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

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.

Use and Outcomes of Peripheral Vasopressors in Early Sepsis-Induced Hypotension Across Michigan Hospitals: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Vasopressors traditionally are administered via central access, but newer data suggest that peripheral administration may be safe and may avoid delays and complications associated with central line placement. RESEARCH QUESTION: How commonly are vasopressors initiated through peripheral IV lines in routine practice? Is vasopressor initiation route associated with in-hospital mortality? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included adults hospitalized with sepsis (November 2020-September 2022) at 29 hospitals in the Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety Consortium, a Collaborative Quality Initiative sponsored by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. We assessed route of early vasopressor initiation, factors and outcomes associated with peripheral initiation, and timing of central line placement. RESULTS: Five hundred ninety-four patients received vasopressors within 6 h of hospital arrival and were included in this study. Peripheral vasopressor initiation was common (400/594 [67.3%]). Patients with peripheral vs central initiation were similar; BMI was the only patient factor associated independently with initiation route (adjusted OR [aOR] of peripheral initiation [per 1-kg/m2 increase], 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-1.00; P = .015). The specific hospital showed a large impact on initiation route (median OR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.31-3.07). Compared with central initiation, peripheral initiation was faster (median, 2.5 h vs 2.7 h from hospital arrival; P = .002), but was associated with less initial norepinephrine use (84.3% vs 96.8%; P = .001). We found no independent association between initiation route and in-hospital mortality (32.3% vs 42.2%; aOR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.39-1.12). No tissue injury from peripheral vasopressors was documented. Of patients with peripheral initiation, 135 of 400 patients (33.8%) never received a central line. INTERPRETATION: Peripheral vasopressor initiation was common across Michigan hospitals and had practical benefits, including expedited vasopressor administration and avoidance of central line placement in one-third of patients. However, the findings of wide practice variation that was not explained by patient case mix and lower use of first-line norepinephrine with peripheral administration suggest that additional standardization may be needed.

High-flow nasal cannula vs non-invasive ventilation in acute hypoxia: Propensity score matched study.

RATIONALE: The optimal treatment for early hypoxemic respiratory failure is unclear, and both high-flow nasal cannula and non-invasive ventilation are used. Determining clinically relevant outcomes for evaluating non-invasive respiratory support modalities remains a challenge. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of initial treatment with high-flow nasal cannula versus non-invasive ventilation for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure treated with high-flow nasal cannula or non-invasive ventilation within 24 hours of Emergency Department arrival (1/2018-12/2022). We matched patients 1:1 using a propensity score for odds of receiving non-invasive ventilation. The primary outcome was major adverse pulmonary events (28-day mortality, ventilator-free days, non-invasive respiratory support hours) calculated using a Win Ratio. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: 1,265 patients met inclusion criteria. 795 (62.8%) received high-flow oxygen and 470 (37.2%) received non-invasive ventilation. We propensity score matched 736/1,265 (58.2%) patients. There was no difference between non-invasive ventilation vs high-flow nasal cannula in 28-day mortality (17.7% vs 23.1%, p=0.08) or ventilator-free days (median [Interquartile Range]: 28 [25, 28] vs 28 [13, 28], p=0.50), but patients on non-invasive ventilation required treatment for fewer hours (median 7 vs 13, p< 0.001). Win Ratio for composite major adverse pulmonary events favored non-invasive ventilation (1.26, 95%CI 1.06-1.49, p< 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this observational study of patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, initial treatment with non-invasive ventilation was superior to high-flow nasal cannula for major pulmonary adverse events. Evaluation of composite outcomes is important in the assessment of respiratory support modalities.

Evolving Management Practices for Early Sepsis-induced Hypoperfusion: A Narrative Review.

Sepsis causes significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. Resuscitation is a cornerstone of management. This review covers five areas of evolving practice in the management of early sepsis-induced hypoperfusion: fluid resuscitation volume, timing of vasopressor initiation, resuscitation targets, route of vasopressor administration, and use of invasive blood pressure monitoring. For each topic, we review the seminal evidence, discuss the evolution of practice over time, and highlight questions for additional research. Intravenous fluids are a core component of early sepsis resuscitation. However, with growing concerns about the harms of fluid, practice is evolving toward smaller-volume resuscitation, which is often paired with earlier vasopressor initiation. Large trials of fluid-restrictive, vasopressor-early strategies are providing more information about the safety and potential benefit of these approaches. Lowering blood pressure targets is a means to prevent fluid overload and reduce exposure to vasopressors; mean arterial pressure targets of 60-65 mm Hg appear to be safe, at least in older patients. With the trend toward earlier vasopressor initiation, the need for central administration of vasopressors has been questioned, and peripheral vasopressor use is increasing, although it is not universally accepted. Similarly, although guidelines suggest the use of invasive blood pressure monitoring with arterial catheters in patients receiving vasopressors, blood pressure cuffs are less invasive and often sufficient. Overall, the management of early sepsis-induced hypoperfusion is evolving toward fluid-sparing and less-invasive strategies. However, many questions remain, and additional data are needed to further optimize our approach to resuscitation.