Dataset Information

Fluid resuscitation after cardiac surgery in the intensive care unit: A bi-national survey of clinician practice. (The FRACS-ICU clinician survey).

ABSTRACT:

Context and aims

To describe current fluid and vasopressor practices after cardiac surgery in Australia and New Zealand cardiothoracic intensive care units (ICU).

Design and setting

This web-based survey was conducted in cardiothoracic ICUs in Australia and New Zealand.

Methods

Intensivists, cardiac surgeons, and anesthetists were contacted to complete the online survey that asked questions regarding first and second choice fluids and vasopressors and the tools and factors that influenced these choices.

Results

There were 96 respondents including 51 intensivists, 27 anesthetists, and 18 cardiac surgeons. Balanced crystalloids were the most preferred fluids (70%) followed by 4% albumin (18%) overall and among intensivists and anesthetists; however, cardiac surgeons (41%) preferred 4% albumin as their first choice. The most preferred second choice was 4% albumin (74%). Among vasopressors, noradrenaline was the preferred first choice (93%) and vasopressin the preferred second choice (80%). 53% initiated blood transfusion at a hemoglobin threshold of 70 g/L. Clinical acumen and mean arterial pressure were the most commonly used modalities in determining the need for fluids.

Conclusions

There is practice variation in preference for fluids used in cardiac surgical patients in Australia and New Zealand; however, balanced crystalloids and 4% albumin were the most popular choices. In contrast, there is broad agreement with the use of noradrenaline and vasopressin as first and second-line vasopressors. These data will inform the design of future studies that aim to investigate hemodynamic management post cardiac surgery.

SUBMITTER: Ramanan M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8617391 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEarly rehabilitation improves outcomes, and increased use of physical therapist services in the intensive care unit (ICU) has been recommended. Little is known about the implementation of early rehabilitation programs or physical therapists' preparation and perceptions of care in the United States.ObjectiveA national survey was conducted to determine the current status of physical therapist practice in the ICU.DesignThis study used a cross-sectional, observational design.MethodsSelf-report surveys were mailed to members of the Acute Care Section of the American Physical Therapy Association. Questions addressed staffing, training, barriers, and protocols, and case scenarios were used to determine perceptions about providing rehabilitation.ResultsThe response rate was 29% (667/2,320). Staffing, defined as the number of physical therapists per 100 ICU beds, was highest in community hospitals (academic: median=5.4 [range=3.6-9.2]; community: median=6.7 [range=4.4-10.0]) and in the western United States (median=7.5 [range=4.2-12.9]). Twelve percent of physical therapists reported no training. Barriers to providing ICU rehabilitation included insufficient staffing and training, departmental prioritization policies, and inadequate consultation criteria. Responses to case scenarios demonstrated differences in the likelihood of consultation and physical therapists' prescribed frequency and intensity of care based on medical interventions rather than characteristics of patients. Physical therapists in academic hospitals were more likely to be involved in the care of patients in each scenario and were more likely to perform higher-intensity mobilization.LimitationsMembers of the Acute Care Section of the American Physical Therapy Association may not represent most practicing physical therapists, and the 29% return rate may have contributed to response bias.ConclusionsAlthough staffing was higher in community hospitals, therapists in academic and community hospitals cited insufficient staffing as the most common barrier to providing rehabilitation in the ICU. Implementing strategies to overcome barriers identified in this study may improve the delivery of ICU rehabilitation services.

Project description:The administration of intravenous fluid to critically ill patients is one of the most common, but also one of the most fiercely debated, interventions in intensive care medicine. Even though many thousands of patients have been enrolled in large trials of alternative fluid strategies, consensus remains elusive and practice is widely variable. Critically ill patients are significantly heterogeneous, making a one size fits all approach unlikely to be successful.New data from basic, animal, and clinical research suggest that fluid resuscitation could be associated with significant harm. There are several important limitations and concerns regarding fluid bolus therapy as it is currently being used in clinical practice. These include, but are not limited to: the lack of an agreed definition; limited and short-lived physiological effects; no evidence of an effect on relevant patient outcomes; and the potential to contribute to fluid overload, specifically when fluid responsiveness is not assessed and when targets and safety limits are not used.Fluid administration in critically ill patients requires clinicians to integrate abnormal physiological parameters into a clinical decision-making model that also incorporates the likely diagnosis and the likely risk or benefit in the specific patient's context. Personalised fluid resuscitation requires careful attention to the mnemonic CIT TAIT: context, indication, targets, timing, amount of fluid, infusion strategy, and type of fluid.The research agenda should focus on experimental and clinical studies to: improve our understanding of the physiological effects of fluid infusion, e.g. on the glycocalyx; evaluate new types of fluids; evaluate novel fluid minimisation protocols; study the effects of a no-fluid strategy for selected patients and scenarios; and compare fluid therapy with other interventions. The adaptive platform trial design may provide us with the tools to evaluate these types of interventions in the intrinsically heterogeneous intensive care unit population, accounting for the explicit assumption that treatment effects may be heterogeneous.

Project description:BackgroundPatients admitted to intensive care units (ICU) are at an increased risk of developing immobility related complications. Physiotherapists are challenged to employ preventive and rehabilitative strategies to combat these effects. Passive limb range of motion (PROM) exercises- a part of early mobilization-aid in maintaining joint range of motion and functional muscle strength and forms a part of treatment for patients in ICU. However, there is a lack of evidence on practice of PROM exercises on patients admitted to ICU in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). This study aimed at exploring practices regarding the same in UAE.MethodsThis survey, conducted from January 2021 to February 2021 in College of Physiotherapy, Sharjah University studied practice of physiotherapists in the intensive care units. Physiotherapists currently working in ICU completed an online questionnaire composed of forty-two questions about physiotherapy service provision, assessment and intervention in the intensive care units.Results33 physiotherapists completed the survey. 66.6% of respondents routinely assessed PROM for all the patients in ICU referred for physiotherapy. 84.8% of them assessed all the joints. More than half of the respondents (57.8%) reported that they administered PROM regularly to all the patients. According to 63.6% respondents, maintaining joint range of motion was the main reason for performing PROM. Responses pertaining to sets and repetitions of PROM were variable ranging from 1-6 sets and from 3 to 30 repetitions. Personal experience, resources/financial consideration and research findings were found to have influence on the practice.ConclusionsPROM was found to be one of the frequently used mobilization techniques administered by physiotherapists in the intensive care units and was mostly performed after assessment. Maintaining joint range of motion was the main aim for performing PROM. Variability was found in the sets and repetitions of PROM administered. Various factors influenced the practice of PROM.