Impact of resuscitation fluid bag size availability on volume of fluid administration in the intensive care unit.

BACKGROUND: Iatrogenic fluid overload is associated with increased mortality in the intensive care unit (ICU). Decisions on fluid therapy may, at times, be based on other factors than physiological endpoints. We hypothesized that because of psychological factors volume of available fluid bags would affect the amount of resuscitation fluid administered to ICU patients. METHODS: We performed a prospective intervention cross-over study at 3 Swedish ICUs by replacing the standard resuscitation fluid bag of Ringer's Acetate 1000 mL with 500 mL bags (intervention group) for 5 separate months and then compared it with the standard bag size for 5 months (control group). Primary endpoint was the amount of Ringer's Acetate per patient during ICU stay. Secondary endpoints were differences between the groups in cumulative fluid balance and change in body weight, hemoglobin and creatinine levels, urine output, acute kidney failure (measured as the need for renal replacement therapy, RRT) and 90-day mortality. RESULTS: Six hundred and thirty-five ICU patients were included (291 in the intervention group, 344 in the control group). There was no difference in the amount of resuscitation fluid per patient during the ICU stay (2200 mL [1000-4500 median IQR] vs 2245 mL [1000-5630 median IQR]), RRT rate (11 vs 9%), 90-day mortality (11 vs 10%) or total fluid balance between the groups. The daily amount of Ringer's acetate administered per day was lower in the intervention group (1040 (280-2000) vs 1520 (460-3000) mL; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: The amount of resuscitation fluid administered to ICU patients was not affected by the size of the available fluid bags. However, altering fluid bag size could have influenced fluid prescription behavior.

Hemodynamic management of septic shock.

We present a review of the hemodynamic management of septic shock. Although substantial amount of evidence is present in this area, most key decisions on the management of these patients remain dependent on physiological reasoning and on pathophysiological principles rather than randomized controlled trials. During primary (early) resuscitation, restoration of adequate arterial pressure and cardiac output using fluids and vasopressor and/or inotropic drugs is guided by basic hemodynamic monitoring and physical examination in the emergency department. When more advanced level of monitoring is present in these patients, i.e. during secondary resuscitation (later phase in the emergency department and in the ICU), hemodynamic management can be guided by more advanced measurements of the macrocirculation. Our understanding of the microcirculation in septic shock is limited and reliable therapeutic modalities to optimize it do not yet exist. No specific hemodynamic treatment strategy, be it medications including fluids, monitoring devices or treatment algorithms has yet been proved to improve outcome. Moreover, there is virtually no data on the optimal management of the resolution phase of septic shock. Despite these gaps in knowledge, the data from observational studies and trials suggests that mortality in septic shock has been generally decreasing during the last decade.