Assessment of Outcomes in Patients with Heart Failure and End-Stage Kidney Disease after Fluid Resuscitation for Sepsis and Septic Shock.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis fluid resuscitation is controversial, especially for patients with volume overload risk. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign recommends a 30-mL/kg crystalloid fluid bolus for patients with sepsis-induced hypoperfusion. Criticism of this approach includes excessive fluid resuscitation in certain patients. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of guideline-concordant fluid resuscitation in patients with sepsis and heart failure (HF) or end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted in patients with sepsis who qualified for guideline-directed fluid resuscitation and concomitant HF or ESKD. Those receiving crystalloid fluid boluses of at least 30 mL/kg within 3 h of sepsis diagnosis were placed in the concordant group and all others in the nonconcordant group. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay (LOS); vasoactive medications and net volume over 24 h; new mechanical ventilation, new or increased volume removal, and acute kidney injury within 48 h; and shock-free survival at 7 days. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-five patients were included in each group. In-hospital mortality was 34.4% in the concordant group and 44.8% in the nonconcordant group (p = 0.1205). The concordant group had a shorter ICU LOS (7.6 vs. 10.5 days; p = 0.0214) and hospital LOS (12.9 vs. 18.3 days; p = 0.0163), but increased new mechanical ventilation (37.6 vs. 20.8%; p = 0.0052). No differences in other outcomes were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Receipt of a 30-mL/kg fluid bolus did not affect outcomes in a cohort of patients with mixed types of HF and sepsis-induced hypoperfusion.

Assessment of adherence to the 2020 Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines for fluid resuscitation in children with suspected septic shock in paediatric emergency departments: a prospective multicentre study.

BACKGROUND: Paediatric sepsis is the leading cause of death in children under 5 years. No studies have evaluated the application of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign 2020 (SSC-2020) guidelines in paediatric emergency departments (PEDs). OBJECTIVE: To assess physician adherence to the SSC-2020 fluid resuscitation guidelines in children with suspected septic shock in PEDs. METHODS: This was a prospective multicentre observational study conducted in 21 French hospitals over 5 sequential weeks, between November 2021 and March 2022. Children with suspected septic shock and who received antimicrobial therapy within 72 hours were included. Primary outcome was SSC-2020 fluid resuscitation guidelines adherence (low 0-24%; moderate 25-74%; high 75-100%) according to: bolus volume of 10-20 mL/kg each, exclusive administration of balanced crystalloids at 1 and 24 hours of management, and initiation of fluid resuscitation within 1 hour of septic shock recognition. RESULTS: 63 children were included. 10 (16%) children had severe sepsis and 2 (3%) met the definition of septic shock. Compared with the SSC-2020 guidelines, 43 (68%) patients received boluses of 10-20 mL/kg; fluid resuscitation was initiated within 1 hour of septic shock recognition in 42 (76%) cases; balanced crystalloids were the only fluids administrated in 35 (56%) and 34 (55%) children at 1 and 24 hours of management, respectively. Main barriers reported by physicians were difficult intravenous access (43%), lack of team training (29%), workload constraints (28%), and absence or out-of-date protocols (24%). CONCLUSIONS: This study found high adherence for fluid resuscitation initiation but moderate adherence for bolus volume and fluid choice. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05066464.

Cost-effectiveness of intravenous resuscitation fluids in sepsis patients: a patient-level data analysis in Jordan.

AIM: Albumin role as fluid resuscitation in sepsis remains understudied in low- and middle-income countries. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of intravenous (IV) Albumin compared to Crystalloids in sepsis patients using patient-level data in Jordan. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of sepsis patients aged 18 or older admitted to intensive care units (ICU) at two major tertiary hospitals during the period 2018-2019. Patients information, type of IV fluid, and clinical outcomes were retrieved from medical records, and charges were retrieved from the billing system. A 90-day partitioned survival model with two health states (alive and dead) was constructed to estimate the survival of sepsis patients receiving either Albumin or Crystalloids as IV fluids for resuscitation. Overall survival was predicted by fitting a Weibull model on the patient-level data from the current study. To further validate the results, and to support the assessment of uncertainty, time-dependent transition probabilities of death at each cycle were estimated and used to construct a state-transition patient-level simulation model with 10,000 microsimulation trials. Adopting the healthcare system perspective, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios(ICERs) of Albumin versus Crystalloids were calculated in terms of the probability to be discharged alive from the ICU. Uncertainty was explored using probabilistic sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: In the partitioned survival model, Albumin was associated with an incremental cost of $1,007 per incremental1% in the probability of being discharged alive from the ICU. In the state-transition patient-level simulation model, ICER was $1,268 per incremental 1% in the probability of being discharged alive. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that Albumin was favored at thresholds >$800 per incremental 1%in the probability of being discharged alive from the ICU. CONCLUSION: IV Albumin use in sepsis patients might not be cost-effective from the healthcare perspective of Jordan. This has important implications for policymakers to readdress Albumin prescribing practice in sepsis patients.

Sepsis is a life-threatening complication of infection, which usually requires resuscitation with intravenous fluids. Still, no conclusive evidence is available about the best fluid resuscitation to be used in sepsis patients especially in low- and middle-income countries. This study compared the costs and effectiveness of intravenous Albumin versus Crystalloids in sepsis patients. Findings from this study showed that resuscitation with Albumin is much more expensive compared to resuscitation with Crystalloids with no significant difference in mortality but with prolonged length of stay in the hospital and the intensive care unit. Decision makers are advised to change Albumin prescribing practices in a way that mitigates the associated clinical and financial burdens without compromising quality of care or resuscitate with Crystalloids.