4% in the concordant group and 44.8% in the nonconcordant group (p = 0.1205). The concordant group had a shorter ICU LOS (7.6 vs. 10.5 days; p = 0.0214) and hospital LOS (12.9 vs. 18.3 days; p = 0.0163), but increased new mechanical ventilation (37.6 vs. 20.8%; p = 0.0052). No differences in other outcomes were observed.

Conclusions

Receipt of a 30-mL/kg fluid bolus did not affect outcomes in a cohort of patients with mixed types of HF and sepsis-induced hypoperfusion.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Emergency Medicine
Journal of Emergency Medicine 医学-急救医学
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
6.70%
发文量
339
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Emergency Medicine is an international, peer-reviewed publication featuring original contributions of interest to both the academic and practicing emergency physician. JEM, published monthly, contains research papers and clinical studies as well as articles focusing on the training of emergency physicians and on the practice of emergency medicine. The Journal features the following sections: • Original Contributions • Clinical Communications: Pediatric, Adult, OB/GYN • Selected Topics: Toxicology, Prehospital Care, The Difficult Airway, Aeromedical Emergencies, Disaster Medicine, Cardiology Commentary, Emergency Radiology, Critical Care, Sports Medicine, Wound Care • Techniques and Procedures • Technical Tips • Clinical Laboratory in Emergency Medicine • Pharmacology in Emergency Medicine • Case Presentations of the Harvard Emergency Medicine Residency • Visual Diagnosis in Emergency Medicine • Medical Classics • Emergency Forum • Editorial(s) • Letters to the Editor • Education • Administration of Emergency Medicine • International Emergency Medicine • Computers in Emergency Medicine • Violence: Recognition, Management, and Prevention • Ethics • Humanities and Medicine • American Academy of Emergency Medicine • AAEM Medical Student Forum • Book and Other Media Reviews • Calendar of Events • Abstracts • Trauma Reports • Ultrasound in Emergency Medicine
×
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