Farid Sadaka1, Mayrol Juarez2, Soophia Naydenov2, Jacklyn O'Brien2. 1. Critical Care Medicine Department, Mercy Hospital St Louis/St Louis University, MO, USA Farid.Sadaka@Mercy.Net. 2. Critical Care Medicine Department, Mercy Hospital St Louis/St Louis University, MO, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine whether progressively increasing fluid balance after initial fluid resuscitation for septic shock is associated with increased mortality. METHODS: A retrospective review of the use of intravenous fluids in patients with septic shock in a large university affiliated hospital with 56 medical-surgical intensive care unit beds. We analyzed the data of 350 patients with septic shock who were managed according to the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines. Based on net fluid balance at 24 hours, we examined the results of increase in positive fluid balance on the risk of in-hospital mortality. Patients were divided into 4 groups based on the amount of fluid balance by 24 hours, based on 6-L aliquots. RESULTS: At 24 hours, the average fluid balance was +6.5 L. After correcting for age and sequential organ failure assessment score, a more positive fluid balance at 24 hours significantly increased the risk of in-hospital mortality. Using Cox proportional hazard analysis, excess 12-, 18-, and 24-L positive fluid balance had higher risk of mortality than those patients with a neutral to positive 6-L fluid balance (reference group). Adjusted hazard ratios, 1.519 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.353-1.685), 1.740 (95% CI, 1.467-2.013), and 1.620 (95% CI, 1.197-2.043), respectively, P < .05. CONCLUSION: In patients with septic shock resuscitated according to current guidelines, a more positive fluid balance at 24 hours is associated with an increase in the risk of mortality. Optimal survival occurred at neutral fluid balance and up to 6-L positive fluid balance at 24 hours after the development of septic shock.
PURPOSE: To determine whether progressively increasing fluid balance after initial fluid resuscitation for septic shock is associated with increased mortality. METHODS: A retrospective review of the use of intravenous fluids in patients with septic shock in a large university affiliated hospital with 56 medical-surgical intensive care unit beds. We analyzed the data of 350 patients with septic shock who were managed according to the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines. Based on net fluid balance at 24 hours, we examined the results of increase in positive fluid balance on the risk of in-hospital mortality. Patients were divided into 4 groups based on the amount of fluid balance by 24 hours, based on 6-L aliquots. RESULTS: At 24 hours, the average fluid balance was +6.5 L. After correcting for age and sequential organ failure assessment score, a more positive fluid balance at 24 hours significantly increased the risk of in-hospital mortality. Using Cox proportional hazard analysis, excess 12-, 18-, and 24-L positive fluid balance had higher risk of mortality than those patients with a neutral to positive 6-L fluid balance (reference group). Adjusted hazard ratios, 1.519 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.353-1.685), 1.740 (95% CI, 1.467-2.013), and 1.620 (95% CI, 1.197-2.043), respectively, P < .05. CONCLUSION: In patients with septic shock resuscitated according to current guidelines, a more positive fluid balance at 24 hours is associated with an increase in the risk of mortality. Optimal survival occurred at neutral fluid balance and up to 6-L positive fluid balance at 24 hours after the development of septic shock.
Authors: Emma J de Louw; Pepijn O Sun; Joon Lee; Mengling Feng; Roger G Mark; Leo Anthony Celi; Kenneth J Mukamal; John Danziger Journal: J Crit Care Date: 2015-02-07 Impact factor: 3.425
Authors: Javier A Neyra; Xilong Li; Fabrizio Canepa-Escaro; Beverley Adams-Huet; Robert D Toto; Jerry Yee; S Susan Hedayati Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Maurizio Cecconi; Glenn Hernandez; Martin Dunser; Massimo Antonelli; Tim Baker; Jan Bakker; Jacques Duranteau; Sharon Einav; A B Johan Groeneveld; Tim Harris; Sameer Jog; Flavia R Machado; Mervyn Mer; M Ignacio Monge García; Sheila Nainan Myatra; Anders Perner; Jean-Louis Teboul; Jean-Louis Vincent; Daniel De Backer Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2018-11-19 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Zhongheng Zhang; Nathan J Smischney; Haibo Zhang; Sven Van Poucke; Panagiotis Tsirigotis; Jordi Rello; Patrick M Honore; Win Sen Kuan; Juliet June Ray; Jiancang Zhou; You Shang; Yuetian Yu; Christian Jung; Chiara Robba; Fabio Silvio Taccone; Pietro Caironi; David Grimaldi; Stefan Hofer; George Dimopoulos; Marc Leone; Sang-Bum Hong; Mabrouk Bahloul; Laurent Argaud; Won Young Kim; Herbert D Spapen; Jose Rodolfo Rocco Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2016-09 Impact factor: 2.895
Authors: Wesley H Self; Matthew W Semler; Rinaldo Bellomo; Samuel M Brown; Bennett P deBoisblanc; Matthew C Exline; Adit A Ginde; Colin K Grissom; David R Janz; Alan E Jones; Kathleen D Liu; Stephen P J Macdonald; Chadwick D Miller; Pauline K Park; Lora A Reineck; Todd W Rice; Jay S Steingrub; Daniel Talmor; Donald M Yealy; Ivor S Douglas; Nathan I Shapiro Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2018-05-10 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Adam R Aluisio; Derrick Yam; Jillian L Peters; Daniel K Cho; Shiromi M Perera; Stephen B Kennedy; Moses Massaquoi; Foday Sahr; Michael A Smit; Tao Liu; Adam C Levine Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2020-03-03 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Roberta Ferlini; Flávia Ohlweiler Pinheiro; Cinara Andreolio; Paulo Roberto Antonacci Carvalho; Jefferson Pedro Piva Journal: Rev Bras Ter Intensiva Date: 2016 Jan-Mar