Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Equipoise in Appropriate Initial Volume Resuscitation for Patients in Septic Shock With Heart Failure: Results of a Multicenter Clinician Survey.
Wardi, Gabriel; Joel, Ian; Villar, Julian; Lava, Michael; Gross, Eric; Tolia, Vaishal; Seethala, Raghu R; Owens, Robert L; Sell, Rebecca E; Montesi, Sydney B; Rahaghi, Farbod N; Bose, Somnath; Rai, Ashish; Stevenson, Elizabeth K; McSparron, Jakob; Tolia, Vaishal; Beitler, Jeremy R.
Afiliação
  • Wardi G; Department of Emergency Medicine, 8784University of California, San Diego, CA, USA.
  • Joel I; Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, 8784University of California, San Diego, CA, USA.
  • Villar J; Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, 8784University of California, San Diego, CA, USA.
  • Lava M; Department of Emergency Medicine, Kaiser Oakland, CA, USA.
  • Gross E; 194441Wellstar Medical Group Pulmonary Medicine, Marietta, GA, USA.
  • Tolia V; Department of Emergency Medicine, 8784University of California, Davis, CA, USA.
  • Seethala RR; Department of Emergency Medicine, 8784University of California, San Diego, CA, USA.
  • Owens RL; Department of Emergency Medicine, 1861Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
  • Sell RE; Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, 8784University of California, San Diego, CA, USA.
  • Montesi SB; Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, 8784University of California, San Diego, CA, USA.
  • Rahaghi FN; Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
  • Bose S; Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, 1861Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
  • Rai A; Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care, and Pain Medicine, 1859Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
  • Stevenson EK; Department of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, 25218North Shore Medical Center, MA, USA.
  • McSparron J; Department of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, 25218North Shore Medical Center, MA, USA.
  • Tolia V; Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, 1259University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
  • Beitler JR; Department of Emergency Medicine, 8784University of California, San Diego, CA, USA.
J Intensive Care Med ; 35(11): 1338-1345, 2020 Nov.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31446829
PURPOSE: International clinical practice guidelines call for initial volume resuscitation of at least 30 mL/kg body weight for patients with sepsis-induced hypotension or shock. Although not considered in the guidelines, preexisting cardiac dysfunction may be an important factor clinicians weigh in deciding the quantity of volume resuscitation for patients with septic shock. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter survey of clinicians who routinely treat patients with sepsis to evaluate their beliefs, behaviors, knowledge, and perceived structural barriers regarding initial volume resuscitation for patients with sepsis and concomitant heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) <40%. Initial volume resuscitation preferences were captured as ordinal values, and additional testing for volume resuscitation preferences was performed using McNemar and Wilcoxon signed rank tests as indicated. Univariable logistic regression models were used to identify significant predictors of ≥30 mL/kg fluid administration. RESULTS: A total of 317 clinicians at 9 US hospitals completed the survey (response rate 47.3%). Most respondents were specialists in either internal medicine or emergency medicine. Substantial heterogeneity was found regarding sepsis resuscitation preferences for patients with concomitant HFrEF. The belief that patients with septic shock and HFrEF should be exempt from current sepsis bundle initiatives was shared by 39.4% of respondents. A minimum fluid challenge of ∼30 mL/kg or more was deemed appropriate in septic shock by only 56.4% of respondents for patients with concomitant HFrEF, compared to 89.1% of respondents for patients without HFrEF (P < .01). Emergency medicine physicians were most likely to feel that <30 mL/kg was most appropriate in patients with septic shock and HFrEF. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical equipoise exists regarding initial volume resuscitation for patients with sepsis-induced hypotension or shock and concomitant HFrEF. Future studies and clinical practice guidelines should explicitly address resuscitation in this subpopulation.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Choque Séptico / Sepse / Insuficiência Cardíaca Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Guideline / Prognostic_studies / Qualitative_research Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2020 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Choque Séptico / Sepse / Insuficiência Cardíaca Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Guideline / Prognostic_studies / Qualitative_research Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2020 Tipo de documento: Article