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 , Sarah B. Blackwell PharmD , Nathan Pinner PharmD , Thomas S. Achey PharmD, MS , Hillary B. Holder PharmD , 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 , Sarah B. Blackwell PharmD , Nathan Pinner PharmD , Thomas S. Achey PharmD, MS , Hillary B. Holder PharmD , 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}
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.
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