Dataset Information

Fluid Management in Sepsis.

ABSTRACT: Among critically ill adults, sepsis remains both common and lethal. In addition to antibiotics and source control, fluid resuscitation is a fundamental sepsis therapy. The physiology of fluid resuscitation for sepsis, however, is complex. A landmark trial found early goal-directed sepsis resuscitation reduced mortality, but 3 recent multicenter trials did not confirm this benefit. Multiple trials in resource-limited settings have found increased mortality with early fluid bolus administration in sepsis, and the optimal approach to early sepsis resuscitation across settings remains unknown. After initial resuscitation, excessive fluid administration may contribute to edema and organ dysfunction. Using dynamic variables such as passive leg raise testing can predict a patient's hemodynamic response to fluid administration better than static variables such as central venous pressure. Whether using measures of "fluid responsiveness" to guide fluid administration improves patient outcomes, however, remains unknown. New evidence suggests improved patient outcomes with the use of balanced crystalloids compared to saline in sepsis. Albumin may be beneficial in septic shock, but other colloids such as starches, dextrans, and gelatins appear to increase the risk of death and acute kidney injury. For the clinician caring for patients with sepsis today, the initial administration of 20 mL/kg of intravenous balanced crystalloid, followed by consideration of the risks and benefits of subsequent fluid administration represents a reasonable approach. Additional research is urgently needed to define the optimal dose, rate, and composition of intravenous fluid during the management of patients with sepsis and septic shock.

SUBMITTER: Brown RM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6532631 | biostudies-literature | 2019 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Fluid Management in Sepsis.

Brown Ryan M RM Semler Matthew W MW

Journal of intensive care medicine 20180709 5

Among critically ill adults, sepsis remains both common and lethal. In addition to antibiotics and source control, fluid resuscitation is a fundamental sepsis therapy. The physiology of fluid resuscitation for sepsis, however, is complex. A landmark trial found early goal-directed sepsis resuscitation reduced mortality, but 3 recent multicenter trials did not confirm this benefit. Multiple trials in resource-limited settings have found increased mortality with early fluid bolus administration in ...[more]

PMID: 29986619

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIntravenous fluids and vasopressor agents are commonly used in early resuscitation of patients with sepsis, but comparative data for prioritizing their delivery are limited.MethodsIn an unblinded superiority trial conducted at 60 U.S. centers, we randomly assigned patients to either a restrictive fluid strategy (prioritizing vasopressors and lower intravenous fluid volumes) or a liberal fluid strategy (prioritizing higher volumes of intravenous fluids before vasopressor use) for a 24-hour period. Randomization occurred within 4 hours after a patient met the criteria for sepsis-induced hypotension refractory to initial treatment with 1 to 3 liters of intravenous fluid. We hypothesized that all-cause mortality before discharge home by day 90 (primary outcome) would be lower with a restrictive fluid strategy than with a liberal fluid strategy. Safety was also assessed.ResultsA total of 1563 patients were enrolled, with 782 assigned to the restrictive fluid group and 781 to the liberal fluid group. Resuscitation therapies that were administered during the 24-hour protocol period differed between the two groups; less intravenous fluid was administered in the restrictive fluid group than in the liberal fluid group (difference of medians, -2134 ml; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2318 to -1949), whereas the restrictive fluid group had earlier, more prevalent, and longer duration of vasopressor use. Death from any cause before discharge home by day 90 occurred in 109 patients (14.0%) in the restrictive fluid group and in 116 patients (14.9%) in the liberal fluid group (estimated difference, -0.9 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.4 to 2.6; P = 0.61); 5 patients in the restrictive fluid group and 4 patients in the liberal fluid group had their data censored (lost to follow-up). The number of reported serious adverse events was similar in the two groups.ConclusionsAmong patients with sepsis-induced hypotension, the restrictive fluid strategy that was used in this trial did not result in significantly lower (or higher) mortality before discharge home by day 90 than the liberal fluid strategy. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; CLOVERS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03434028.).

Project description:RationaleThe feasibility and clinical outcomes of conservative fluid management after sepsis resuscitation remain unknown.ObjectivesTo evaluate the effect of a conservative fluid management protocol on fluid balance and intensive care unit (ICU)-free days among patients with sepsis.MethodsIn a single-center phase II/III randomized trial, we enrolled adults with suspected infection, ≥2 systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria, and either shock (mean arterial pressure <60 mm Hg or vasopressors) or respiratory insufficiency (mechanical ventilation or oxygen saturation <97% and fraction of inspired oxygen ≥0.3). Patients were randomized 1:1 to usual care or a conservative fluid management protocol. The protocol restricted intravenous fluid administration during shock to treatment of oliguria or increasing vasopressor requirement. In the absence of shock, loop diuretic infusion targeted equal fluid input and output each study day. The primary outcomes were mean daily fluid balance (phase II) and ICU-free days (phase III).ResultsAt the completion of phase II (n = 30), the difference in mean daily fluid balance between groups (-398 mL) was less than the prespecified threshold (-500 mL) and the trial was stopped. Patients in the conservative fluid management (n = 15) and usual care (n = 15) groups experienced similar cumulative fluid input (8450 mL vs 7049 mL; P = .90) of which only 14% was intravenous crystalloid or colloid. Loop diuretic infusion occurred more frequently in the conservative fluid management group (40% vs 0%; P = .02), and cumulative fluid output was 10 645 mL in the conservative fluid management group compared to 6286 mL in the usual care group (P = .39). Hemodynamic, respiratory, and renal function did not differ between the groups.ConclusionsIn this phase II trial, a conservative fluid management protocol did not decrease mean daily fluid balance by more than 500 mL among patients with sepsis.RegistrationClinicaltrials.gov; NCT02159079.

Project description:ImportanceAlthough early fluid administration has been shown to lower sepsis mortality, positive fluid balance has been associated with adverse outcomes. Little is known about associations in non-intensive care unit settings, with growing concern about readmission from excess fluid accumulation in patients with sepsis.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether positive fluid balance among non-critically ill patients with sepsis was associated with increased readmission risk, including readmission for heart failure.Design, setting, and participantsThis multicenter retrospective cohort study was conducted between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2017, among 57 032 non-critically ill adults hospitalized for sepsis at 21 hospitals across Northern California. Kaiser Permanente Northern California is an integrated health care system with a community-based population of more than 4.4 million members. Statistical analysis was performed from January 1 to December 31, 2019.ExposuresIntake and output net fluid balance (I/O) measured daily and cumulatively at discharge (positive vs negative).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was 30-day readmission. The secondary outcomes were readmission stratified by category and mortality after living discharge.ResultsThe cohort included 57 032 patients who were hospitalized for sepsis (28 779 women [50.5%]; mean [SD] age, 73.7 [15.5] years). Compared with patients with positive I/O (40 940 [71.8%]), those with negative I/O (16 092 [28.2%]) were older, with increased comorbidity, acute illness severity, preexisting heart failure or chronic kidney disease, diuretic use, and decreased fluid administration volume. During 30-day follow-up, 8719 patients (15.3%) were readmitted and 3639 patients (6.4%) died. There was no difference in readmission between patients with positive vs negative I/O (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.95-1.05). No association was detected between readmission and I/O using continuous, splined, and quadratic function transformations. Positive I/O was associated with decreased heart failure-related readmission (HR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.71-0.91]) and increased 30-day mortality (HR, 1.23 [95% CI, 1.15-1.31]).Conclusions and relevanceIn this large observational study of non-critically ill patients hospitalized with sepsis, there was no association between positive fluid balance at the time of discharge and readmission. However, these findings may have been limited by variable recording and documentation of fluid intake and output; additional studies are needed to examine the association of fluid status with outcomes in patients with sepsis to reduce readmission risk.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Sepsis guidelines are widely used in high-income countries and intravenous fluids are an important supportive treatment modality. However, fluids have been harmful in intervention trials in low-income countries, most notably in sub-Saharan Africa. We assessed the relevance, quality and applicability of available guidelines for the fluid management of adult patients with sepsis in this region. METHODS:We identified sepsis guidelines by systematic review with broad search terms, duplicate screening and data extraction. We included peer-reviewed publications with explicit relevance to sepsis and fluid therapy. We excluded those designed exclusively for specific aetiologies of sepsis, for limited geographic locations, or for non-adult populations. We used the AGREE II tool to assess the quality of guideline development, performed a narrative synthesis and used theoretical case scenarios to assess practical applicability to everyday clinical practice in resource-constrained settings. RESULTS:Published sepsis guidelines are heterogeneous in sepsis definition and in quality: 8/10 guidelines had significant deficits in applicability, particularly with reference to resource considerations in low-income settings. Indications for intravenous fluid were hypotension (8/10), clinical markers of hypoperfusion (6/10) and lactataemia (3/10). Crystalloids were overwhelmingly recommended (9/10). Suggested volumes varied; 5/10 explicitly recommended "fluid challenges" with reassessment, totalling between 1?L and 4?L during initial resuscitation. Fluid balance, including later de-escalation of therapy, was not specifically described in any. Norepinephrine was the preferred initial vasopressor (5/10), specifically targeted to MAP >?65?mmHg (3/10), with higher values suggested in pre-existing hypertension (1/10). Recommendations for guidelines were almost universally derived from evidence in high-income countries. None of the guidelines suggested any refinement for patients with malnutrition. CONCLUSIONS:Widely used international guidelines contain disparate recommendations on intravenous fluid use, lack specificity and are largely unattainable in low-income countries given available resources. A relative lack of high-quality evidence from sub-Saharan Africa increases reliance on recommendations which may not be relevant or implementable.

Dataset Information

Fluid Management in Sepsis.

Publications

Fluid Management in Sepsis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets