Project description:BackgroundThe use of ≥30 mL/Kg fluid bolus in congestive heart failure (CHF) patients presenting with severe sepsis or septic shock remained controversial due to the paucity of data.MethodsThe retrospective case-control study included 671 adult patients who presented to the emergency department of a tertiary care hospital from January 01, 2017 to December 31, 2019 with severe sepsis or septic shock. Patients were categorized into the CHF group and the non-CHF group. The primary outcome was to evaluate the compliance with ≥30 mL/Kg fluid bolus within 6 hours of presentation. The comparison of baseline characteristics and secondary outcomes were done between the groups who received ≥30 mL/Kg fluid bolus. For the subgroup analysis of the CHF group, it was divided based on if they received ≥30 mL/Kg fluid bolus or not, and comparison was done for baseline characteristics and secondary outcomes. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed to explore the differences between the groups for in-hospital mortality and mechanical ventilation.ResultsThe use of ≥30 mL/Kg fluid bolus was low in both the CHF and non-CHF groups [39% vs. 66% (p<0.05)]. Mortality was higher in the CHF group [33% vs 18% (p<0.05)]. Multivariable analysis revealed that the use of ≥30 mL/Kg fluid bolus decreased the chances of mortality by 12% [OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.82-0.95 (p<0.05)]. The use of ≥30 mL/Kg fluid bolus did not increase the odds of mechanical ventilation [OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93-1.05 (p = 0.78)]. In subgroup analysis, the use of ≥30 mL/Kg fluid bolus decreased the chances of mortality by 5% [OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.90-0.99, (p<0.05)] and did not increase the odds of mechanical ventilation. The presence of the low ejection fraction did not influence the chance of getting fluid bolus.ConclusionThe use of ≥30 mL/Kg fluid bolus seems to confer protection against in-hospital mortality and is not associated with increased chances of mechanical ventilation in heart failure patients presenting with severe sepsis or septic shock.

Project description:PurposeInternational clinical practice guidelines call for initial volume resuscitation of at least 30 mL/kg body weight for patients with sepsis-induced hypotension or shock. Although not considered in the guidelines, preexisting cardiac dysfunction may be an important factor clinicians weigh in deciding the quantity of volume resuscitation for patients with septic shock.MethodsWe conducted a multicenter survey of clinicians who routinely treat patients with sepsis to evaluate their beliefs, behaviors, knowledge, and perceived structural barriers regarding initial volume resuscitation for patients with sepsis and concomitant heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) <40%. Initial volume resuscitation preferences were captured as ordinal values, and additional testing for volume resuscitation preferences was performed using McNemar and Wilcoxon signed rank tests as indicated. Univariable logistic regression models were used to identify significant predictors of ≥30 mL/kg fluid administration.ResultsA total of 317 clinicians at 9 US hospitals completed the survey (response rate 47.3%). Most respondents were specialists in either internal medicine or emergency medicine. Substantial heterogeneity was found regarding sepsis resuscitation preferences for patients with concomitant HFrEF. The belief that patients with septic shock and HFrEF should be exempt from current sepsis bundle initiatives was shared by 39.4% of respondents. A minimum fluid challenge of ∼30 mL/kg or more was deemed appropriate in septic shock by only 56.4% of respondents for patients with concomitant HFrEF, compared to 89.1% of respondents for patients without HFrEF (P < .01). Emergency medicine physicians were most likely to feel that <30 mL/kg was most appropriate in patients with septic shock and HFrEF.ConclusionsClinical equipoise exists regarding initial volume resuscitation for patients with sepsis-induced hypotension or shock and concomitant HFrEF. Future studies and clinical practice guidelines should explicitly address resuscitation in this subpopulation.

Project description:ObjectivesRapid fluid resuscitation has become standard in sepsis care, despite "low-quality" evidence and absence of guidelines for populations "at risk" for volume overload. Our objectives include as follows: 1) identify predictors of reaching a 30 mL/kg crystalloid bolus within 3 hours of sepsis onset (30by3); 2) assess the impact of 30by3 and fluid dosing on clinical outcomes; 3) examine differences in perceived "at-risk" volume-sensitive populations, including end-stage renal disease, heart failure, obesity, advanced age, or with documentation of volume "overload" by bedside examination.DesignRetrospective cohort study. All outcome analyses controlled for sex, end-stage renal disease, heart failure, sepsis severity (severe sepsis vs septic shock), obesity, Mortality in Emergency Department Sepsis score, and time to antibiotics.SettingUrban, tertiary care center between January 1, 2014, and May 31, 2017.PatientsEmergency Department treated adults (age ≥18 yr; n = 1,032) with severe sepsis or septic shock.InterventionsAdministration of IV fluids by bolus.Measurements and main resultsIn total, 509 patients received 30by3 (49.3%). Overall mortality was 17.1% (n = 176), with 20.4% mortality in the shock group. Patients who were elderly (odds ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.46-0.83), male (odds ratio, 0.66; CI, 0.49-0.87), obese (odds ratio, 0.18; CI, 0.13-0.25), or with end-stage renal disease (odds ratio, 0.23; CI, 0.13-0.40), heart failure (odds ratio, 0.42; CI, 0.29-0.60), or documented volume "overload" (odds ratio, 0.30; CI, 0.20-0.45) were less likely to achieve 30by3. Failure to meet 30by3 had increased odds of mortality (odds ratio, 1.52; CI, 1.03-2.24), delayed hypotension (odds ratio, 1.42; CI, 1.02-1.99), and increased ICU stay (~2 d) (β = 2.0; CI, 0.5-3.6), without differential effects for "at-risk" groups. Higher fluid volumes administered by 3 hours correlated with decreased mortality, with a plateau effect between 35 and 45 mL/kg (p < 0.05).ConclusionsFailure to reach 30by3 was associated with increased odds of in-hospital mortality, irrespective of comorbidities. Predictors of inadequate resuscitation can be identified, potentially leading to interventions to improve survival. These findings are retrospective and require future validation.

Project description:BackgroundHeart failure (HF) is associated with a high rate of readmissions within 30 days post-discharge and in the following year, especially in frail elderly patients. Biomarker data are scarce in this high-risk population. This study assessed the value of early post-discharge circulating levels of ST2, NT-proBNP, CA125, and hs-TnI for predicting 30-day and 1-year outcomes in comorbid frail elderly patients with HF with mainly preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).MethodsBlood samples were obtained at the first visit shortly after discharge (4.9 ± 2 days). The primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause mortality or HF-related rehospitalization at 30 days and at 1 year. All-cause mortality alone at one year was also a major endpoint. HF-related rehospitalizations alone were secondary end-points.ResultsFrom February 2014 to November 2016, 522 consecutive patients attending the STOP-HF Clinic were included (57.1% women, age 82 ± 8.7 years, mean Barthel index 70 ± 25, mean Charlson comorbidity index 5.6 ± 2.2). The composite endpoint occurred in 8.6% patients at 30 days and in 38.5% at 1 year. In multivariable analysis, ST2 [hazard ratio (HR) 1.53; 95% CI 1.19-1.97; p = 0.001] was the only predictive biomarker at 30 days; at 1 year, both ST2 (HR 1.34; 95% CI 1.15-1.56; p < 0.001) and NT-proBNP (HR 1.19; 95% CI 1.02-1.40; p = 0.03) remained significant. The addition of ST2 and NT-proBNP into a clinical predictive model increased the AUC from 0.70 to 0.75 at 30 days (p = 0.02) and from 0.71 to 0.74 at 1 year (p < 0.05). For all-cause death at 1 year, ST2 (HR 1.50; 95% CI 1.26-1.80; p < 0.001), and CA125 (HR 1.41; 95% CI 1.21-1.63; p < 0.001) remained independent predictors in multivariable analysis. The addition of ST2 and CA125 into a clinical predictive model increased the AUC from 0.74 to 0.78 (p = 0.03). For HF-related hospitalizations, ST2 was the only predictive biomarker in multivariable analyses, both at 30 days and at 1 year.ConclusionsIn a comorbid frail elderly population with HFpEF, ST2 outperformed NT-proBNP for predicting the risk of all-cause mortality or HF-related rehospitalization. ST2, a surrogate marker of inflammation and fibrosis, may be a better predictive marker in high-risk HFpEF.

Project description:ObjectivesEvidence to guide fluid resuscitation evidence in sepsis continues to evolve. We conducted a multicountry survey of emergency and critical care physicians to describe current stated practice and practice variation related to the quantity, rapidity and type of resuscitation fluid administered in early septic shock to inform the design of future septic shock fluid resuscitation trials.MethodsUsing a web-based survey tool, we invited critical care and emergency physicians in Canada, the UK, Scandinavia and Saudi Arabia to complete a self-administered electronic survey.ResultsA total of 1097 physicians' responses were included. 1 L was the most frequent quantity of resuscitation fluid physicians indicated they would administer at a time (46.9%, n=499). Most (63.0%, n=671) stated that they would administer the fluid challenges as quickly as possible. Overall, normal saline and Ringer's solutions were the preferred crystalloid fluids used 'often' or 'always' in 53.1% (n=556) and 60.5% (n=632) of instances, respectively. However, emergency physicians indicated that they would use normal saline 'often' or 'always' in 83.9% (n=376) of instances, while critical care physicians said that they would use saline 'often' or 'always' in 27.9% (n=150) of instances. Only 1.0% (n=10) of respondents indicated that they would use hydroxyethyl starch 'often' or 'always'; use of 5% (5.6% (n=59)) or 20-25% albumin (1.3% (n=14)) was also infrequent. The majority (88.4%, n=896) of respondents indicated that a large randomised controlled trial comparing 5% albumin to a crystalloid fluid in early septic shock was important to conduct.ConclusionsCritical care and emergency physicians stated that they rapidly infuse volumes of 500-1000 mL of resuscitation fluid in early septic shock. Colloid use, specifically the use of albumin, was infrequently reported. Our survey identifies the need to conduct a trial on the efficacy of albumin and crystalloids on 90-day mortality in patients with early septic shock.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Fluid resuscitation has become the cornerstone of early septic shock management, but the optimal fluid rate is still not well studied. The goal of this investigation is to examine the relationship between fluid resuscitation rate and septic shock resolution. METHOD:We retrospectively studied adult (≥ 18 years) patients with septic shock, defined based on sepsis III definition, from January 1, 2006, through May 31, 2018, in the medical intensive care unit (MICU) of Mayo Clinic Rochester. The fluid resuscitation time was defined as the time required to infuse the initial fluid bolus of 30 ml/kg, based on the recommendations of the 2016 surviving sepsis campaign. The cohort was divided into four groups based on the average fluid rate (group 1 ≥ 0.5, group 2 0.25-0.49, group 3 0.17-0.24, and group 4 < 0.17 ml/kg/min). The primary outcome was the time to shock reversal. Multivariable regression analyses were conducted to account for potential confounders. RESULT:A total of 1052 patients met eligibility criteria and were included in the analysis. The time-to-shock reversal was significantly different among the groups (P < .001). Patients in group 1 who received fluid resuscitation at a faster rate had a shorter time to shock reversal (HR = 0.78; 95% CI 0.66-0.91; P = .01) when compared with group 4 with a median (IQR) time-to-shock reversal of 1.7 (1.5, 2.0) vs. 2.8 (2.6, 3.3) days, respectively. Using 0.25 ml/kg/min as cutoff, the higher fluid infusion rate was associated with a shorter time to shock reversal (HR = 1.22; 95% CI 1.06-1.41; P = .004) and with decreased odds of 28-day mortality (HR = 0.71; 95% CI 0.60-0.85; P < .001). CONCLUSION:In septic shock patients, initial fluid resuscitation rate of 0.25-0.50 ml/kg/min (i.e., completion of the initial 30 ml/kg IV fluid resuscitation within the first 2 h), may be associated with early shock reversal and lower 28-day mortality compared with slower rates of infusion.

Dataset Information

Fluid Resuscitation in Septic Patients With Comorbid Heart Failure.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets