Clinical outcomes of a prospective randomized comparison of bioreactance monitoring versus pulse-contour analysis in a stroke-volume based goal-directed fluid resuscitation protocol in brain-dead organ donors.

Eighty percent of brain-dead (BD) organ donors develop hypotension and are frequently hypovolemic. Fluid resuscitation in a BD donor is controversial. We have previously published our 4-h goal-directed stroke volume (SV)-based fluid resuscitation protocol which significantly decreased time on vasopressors and increased transplanting four or more organs. The SV was measured by pulse-contour analysis (PCA) or an esophageal doppler monitor, both of which are invasive. Thoracic bioreactance (BR) is a non-invasive portable technology that measures SV but has not been studied in BD donors. We performed a randomized prospective comparative study of BR versus PCA technology in our fluid resuscitation protocol in BD donors. Eighty-four donors (53.1%) were randomized to BR and 74 donors to PCA (46.8%). The two groups were well matched based on 24 demographic, social, and initial laboratory factors, without any significant differences between them. There was no difference in the intravenous fluid infused over the 4-h study period [BR 2271 ± 823 vs. PCA 2230 ± 962 mL; p = .77]. There was no difference in the time to wean off vasopressors [BR 108.8 ± 61.8 vs. PCA 150.0 ± 68 min p = .07], nor in the number of donors off vasopressors at the end of the protocol [BR 16 (28.6%) vs. PCA 15 (29.4%); p = .92]. There was no difference in the total number of organs transplanted per donor [BR 3.25 ± 1.77 vs. PCA 3.22 ± 1.75; p = .90], nor in any individual organ transplanted. BR was equivalent to PCA in clinical outcomes and provides a simple, non-invasive, portable technology to monitor fluid resuscitation in organ donors.

A stroke volume-based fluid resuscitation protocol decreases vasopressor support and may increase organ yield in brain-dead donors.

Brain-dead donors are frequently hypovolemic and hypotensive requiring vasopressor support. We studied a stroke volume-based fluid resuscitation and vasopressor weaning protocol prospectively on 64 hypotensive donors, with a recent control cohort of 30 hypotensive donors treated without a protocol. Stroke volume was measured every 30 minutes for 4 hours by pulse contour analysis or esophageal Doppler. A 500 mL saline fluid bolus was infused over 30 minutes and repeated if the stroke volume increased by 10%. No fluid was infused if the stroke volume did not increase by 10%. Vasopressors were weaned every 10 minutes if the mean arterial pressure was greater than 65 mm Hg. The protocol group received 1937 ± 906 mL fluid compared to 1323 ± 919 mL in the control group (P = .003). Mean time on vasopressors was decreased from 957.6 ± 586.2 to 176.3 ± 82.2 minutes (P<.001). Donors in the protocol group were more likely to donate four or more organs than donors in the control group (OR = 4.114, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) = 1.003-16.876). While more organs were transplanted per donor in the protocol group (3.39 ± 1.52) than in the control group (2.93 ± 1.44) (P = .268), the difference did not reach statistical significance. A goal-directed fluid resuscitation protocol decreased organ ischemia and may increase organs transplanted.

Evaluation of Sensor Technology to Detect Fall Risk and Prevent Falls in Acute Care.

BACKGROUND: Sensor technology that dynamically identifies hospitalized patients' fall risk and detects and alerts nurses of high-risk patients' early exits out of bed has potential for reducing fall rates and preventing patient harm. During Phase 1 (August 2014-January 2015) of a previously reported performance improvement project, an innovative depth sensor was evaluated on two inpatient medical units to study fall characteristics. In Phase 2 (April 2015-January 2016), a combined depth and bed sensor system designed to assign patient fall probability, detect patient bed exits, and subsequently prevent falls was evaluated. METHODS: Fall detection depth sensors remained in place on two medicine units; bed sensors used to detect patient bed exits were added on only one of the medicine units. Fall rates and fall with injury rates were evaluated on both units. RESULTS: During Phase 2, the designated evaluation unit had 14 falls, for a fall rate of 2.22 per 1,000 patient-days-a 54.1% reduction compared with the Phase 1 fall rate. The difference in rates from Phase 1 to Phase 2 was statistically significant (z = 2.20; p = 0.0297). The comparison medicine unit had 30 falls-a fall rate of 4.69 per 1,000 patient-days, representing a 57.9% increase as compared with Phase 1. CONCLUSION: A fall detection sensor system affords a level of surveillance that standard fall alert systems do not have. Fall prevention remains a complex issue, but sensor technology is a viable fall prevention option.