Reshaping orthopaedic history.

R. Villar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.95B4.31901

2013-04-01

The Bone & Joint Journal

Abstract:I recently witnessed a fascinating debate: what happens to an open access publication if the journal ceases to exist? Does your work disappear into the mists of time? Or, would you be forgiven for resubmitting to another journal despite that technically being a dual publication? Naturally the same

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Early sepsis in Australia and New Zealand: A point‐prevalence study of haemodynamic resuscitation practices

Sandra L Peake,Anthony Delaney,Mark Finnis,Naomi Hammond,Serena Knowles,Stephen McDonald,Patricia J Williams,The George Institute for Global Health and the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Clinical Trials Group the ARISE FLUIDS Investigators,the ARISE FLUIDS Investigators, The George Institute for Global Health and the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Clinical Trials Group

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1742-6723.14283

2023-07-19

EMA - Emergency Medicine Australasia

Abstract:Haemodynamic resuscitation of sepsis cohort Objective Optimal resuscitation of sepsis‐induced hypotension is uncertain, particularly the role of restrictive fluid strategies, leading to variability in usual practice. The objective of this study is to understand resuscitation practices in patients presenting to ED with early sepsis. Methods Design, participants and setting: Prospective, observational, multicentre, single‐day, point‐prevalence study enrolling adult patients present in 51 Australian and New Zealand ICUs at 10.00 hours, 8 June 2021. Main outcome measures: Site‐level data on sepsis policies and patient‐level demographic data, presence of sepsis and fluid and vasopressor administration in the first 24 h post‐ED presentation. Results A total of 722 patients were enrolled. ED was the ICU admission source for 222 of 722 patients (31.2%) and 78 of 222 patients (35%) met the criteria for sepsis within 24 h of ED presentation. Median age of the sepsis cohort was 61 (48–72) years, 58% were male and respiratory infection was the commonest cause (53.8%). The sepsis cohort had a higher severity of illness than the non‐sepsis cohort (144/222 patients) and chronic immunocompromise was more common. Of 78 sepsis patients, 55 (71%) received ≥1 fluid boluses with 500 and 1000 mL boluses equally common (both 49%). In the first 24 h, 2335 (1409–3125) mL (25.3 [13.2–42.9] mL/kg) was administered. Vasopressors were administered in 53 of 78 patients (68%) and for 25 patients (47%) administration was peripheral. Conclusions ICU patients presenting to the ED with sepsis receive less fluids than current international recommendations and peripheral vasopressor administration is common. This finding supports the conduct of clinical trials evaluating optimal fluid dose and vasopressor timing for early sepsis‐induced hypotension.
INITIATION TIMING OF VASOPRESSOR IN PATIENTS WITH SEPTIC SHOCK: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

Enci Ye,Hui Ye,Shengyao Wang,Xiangming Fang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/shk.0000000000002214

2023-01-01

Shock

Abstract:ABSTRACT Background: Vasopressor plays a crucial role in septic shock. However, the time for vasopressor initiation remains controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore its initiation timing for septic shock patients. Methods: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Sciences were searched from inception to July 12, 2023, for relevant studies. Primary outcome was short-term mortality. Meta-analysis was performed using Stata 15.0. Results: Twenty-three studies were assessed, including 2 randomized controlled trials and 21 cohort studies. The early group resulted in lower short-term mortality than the late group (OR [95% CI] = 0.775 [0.673 to 0.893], P = 0.000, I 2 = 67.8%). The significance existed in the norepinephrine and vasopressin in subgroup analysis. No significant difference was considered in the association between each hour’s vasopressor delay and mortality (OR [95% CI] = 1.02 [0.99 to 1.051], P = 0.195, I 2 = 57.5%). The early group had an earlier achievement of target MAP ( P < 0.001), shorter vasopressor use duration ( P < 0.001), lower serum lactate level at 24 h ( P = 0.003), lower incidence of kidney injury ( P = 0.001), renal replacement therapy use ( P = 0.022), and longer ventilation-free days to 28 days ( P < 0.001). Conclusions: Early initiation of vasopressor (1–6 h within septic shock onset) would be more beneficial to septic shock patients. The conclusion needs to be further validated by more well-designed randomized controlled trials.
Hemodynamic Resuscitation Characteristics of Emergency Department Patients with Sepsis and Hypotension who are and are not Admitted to ICU; a Prospective Cross-sectional Study

Rebecca Vella,Philip Jones,Gerben Keijzers

DOI: https://doi.org/10.22037/aaem.v12i1.2337

2024-05-23

Abstract:Introduction: There is an evidence-practice gap in the optimal timing and volume of intravenous fluid as well as vasopressor administration in managing patients with sepsis. This study aimed to explore current hemodynamic resuscitation practice in emergency department (ED) for patients with sepsis and hypotension. Methods: This is a sub-analysis of the prospective multicentre ARISE FLUIDS observational study, which was conducted in 70 EDs across Australia and New Zealand. Baseline characteristics, as well as ED management and outcome of sepsis patients were compared between patients who were and were not admitted to intensive care unit (ICU) or high dependency unit (HDU). Results: A total of 587 patients with a median age of 65 years and even sex distribution (49% female) were available for analysis. Almost two-thirds of patients with sepsis (63.2%, n=371) were not admitted to ICU/HDU and were given lower intravenous (IV) fluid volumes over 24-hours, compared to those receiving critical care (4077ml vs. 5421ml, p<0.001). Patients not admitted to an ICU/HDU had a lower Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score (median 14 vs. 18, P<0.001) and serum lactate level (1.8 vs. 2.8 mmol/L, P<0.001) compared to those admitted to ICU/HDU and 5.9% received a vasopressor infusion in the first 24-hours. Females, patients aged <65 years, and those with urosepsis or sepsis of non-respiratory origin received a greater volume of IV fluids. Conclusion: Almost two-thirds of patients were not admitted to ICU/HDU. In patients not admitted to ICU/HDU, 1 in 17 received a vasopressor infusion during their ED or early hospital stay. Patients not admitted to ICU/HDU received less fluid in the first 24 hours than those who were. Greater resuscitation fluid volumes were independently associated with female sex, age <65 years, higher lactate levels, and urinary or non-respiratory source of sepsis.
The Effect of Fluid Resuscitation Timing in Early Sepsis Resuscitation

Hani I. Kuttab,Chad G. Evans,Joseph D. Lykins,Michelle D. Hughes,Jason A. Kopec,Michael A. Hernandez,Michael A. Ward

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/08850666231180530

2023-06-09

Journal of Intensive Care Medicine

Abstract:Journal of Intensive Care Medicine, Ahead of Print. PurposeThe dose and timing of early fluid resuscitation in sepsis remains a debated topic. The objective of this study is to evaluate the effect of fluid timing in early sepsis management on mortality and other clinical outcomes.MethodsSingle-center, retrospective cohort study of emergency-department-treated adults (>18 years, n = 1032) presenting with severe sepsis or septic shock. Logistic regression evaluating the impact of 30 mL/kg crystalloids timing and mortality-versus-time plot controlling for mortality in emergency department sepsis score, lactate, antibiotic timing, obesity, sex, systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria, hypotension, and heart and renal failures. This study is a subanalysis of a previously published investigation.ResultsMortality was 17.1% (n = 176) overall and 20.4% (n = 133 of 653) among those in septic shock. 30 mL/kg was given to 16.9%, 32.2%, 16.2%, 14.5%, and 20.3% of patients within ≤1, 1 ≤ 3, 3 ≤ 6, 6 ≤ 24, and not reached within 24 h, respectively. A 24-h plot of adjusted mortality versus time did not reach significance, but within the first 12 h, the linear function showed a per-hour mortality increase (odds ratio [OR] 1.29, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02-1.67) which peaks around 5h, although the quadratic function does not reach significance (P = .09). When compared to patients receiving 30 mL/kg within 1 h, increased mortality was observed when not reached within 24 h (OR 2.69, 95% CI 1.37-5.37) but no difference when receiving this volume between 1 and 3 (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.62-2.01), 3 and 6 (OR 1.83, 95% CI 0.97-3.52), or 6 and 24 h (OR 1.51, 95% CI 0.75-3.06). Receiving 30 mL/kg between 1 and 3 versus <1 h increased the incidence of delayed hypotension (OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.23-2.72) but did not impact need for intubation, intensive care unit admission, or vasopressors.ConclusionsWe observed weak evidence that supports that earlier is better for survival when reaching fluid goals of 30 mL/kg, but benefits may wane at later time points. These findings should be viewed as hypothesis generating.

critical care medicine
Timing of Vasopressin Initiation and Mortality in Patients with Septic Shock: Analysis of the MIMIC-III and MIMIC-IV Databases

Jun Xu,Hongliu Cai,Xia Zheng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-023-08147-6

IF: 3.7

2023-01-01

BMC Infectious Diseases

Abstract:Background vasopressin is commonly used as a second-line vasopressor for patients with septic shock, but the optimal timing of initiation is uncertain. This study was designed to investigate when vasopressin initiation may be beneficial for 28-day mortality in septic shock patients. Methods This was a retrospective observational cohort study from the MIMIC-III v1.4 and MIMIC-IV v2.0 databases. All adults diagnosed with septic shock according to Sepsis-3 criteria were included. Patients were stratified into two groups based on norepinephrine (NE) dose at the time of vasopressin initiation, defined as the low doses of NE group (NE<0.25 µg/kg/min) and the high doses of NE group (NE ≥ 0.25 µg/kg/min). The primary end‐point was 28‐day mortality after diagnosis of septic shock. The analysis involved propensity score matching (PSM), multivariable logistic regression, doubly robust estimation, the gradient boosted model, and an inverse probability‐weighting model. Results A total of 1817 eligible patients were included in our original cohort (613 in the low doses of NE group and 1204 in the high doses of NE group). After 1:1 PSM, 535 patients from each group with no difference in disease severity were included in the analysis. The results showed that vasopressin initiation at low doses of NE was associated with reduced 28-day mortality (odds ratio [OR] 0.660, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.518–0.840, p < 0.001). Compared with patients in the high doses of NE group, patients in the low doses of NE group received significantly shorter duration of NE, with less intravenous fluid volume on the first day after initiation of vasopressin, more urine on the second day, and longer mechanical ventilation-free days and CRRT-free days. Nevertheless, there were no significant differences in hemodynamic response to vasopressin, duration of vasopressin, and ICU or hospital length of stay. Conclusions Among adults with septic shock, vasopressin initiation when low-dose NE was used was associated with an improvement in 28-day mortality.
Effect of early vasopressin combined with norepinephrine on short-term mortality in septic shock: A retrospective study based on the MIMIC-IV database

Dan He,Luming Zhang,Hai Hu,Xuehao Lu,Minshang Qiu,Chao Li,Haiyan Yin,Jun Lyu,Wan-jie Gu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2023.04.040

2023-05-05

Abstract:Background Septic shock is a leading cause of death in intensive care units (ICUs), with short-term mortality rates of 35–40%. Vasopressin (AVP) is a second-line vasoactive agent for septic shock, and recent studies suggest that early AVP use can be beneficial. However, differences between early initiation of AVP combined with norepinephrine (NE) and nonearly AVP with NE are unclear. A retrospective cohort research was designed to explore the effects of early AVP initiation versus nonearly AVP initiation. Methods This retrospective single-center cohort study included adult patients with septic shock from the MIMIC (Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care)-IV database. According to whether AVP was used early in the ICU (intensive care unit), patients were assigned to the early- (within 6 h of septic shock onset) and non-early-AVP (at least 6 h after septic shock onset) groups. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. The secondary outcomes were ICU and hospital mortality, the numbers of vasopressor-free and ventilation-free days at 28 days, ICU length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score on days 2 and 3, and renal replacement therapy (RRT) use on days 2 and 3. Univariate and multivariate cox proportional-hazards regression, propensity-score matching were used to analyze the differences between the groups. Results The study included 531 patients with septic shock: 331 (62.5%) in the early-AVP group and 200 (37.5%) in the non-early-AVP group. For 1:1 matching, 158 patients in the early-AVP group were matched with the same number of patients with nonearly AVP. Regarding the primary outcome, there was no significant difference between the early- and non-early-AVP groups in 28-day mortality (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.68–1.24). For the secondary outcomes, there were no differences between the early- and non-early-AVP groups in ICU mortality (HR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.67–1.35), hospital mortality (HR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.69–1.31), the numbers of vasopressor-free and ventilation-free days at 28 days, ICU LOS, hospital LOS, SOFA score on days 2 and 3, and RRT use on days 2 and 3. Conclusions There was no difference in short-term mortality between early AVP combined with NE and nonearly AVP with NE in septic shock.

emergency medicine
Early versus delayed administration of norepinephrine in patients with septic shock

Xiaowu Bai,Wenkui Yu,Wu Ji,Zhiliang Lin,Shanjun Tan,Kaipeng Duan,Yi Dong,Lin Xu,Ning Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-014-0532-y

2014-01-01

Abstract:Introduction This study investigated the incidence of delayed norepinephrine administration following the onset of septic shock and its effect on hospital mortality. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from 213 adult septic shock patients treated at two general surgical intensive care units of a tertiary care hospital over a two year period. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Results The 28-day mortality was 37.6% overall. Among the 213 patients, a strong relationship between delayed initial norepinephrine administration and 28-day mortality was noted. The average time to initial norepinephrine administration was 3.1 ± 2.5 hours. Every 1-hour delay in norepinephrine initiation during the first 6 hours after septic shock onset was associated with a 5.3% increase in mortality. Twenty-eight day mortality rates were significantly higher when norepinephrine administration was started more than or equal to 2 hours after septic shock onset (Late-NE) compared to less than 2 hours (Early-NE). Mean arterial pressures at 1, 2, 4, and 6 hours after septic shock onset were significantly higher and serum lactate levels at 2, 4, 6, and 8 hours were significantly lower in the Early-NE than the Late-NE group. The duration of hypotension and norepinephrine administration was significantly shorter and the quantity of norepinephrine administered in a 24-hour period was significantly less for the Early-NE group compared to the Late-NE group. The time to initial antimicrobial treatment was not significantly different between the Early-NE and Late-NE groups. Conclusion Our results show that early administration of norepinephrine in septic shock patients is associated with an increased survival rate.
Bispectral Analysis of the Electroencephalogram Predicts Conscious Processing of Information during Propofol Sedation and Hypnosis

L. Kearse,C. Rosow,A. Zaslavsky,P. Connors,M. Dershwitz,W. Denman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-199801000-00007

IF: 8.986

1998-01-01

Anesthesiology

Abstract:Background The bispectral index (BIS) measures changes in the interfrequency coupling of the electroencephalogram (EEG). The purposes of this study were (1) to determine whether BIS correlates with responses to command during sedation and hypnosis induced by propofol or propofol and nitrous oxide, and (2) to compare BIS to targeted and measured concentrations of propofol in predicting participants' responses to commands. Methods Twenty volunteers (15 men and 5 women, aged 22–50 yr) were given propofol by computer‐controlled infusion, and EEG was recorded for off‐line analysis of BIS. Responses to randomly ordered verbal commands or voice plus touch were measured with two categorical scales (CS1 and CS2, respectively). All subjects received a propofol infusion targeted to achieve effect site concentrations of 1, 2, 4, 2, 1, and 0 micro gram/ml. Ten participants had repeated infusion, whereas 10 others breathed 30% nitrous oxide and oxygen and received a propofol infusion targeted for 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 2, 1, 0.5, and 0 micro gram/ml. Five minutes after each targeted concentration had been reached, CS1, CS2, and arterial propofol concentration were determined. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was used to compare the accuracy of (1) BIS, (2) targeted propofol concentration, (3) measured concentration, and (4) treatment history as predictors of response. Results Bispectral index was a strong predictor of CS1 and CS2 (P < 0.0001) and significantly more accurate than targeted or measured propofol concentrations (P < 0.0003 and P < 0.003, respectively). It also provided additional predictive power when combined with treatment history (P < 0.02). Nitrous oxide slightly decreased the probability of response at a given value of BIS (P < 0.05), but accuracy was unaffected. Conclusions Bispectral index accurately predicts response to verbal commands during sedation and hypnosis with propofol or propofol plus nitrous oxide. Accuracy is maintained in situations likely to be encountered during clinical use: when propofol concentrations are increasing or decreasing and when repeated measurements are made over time.
Effect of Fluid Resuscitation on Adhesion Molecule and Hemodynamics in Patients with Severe Sepsis

Xianyong Fang,Qiang Fang,Guoen Cai,Jun Yan

2006-01-01

Abstract:OBJECTIVE: To explore the effects of fluid resuscitation on adhesion molecule and hemodynamics in patients with severe sepsis. METHODS: Thirty-eight patients with severe sepsis were randomly divided into 2 groups: rapid fluid resuscitation group and general treatment group. Before and after fluid resuscitation, heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), central venous pressure (CVP), lactic acid content, plasma P-selection and intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (ICAM-1) contents were determined. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in sex, age, resuscitation time and acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II (APACHE II) score between the two groups. Compared with general treatment group, more liquid volume but less aramine dosage were used (both P<0.05), MAP and CVP were increased after fluid resuscitation in rapid fluid resuscitation group (all P<0.05). The expression of P-selection, HR, contents of ICAM-1 and lactic acid were decreased (all P<0.05), and all of those were better than those of before fluid resuscitation. CONCLUSION: Early rapid fluid resuscitation can improve hemodynamics and decrease the expression of adhesion molecule to retard the development of sepsis.
Relationship Between Fluid Administration During the First Three Hours of Sepsis Resuscitation and Mortality: A Multicenter Observational Study

Toshikazu Abe,Yutaka Umemura,Hiroshi Ogura,Shigeki Kushimoto,Seitato Fujishima,Atsushi Shiraishi,Daizo Saitoh,Toshihiko Mayumi,Yasuhiro Otomo,Taka-Aki Nakada,Satoshi Gando

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.65480

2024-07-26

Cureus

Abstract:Background Timely and effective fluid resuscitation is vital for stabilizing sepsis while avoiding volume overload. We aimed to assess how the administration of a 30 mL/kg bolus fluid affects patients with sepsis within three hours of clinical outcomes. Methods This multicenter observational study included adult patients diagnosed with sepsis in 17 intensive care units at tertiary hospitals in Japan between July 2019 and August 2020. The clinical outcomes of patients with sepsis who received ≥30 mL/kg bolus fluid within three hours (30 × 3 group) were compared with those who received <30 mL/kg fluid (non-30 × 3 group). Results Of 172 eligible patients, 74 (43.0%) belonged to the 30 × 3 group, and 98 (57.0%) belonged to the non-30 × 3 group. The median Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score was 9 (interquartile range (Q1-Q3): 7-11) in the 30 × 3 group and 7 (Q1-Q3: 4-9) in the non-30 × 3 group (P < 0.01). The 28-day mortality rate was 29.7% in the 30 × 3 group and 12.2% in the non-30 × 3 group (P < 0.01). However, the adjusted odds ratio by the inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis with propensity score for the 28-day mortality rate of the 30 × 3 group compared with that in the non-30 × 3 group was 2.17 (95% confidence interval: 0.85-5.54). Among the propensity score-matched patients, the 28-day mortality rate was 30% in the 30 × 3 (n = 70) and non-30 × 3 (n = 95) groups, respectively (P = 0.72). Conclusions Patients with sepsis who received the 30 mL/kg bolus fluid within three hours experienced more severe clinical outcomes. However, it was not associated with the increased odds of the 28-day mortality.
Early fluid bolus in adults with sepsis in the emergency department: a systematic review, meta-analysis and narrative synthesis

Gladis Kabil,Steven A. Frost,Deborah Hatcher,Amith Shetty,Jann Foster,Stephen McNally

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12873-021-00558-5

2022-01-11

BMC Emergency Medicine

Abstract:Abstract Background Early intravenous fluids for patients with sepsis presenting with hypoperfusion or shock in the emergency department remains one of the key recommendations of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines to reduce mortality. However, compliance with the recommendation remains poor. While several interventions have been implemented to improve early fluid administration as part of sepsis protocols, the extent to which they have improved compliance with fluid resuscitation is unknown. The factors associated with the lack of compliance are also poorly understood. Methods We conducted a systematic review, meta-analysis and narrative review to investigate the effectiveness of interventions in emergency departments in improving compliance with early fluid administration and examine the non-interventional facilitators and barriers that may influence appropriate fluid administration in adults with sepsis. We searched MEDLINE Ovid/PubMed, Ovid EMBASE, CINAHL, and SCOPUS databases for studies of any design to April 2021. We synthesised results from the studies reporting effectiveness of interventions in a meta-analysis and conducted a narrative synthesis of studies reporting non-interventional factors. Results We included 31 studies out of the 825 unique articles identified in the systematic review of which 21 were included in the meta-analysis and 11 in the narrative synthesis. In meta-analysis, interventions were associated with a 47% improvement in the rate of compliance [(Random Effects (RE) Relative Risk (RR) = 1.47, 95% Confidence Interval (CI), 1.25–1.74, p -value < 0.01)]; an average 24 min reduction in the time to fluids [RE mean difference = − 24.11(95% CI − 14.09 to − 34.14 min, p value < 0.01)], and patients receiving an additional 575 mL fluids [RE mean difference = 575.40 (95% CI 202.28–1353.08, p value < 0.01)]. The compliance rate of early fluid administration reported in the studies included in the narrative synthesis is 48% [RR = 0.48 (95% CI 0.24–0.72)]. Conclusion Performance improvement interventions improve compliance and time and volume of fluids administered to patients with sepsis in the emergency department. While patient-related factors such as advanced age, co-morbidities, cryptic shock were associated with poor compliance, important organisational factors such as inexperience of clinicians, overcrowding and inter-hospital transfers were also identified. A comprehensive understanding of the facilitators and barriers to early fluid administration is essential to design quality improvement projects. PROSPERO Registration ID CRD42021225417.

emergency medicine
Fluids and Early Vasopressors in the Management of Septic Shock: Do We Have the Right Answers Yet?

E. Carlos Sanchez,Michael R. Pinsky,Sharmili Sinha,Rajesh Chandra Mishra,Ahsina Jahan Lopa,Ranajit Chatterjee

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/jccm-2023-0022

2023-07-01

The Journal of Critical Care Medicine

Abstract:Abstract Septic shock is a common condition associated with hypotension and organ dysfunction. It is associated with high mortality rates of up to 60% despite the best recommended resuscitation strategies in international guidelines. Patients with septic shock generally have a Mean Arterial Pressure below 65 mmHg and hypotension is the most important determinant of mortality among this group of patients. The extent and duration of hypotension are important. The two initial options that we have are 1) administration of intravenous (IV) fluids and 2) vasopressors, The current recommendation of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines to administer 30 ml/kg fluid cannot be applied to all patients. Complications of fluid over-resuscitation further delay organ recovery, prolong ICU and hospital length of stay, and increase mortality. The only reason for administering intravenous fluids in a patient with circulatory shock is to increase the mean systemic filling pressure in a patient who is volume-responsive, such that cardiac output also increases. The use of vasopressors seems to be a more appropriate strategy, the very early administration of vasopressors, preferably during the first hour after diagnosis of septic shock, may have a multimodal action and potential advantages, leading to lower morbidity and mortality in the management of septic patients. Vasopressor therapy should be initiated as soon as possible in patients with septic shock.
Understanding How Clinicians Personalize Fluid and Vasopressor Decisions in Early Sepsis Management

Elizabeth S Munroe,Julien Weinstein,Hayley B Gershengorn,Kevin J Karlic,Sarah Seelye,Michael W Sjoding,Thomas S Valley,Hallie C Prescott

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.7480

2024-04-01

Abstract:Importance: Recent sepsis trials suggest that fluid-liberal vs fluid-restrictive resuscitation has similar outcomes. These trials used generalized approaches to resuscitation, and little is known about how clinicians personalize fluid and vasopressor administration in practice. Objective: To understand how clinicians personalize decisions about resuscitation in practice. Design, setting, and participants: This survey study of US clinicians in the Society of Critical Care Medicine membership roster was conducted from November 2022 to January 2023. Surveys contained 10 vignettes of patients with sepsis where pertinent clinical factors (eg, fluid received and volume status) were randomized. Respondents selected the next steps in management. Data analysis was conducted from February to September 2023. Exposure: Online Qualtrics clinical vignette survey. Main outcomes and measures: Using multivariable logistic regression, the associations of clinical factors with decisions about fluid administration, vasopressor initiation, and vasopressor route were tested. Results are presented as adjusted proportions with 95% CIs. Results: Among 11 203 invited clinicians, 550 (4.9%; 261 men [47.5%] and 192 women [34.9%]; 173 with >15 years of practice [31.5%]) completed at least 1 vignette and were included. A majority were physicians (337 respondents [61.3%]) and critical care trained (369 respondents [67.1%]). Fluid volume already received by a patient was associated with resuscitation decisions. After 1 L of fluid, an adjusted 82.5% (95% CI, 80.2%-84.8%) of respondents prescribed additional fluid and an adjusted 55.0% (95% CI, 51.9%-58.1%) initiated vasopressors. After 5 L of fluid, an adjusted 17.5% (95% CI, 15.1%-19.9%) of respondents prescribed more fluid while an adjusted 92.7% (95% CI, 91.1%-94.3%) initiated vasopressors. More respondents prescribed fluid when the patient examination found dry vs wet (ie, overloaded) volume status (adjusted proportion, 66.9% [95% CI, 62.5%-71.2%] vs adjusted proportion, 26.5% [95% CI, 22.3%-30.6%]). Medical history, respiratory status, lactate trend, and acute kidney injury had small associations with fluid and vasopressor decisions. In 1023 of 1127 vignettes (90.8%) where the patient did not have central access, respondents were willing to start vasopressors through a peripheral intravenous catheter. In cases where patients were already receiving peripheral norepinephrine, respondents were more likely to place a central line at higher norepinephrine doses of 0.5 µg/kg/min (adjusted proportion, 78.0%; 95% CI, 74.7%-81.2%) vs 0.08 µg/kg/min (adjusted proportion, 25.2%; 95% CI, 21.8%-28.5%) and after 24 hours (adjusted proportion, 59.5%; 95% CI, 56.6%-62.5%) vs 8 hours (adjusted proportion, 47.1%; 95% CI, 44.0%-50.1%). Conclusions and relevance: These findings suggest that fluid volume received is the predominant factor associated with ongoing fluid and vasopressor decisions, outweighing many other clinical factors. Peripheral vasopressor use is common. Future studies aimed at personalizing resuscitation must account for fluid volumes and should incorporate specific tools to help clinicians personalize resuscitation.
Vasopressor Therapy in the Intensive Care Unit

Niranjan Kissoon,James A. Russell,Anthony C. Gordon,Mark D. Williams,John H. Boyd,Keith R. Walley

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1710320

2020-08-20

Seminars in Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine

Abstract:Abstract After fluid administration for vasodilatory shock, vasopressors are commonly infused. Causes of vasodilatory shock include septic shock, post-cardiovascular surgery, post-acute myocardial infarction, postsurgery, other causes of an intense systemic inflammatory response, and drug -associated anaphylaxis. Therapeutic vasopressors are hormones that activate receptors—adrenergic: α1, α2, β1, β2; angiotensin II: AG1, AG2; vasopressin: AVPR1a, AVPR1B, AVPR2; dopamine: DA1, DA2. Vasopressor choice and dose vary widely because of patient and physician practice heterogeneity. Vasopressor adverse effects are excessive vasoconstriction causing organ ischemia/infarction, hyperglycemia, hyperlactatemia, tachycardia, and tachyarrhythmias. To date, no randomized controlled trial (RCT) of vasopressors has shown a decreased 28-day mortality rate. There is a need for evidence regarding alternative vasopressors as first-line vasopressors. We emphasize that vasopressors should be administered simultaneously with fluid replacement to prevent and decrease duration of hypotension in shock with vasodilation. Norepinephrine is the first-choice vasopressor in septic and vasodilatory shock. Interventions that decrease norepinephrine dose (vasopressin, angiotensin II) have not decreased 28-day mortality significantly. In patients not responsive to norepinephrine, vasopressin or epinephrine may be added. Angiotensin II may be useful for rapid resuscitation of profoundly hypotensive patients. Inotropic agent(s) (e.g., dobutamine) may be needed if vasopressors decrease ventricular contractility. Dopamine has fallen to almost no-use recommendation because of adverse effects; angiotensin II is available clinically; there are potent vasopressors with scant literature (e.g., methylene blue); and the novel V1a agonist selepressin missed on its pivotal RCT primary outcome. In pediatric septic shock, vasopressors, epinephrine, and norepinephrine are recommended equally because there is no clear evidence that supports the use of one vasoactive agent. Dopamine is recommended when epinephrine or norepinephrine is not available. New strategies include perhaps patients will be started on several vasopressors with complementary mechanisms of action, patients may be selected for particular vasopressors according to predictive biomarkers, and novel vasopressors may emerge with fewer adverse effects.

respiratory system,critical care medicine
Resuscitation With Early Adrenaline Infusion for Children With Septic Shock: A Randomized Pilot Trial

Amanda Harley,Shane George,Natalie Phillips,Megan King,Debbie Long,Gerben Keijzers,Paula Lister,Sainath Raman,Rinaldo Bellomo,Kristen Gibbons,Luregn J Schlapbach,

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/pcc.0000000000003351

2024-01-19

Pediatric Critical Care Medicine

Abstract:OBJECTIVES: In children with septic shock, guidelines recommend resuscitation with 40–60 mL/kg of fluid boluses, yet there is a lack of evidence to support this practice. We aimed to determine the feasibility of a randomized trial comparing early adrenaline infusion with standard fluid resuscitation in children with septic shock. DESIGN: Open-label parallel randomized controlled, multicenter pilot study. The primary end point was feasibility; the exploratory clinical endpoint was survival free of organ dysfunction by 28 days. SETTING: Four pediatric Emergency Departments in Queensland, Australia. PATIENTS: Children between 28 days and 18 years old with septic shock. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were assigned 1:1 to receive a continuous adrenaline infusion after 20 mL/kg fluid bolus resuscitation ( n = 17), or standard care fluid resuscitation defined as delivery of 40 to 60 mL/kg fluid bolus resuscitation prior to inotrope commencement ( n = 23). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Forty of 58 eligible patients (69%) were consented with a median age of 3.7 years (interquartile range [IQR], 0.9–12.1 yr). The median time from randomization to inotropes was 16 minutes (IQR, 12–26 min) in the intervention group, and 49 minutes (IQR, 29–63 min) in the standard care group. The median amount of fluid delivered during the first 24 hours was 0 mL/kg (IQR, 0–10.0 mL/kg) in the intervention group, and 20.0 mL/kg (14.6–28.6 mL/kg) in the standard group (difference, –20.0; 95% CI, –28.0 to –12.0). The number of days alive and free of organ dysfunction did not differ between the intervention and standard care groups, with a median of 27 days (IQR, 26–27 d) versus 26 days (IQR, 25–27 d). There were no adverse events reported associated with the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: In children with septic shock, a protocol comparing early administration of adrenaline versus standard care achieved separation between the study arms in relation to inotrope and fluid bolus use.

pediatrics,critical care medicine
Practice and effect evaluation of early restrictive fluid resuscitation strategy in the nursing care of patients with sepsis in the emergency department: a retrospective cohort study

Xiaqing Hu,Jie Zhang,Peipei Wang,Xin Dai

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/xeb.0000000000000365

2023-03-15

JBI Evidence Implementation

Abstract:OBJECTIVE: To explore the practice and effect evaluation of the early restrictive fluid resuscitation strategy in the nursing care of patients with sepsis in the emergency department.METHODS: A total of 239 sepsis patients, who were treated in the emergency department of our hospital from January to September 2020, were selected as the participants of this study, and a retrospective analysis was performed. According to different fluid resuscitation, they were divided into an improved group and a control group. One hundred and twelve patients who received restrictive fluid resuscitation were in the improved group; another 127 patients who received adequate fluid resuscitation were in the control group. The ICU stay time, ventilator use time and 28-day mortality rate of the two groups were observed. The hemodynamic indexes, acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE) II score, sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score and complications of the two groups before and after treatment were compared.RESULTS: After treatment, in the improved group, the APACHE II and SOFA scores were lower than in the control group, fluid replacement decreased, lactate clearance increased, ICU admission time shortened and the proportion of ventilator time to ICU admission time decreased. The incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), cTn I and brain natriuretic peptic in the improved group were significantly lower than those in the control group. From the dimension within the group, the APACHE II score, SOFA score, heart rate and shock index were lower after treatment than before treatment in the improved and control groups.CONCLUSION: Restricted fluid resuscitation can effectively alleviate the condition of emergency sepsis patients, improve haemodynamics, reduce the incidence of ARDS and prevent patient deaths. It is worthy of clinical application.

medicine, general & internal,health care sciences & services
The Vasopressin Loading for Refractory septic shock (VALOR) study: a prospective observational study

Kensuke Nakamura,Hidehiko Nakano,Daisuke Ikechi,Masaki Mochizuki,Yuji Takahashi,Yasuaki Koyama,Hideki Hashimoto,Toshikazu Abe,Mineji Hayakawa,Kazuma Yamakawa

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-023-04583-7

2023-07-21

Abstract:Background: Vasopressin is a second-line vasoactive agent for refractory septic shock. Vasopressin loading is not generally performed because of the lack of evidence for its effects and safety. However, based on our previous findings, we hypothesized it can predict the responsibility to vasopressin infusion with safety, and prospectively examined it in the present study. Methods: Vasopressin loading was performed via the intravenous administration of a bolus of 1 U, followed by its continuous infusion at 1U/h in patients with septic shock treated with ≥ 0.2 μg/kg/min noradrenaline. An arterial pressure wave analysis was conducted, and endocrinological tests were performed immediately prior to vasopressin loading. We classified patients into responders/non-responders based on mean arterial pressure (MAP) changes after vasopressin loading. Based on our previous findings, the lower tertile of MAP changes was selected as the cut-off. The change in the catecholamine index (CAI) after 6 h was assigned as the primary outcome. Digital ischemia, mesenteric ischemia, and myocardial ischemia during the admission period were prospectively and systematically recorded as adverse events. Results: Ninety-two patients were registered during the study period and examined. Sixty-two patients with a MAP change > 22 mmHg were assigned as responders and the others as non-responders. Blood adrenocorticotropic hormone levels were significantly higher in non-responders. Stroke volume variations were higher in responders before loading, while stroke volume and dP/dtmax were higher in responders after loading. Median CAI changes were - 10 in responders and 0 in non-responders, which was significantly lower in the former (p < 0.0001). AUROC of MAP change with vasopressin loading to predict CAI change < 0 after continuous infusion was 0.843 with sensitivity of 0.92 and specificity of 0.77. Ischemia events were observed in 5 cases (5.4%). Conclusions: Vasopressin loading may be safely introduced for septic shock. Vasopressin loading may be used to predict responses to its continuous infusion and select appropriate strategies to increase blood pressure.
Safety and efficacy of peripheral versus centrally administered vasopressor infusion: A single-centre retrospective observational study

Annaliese Stolz,Rachel Efendy,Yogesh Apte,Alison Craswell,Frances Lin,Mahesh Ramanan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aucc.2021.08.005

IF: 3.265

2021-09-01

Australian Critical Care

Abstract:BackgroundShock affects one-third of patients admitted to intensive care and is associated with increased mortality. Vasopressor medications are used to maintain blood pressure in shock. Central venous catheters are associated with serious complications and pose logistical difficulties for insertion. Delivery of vasopressors via peripheral intravenous cannula may be a safe alternative.MethodsThis is a retrospective cohort study comparing safety profile and outcomes of vasopressor delivery via peripheral and central routes in critically ill patients over a 12-month period in a mixed medical-surgical intensive care unit. Demographics, clinical characteristics, treatments, and safety outcome data were extracted from medical records. Patients were classified into three groups: vasopressor infusions via peripheral intravenous cannula, combined peripheral intravenous cannula followed by central venous catheter, and central venous catheter only. Groups were compared using the Kruskal–Wallis test for continuous variables and Fisher's exact test for categorical variables. The impact of duration of vasopressor infusion on complication rates was assessed using logistic regression.ResultsWe identified 212 patients who received vasopressor infusion, 39 received via peripheral only (Group 1), 155 via peripheral followed by central (Group 2), and 18 via central only (Group 3). There were some baseline differences between groups. Group 1 had the lowest median Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation III score (64, interquartile range = 44–77), and Group 3, the highest (86, interquartile range = 57–101). Duration of vasopressor infusion was shortest in Group 1 and longer in Groups 2 and 3. There were no major complications; however, minor complications such as leakage, extravasation, and erythema occurred in 41% of Group 1 and 28% of Group 2 patients. Duration of peripheral vasopressor infusion was not associated with an increased risk of complications.ConclusionsAdministration of vasopressor infusions for short duration in critically ill patients via a peripheral venous cannula may be feasible, with low rates of complications, and offers a safe alternative to central venous access.
Early administration of norepinephrine in sepsis: Multicenter randomized clinical trial (EA-NE-S-TUN) study protocol

Ahlem Trifi,Sami Abdellatif,Asma Mehdi,Linda Messaoud,Eya Seghir,Nacef Mrad,Jalila Ben Khelil,Khaoula Ben Ismail,Takwa Merhaben,Hana Fradj,Amel Mokline,Amen Allah Messaadi,Hyem Khiari,Yasmin Garbaa,Nabiha Borsali Falfoul,Emna Ennouri,Radhouane Toumi,Mohamed Boussarsar,Oussama Jaoued,Souhail Atrous,Hassen Ben Ghezala,Nozha Brahmi,Insaf Trabelsi,Hatem Ghadhoune,Sabrine Bradaii,Mabrouk Bahloul,Rania Ammar,Fatma Medhioub Kaaniche

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307407

IF: 3.7

2024-07-19

PLoS ONE

Abstract:One of the most important components of sepsis management is hemodynamic restoration. If the target mean arterial pressure (MAP) is not obtained, the first recommendation is for volume expansion, and the second is for norepinephrine (NE). We describe the methodology of a randomized multicenter trial aiming to assess the hypothesis that low-dose NE given early in adult patients with sepsis will provide better control of shock within 6 hours from therapy starting compared to standard care. This trial includes ICU septic patients in whom MAP decrease below 65 mmHg to be randomized into 2 groups: early NE-group versus standard care-group. The patient's attending clinician will determine how much volume expansion is necessary to meet the target of a MAP > 65 mm Hg. If this target not achieved, after at least 30 ml/kg and guided by the available indices of fluid responsiveness, NE will be used in a usual way. The latter must follow a consensual schedule elaborated by the investigating centers. Parameters to be taken at inclusion and at H6 are: lactates, cardiac ultrasound parameters (stroke volume (SV), cardiac output (CO), E/E' ratio), and P/F ratio. MAP and diuresis are recorded hourly. Our primary outcome is the shock control defined as a composite criterion (MAP > 65 mm Hg for 2 consecutive measurements and urinary output > 0.5 ml/kg/h for 2 consecutive hours) within 6 hours. Secondary outcomes: Decrease in serum lactate> 10% from baseline within 6 hours, the received fluid volume within 6 hours, variation of CO and E/E', and 28 days-Mortality. The study is ongoing and aims to include at least 100 patients per arm. This study is likely to contribute to support the indication of early initiation of NE with the aim to restrict fluid intake in septic patients. (ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT05836272).

multidisciplinary sciences
Immediate vs latent antibiotic administration for septic shock or severe sepsis in Emergency department – a systematic review

Abdulaziz Balubaid,Abdullah Alharbi,Musab Ezzi,Fahad Althagafi,Lama Mandourah,Fatima Hamoud,Ahmed Alanazi,Elias Kassis,Salma Albrak,Saad Alanazi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.24911/ijmdc.51-1701901722

2024-01-01

International Journal of Medicine in Developing Countries

Abstract:Background: Sepsis is a time-dependent, host response to infection that is linked to an unacceptable high death rate, making it a medical emergency and potentially fatal illness. Therefore, during the first hour of sepsis diagnosis, doctors treating suspected or confirmed cases must start treating patients with broad-spectrum antibiotics. In order to examine research on the effect of early (1 to 3 hours) vs immediate (0 to 1 hours) antibiotic administration on mortality in septic shock or severe sepsis patients, we conducted this systematic review. Method: The PRISMA guidelines were followed in this review. Grey literature and databases including Web of Science, PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched. We considered studies included mortality data from consecutive adult patients with septic shock or severe sepsis who were treated with antibiotics within each time frame. All writers extracted the data. Result: Following screening, eight papers were included in the final evaluation. Seven trials were carried out in the ED, and one research was done in the ICU and ED. The ED triage in three studies, ED arrival in three studies, period of organ failure in one research, and the ED registration in one study were all considered the zero time for sepsis start. Ferrer et al. and Alan et al. carried out the two largest investigations, involving 34 and 144 hospitals, respectively. Seven studies classified mortality as occurring in the hospital during the index visit, while one research defined it as occurring within 28 days following admission. Conclusion: The study found that patients with septic shock or severe sepsis who received their first antibiotic later had higher in-hospital mortality.

English Else

Reshaping orthopaedic history.

Early sepsis in Australia and New Zealand: A point‐prevalence study of haemodynamic resuscitation practices

INITIATION TIMING OF VASOPRESSOR IN PATIENTS WITH SEPTIC SHOCK: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

Hemodynamic Resuscitation Characteristics of Emergency Department Patients with Sepsis and Hypotension who are and are not Admitted to ICU; a Prospective Cross-sectional Study

The Effect of Fluid Resuscitation Timing in Early Sepsis Resuscitation

Timing of Vasopressin Initiation and Mortality in Patients with Septic Shock: Analysis of the MIMIC-III and MIMIC-IV Databases

Effect of early vasopressin combined with norepinephrine on short-term mortality in septic shock: A retrospective study based on the MIMIC-IV database

Early versus delayed administration of norepinephrine in patients with septic shock

Bispectral Analysis of the Electroencephalogram Predicts Conscious Processing of Information during Propofol Sedation and Hypnosis

Effect of Fluid Resuscitation on Adhesion Molecule and Hemodynamics in Patients with Severe Sepsis

Relationship Between Fluid Administration During the First Three Hours of Sepsis Resuscitation and Mortality: A Multicenter Observational Study

Early fluid bolus in adults with sepsis in the emergency department: a systematic review, meta-analysis and narrative synthesis

Fluids and Early Vasopressors in the Management of Septic Shock: Do We Have the Right Answers Yet?

Understanding How Clinicians Personalize Fluid and Vasopressor Decisions in Early Sepsis Management

Vasopressor Therapy in the Intensive Care Unit

Resuscitation With Early Adrenaline Infusion for Children With Septic Shock: A Randomized Pilot Trial

Practice and effect evaluation of early restrictive fluid resuscitation strategy in the nursing care of patients with sepsis in the emergency department: a retrospective cohort study

The Vasopressin Loading for Refractory septic shock (VALOR) study: a prospective observational study

Safety and efficacy of peripheral versus centrally administered vasopressor infusion: A single-centre retrospective observational study

Early administration of norepinephrine in sepsis: Multicenter randomized clinical trial (EA-NE-S-TUN) study protocol

Immediate vs latent antibiotic administration for septic shock or severe sepsis in Emergency department – a systematic review