INTRODUCTION: Fluid therapy is one of the major elements of severe sepsis and septic shock management. A systematic initial fluid bolus is recommended before evaluation of left ventricular filling pressure by the use of indicators of fluid responsiveness, preferentially dynamic ones. A massive fluid therapy could be damaging for the patient. Dynamic indicators of fluid responsiveness are not often relevant in the emergency department. This study was aimed to evaluate the use of indicators of fluid responsiveness by emergency practitioners during septic shock management. STUDY DESIGN: Cross sectional survey using anonymous self-questionnaire. METHODS: We included all practitioners working in public emergency department of Languedoc-Roussillon (France). Primary-end point was the use of one indicator of fluid responsiveness at least. Uni- and multivariate analysis was conducted to find associated factors. RESULTS: Of 232 practitioners included, we collected 149 questionnaires (response rate=64%). Hundred and eight practitioners (72% [64-79%]) used at least one indicator of fluid responsiveness. Fifty-six practitioners (38% [30-46%]) used echocardiography, 54 practitioners (36% [29-44%]) used blood lactate concentration, 45 practitioners (30% [23-38%]) used passive leg raising. The use of indicators of fluid responsiveness is associated with easy access to echography device (odd ratio=2.94 [1.16-7.62], P=0.03). CONCLUSION: Emergency practitioners use preferentially less invasive and less time-consuming indicators of fluid responsiveness.
INTRODUCTION: Fluid therapy is one of the major elements of severe sepsis and septic shock management. A systematic initial fluid bolus is recommended before evaluation of left ventricular filling pressure by the use of indicators of fluid responsiveness, preferentially dynamic ones. A massive fluid therapy could be damaging for the patient. Dynamic indicators of fluid responsiveness are not often relevant in the emergency department. This study was aimed to evaluate the use of indicators of fluid responsiveness by emergency practitioners during septic shock management. STUDY DESIGN: Cross sectional survey using anonymous self-questionnaire. METHODS: We included all practitioners working in public emergency department of Languedoc-Roussillon (France). Primary-end point was the use of one indicator of fluid responsiveness at least. Uni- and multivariate analysis was conducted to find associated factors. RESULTS: Of 232 practitioners included, we collected 149 questionnaires (response rate=64%). Hundred and eight practitioners (72% [64-79%]) used at least one indicator of fluid responsiveness. Fifty-six practitioners (38% [30-46%]) used echocardiography, 54 practitioners (36% [29-44%]) used blood lactate concentration, 45 practitioners (30% [23-38%]) used passive leg raising. The use of indicators of fluid responsiveness is associated with easy access to echography device (odd ratio=2.94 [1.16-7.62], P=0.03). CONCLUSION: Emergency practitioners use preferentially less invasive and less time-consuming indicators of fluid responsiveness.
Authors: Mohammed H Elwan; Ashraf Roshdy; Eman M Elsharkawy; Salah M Eltahan; Timothy J Coats Journal: Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med Date: 2017-03-06 Impact factor: 2.953