Paul E Marik1, Walter T Linde-Zwirble2, Edward A Bittner3, Jennifer Sahatjian4, Douglas Hansell3,4. 1. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Eastern Virginia Medical School, 825 Fairfax Avenue, Suite 410, Norfolk, VA, 23507, USA. marikpe@evms.edu. 2. Trexin Consulting, Chicago, IL, USA. 3. Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Cheetah Medical, Newton, MA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The optimal strategy of fluid resuscitation in the early hours of severe sepsis and septic shock is controversial, with both an aggressive and conservative approach being recommended. METHODS: We used the 2013 Premier Hospital Discharge database to analyse the administration of fluids on the first ICU day, in 23,513 patients with severe sepsis and septic shock, who were admitted to an ICU from the emergency department. Day 1 fluid was grouped into categories 1 L wide, starting with 1-1.99 L up to ≥9 L, to examine the effect of day 1 fluids on patient mortality. We built binary response models for hospital mortality and the propensity for receiving more than 5 L of fluids on day 1, using patient age and acute conditions present on admission. Patients were grouped by the requirement for mechanical ventilation and the presence or absence of shock. We assessed trends in the difference between actual and expected mortality, in the low fluid range (1-5 L day 1 fluids) and the high fluid range (5 to ≥9 L day 1 fluids) categories, using weighted linear regression controlling for the effects of sample size and variation within the day 1 fluid category. RESULTS: Day 1 fluid administration averaged 4.4 L being lowest in the group with no mechanical ventilation and no shock (3.6 L) and highest (5.4 L) in the group receiving mechanical ventilation and in shock. The administration of day 1 fluids was remarkably consistent on the basis of hospital size, teaching status, rural/urban location, and region of the country. The hospital mortality in the entire cohort was 25.8%, with a mean ICU and hospital length of stay of 5.1 and 9.1 days, respectively. In the entire cohort, low volume resuscitation (1-4.99 L) was associated with a small but significant reduction in mortality, of -0.7% per litre (95% CI -1.0%, -0.4%; p = 0.02). However, in patients receiving high volume resuscitation (5 to ≥9 L), the mortality increased by 2.3% (95% CI 2.0, 2.5%; p = 0.0003) for each additional litre above 5 L. Total hospital cost increased by $999 for each litre of fluid above 5 L (adjusted R 2 = 92.7%, p = 0.005). CONCLUSION: The mean amount of fluid administered to patients with severe sepsis and septic shock in the USA during the first ICU day is less than that recommended by the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines. The administration of more than 5 L of fluid during the first ICU day is associated with a significantly increased risk of death and significantly higher hospital costs.
PURPOSE: The optimal strategy of fluid resuscitation in the early hours of severe sepsis and septic shock is controversial, with both an aggressive and conservative approach being recommended. METHODS: We used the 2013 Premier Hospital Discharge database to analyse the administration of fluids on the first ICU day, in 23,513 patients with severe sepsis and septic shock, who were admitted to an ICU from the emergency department. Day 1 fluid was grouped into categories 1 L wide, starting with 1-1.99 L up to ≥9 L, to examine the effect of day 1 fluids on patient mortality. We built binary response models for hospital mortality and the propensity for receiving more than 5 L of fluids on day 1, using patient age and acute conditions present on admission. Patients were grouped by the requirement for mechanical ventilation and the presence or absence of shock. We assessed trends in the difference between actual and expected mortality, in the low fluid range (1-5 L day 1 fluids) and the high fluid range (5 to ≥9 L day 1 fluids) categories, using weighted linear regression controlling for the effects of sample size and variation within the day 1 fluid category. RESULTS: Day 1 fluid administration averaged 4.4 L being lowest in the group with no mechanical ventilation and no shock (3.6 L) and highest (5.4 L) in the group receiving mechanical ventilation and in shock. The administration of day 1 fluids was remarkably consistent on the basis of hospital size, teaching status, rural/urban location, and region of the country. The hospital mortality in the entire cohort was 25.8%, with a mean ICU and hospital length of stay of 5.1 and 9.1 days, respectively. In the entire cohort, low volume resuscitation (1-4.99 L) was associated with a small but significant reduction in mortality, of -0.7% per litre (95% CI -1.0%, -0.4%; p = 0.02). However, in patients receiving high volume resuscitation (5 to ≥9 L), the mortality increased by 2.3% (95% CI 2.0, 2.5%; p = 0.0003) for each additional litre above 5 L. Total hospital cost increased by $999 for each litre of fluid above 5 L (adjusted R 2 = 92.7%, p = 0.005). CONCLUSION: The mean amount of fluid administered to patients with severe sepsis and septic shock in the USA during the first ICU day is less than that recommended by the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines. The administration of more than 5 L of fluid during the first ICU day is associated with a significantly increased risk of death and significantly higher hospital costs.
Entities:
Keywords:
Fluid administration; Mortality; National database; Sepsis; Septic shock
Authors: Fernando Saes Vilaça de Oliveira; Flavio Geraldo Resende Freitas; Elaine Maria Ferreira; Isac de Castro; Antonio Toneti Bafi; Luciano Cesar Pontes de Azevedo; Flavia Ribeiro Machado Journal: J Crit Care Date: 2014-09-06 Impact factor: 3.425
Authors: R Phillip Dellinger; Jean M Carlet; Henry Masur; Herwig Gerlach; Thierry Calandra; Jonathan Cohen; Juan Gea-Banacloche; Didier Keh; John C Marshall; Margaret M Parker; Graham Ramsay; Janice L Zimmerman; Jean-Louis Vincent; M M Levy Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2004-03-03 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Scott T Micek; Colleen McEvoy; Matthew McKenzie; Nicholas Hampton; Joshua A Doherty; Marin H Kollef Journal: Crit Care Date: 2013-10-20 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: C J Reuß; M Bernhard; C Beynon; A Hecker; C Jungk; C Nusshag; M A Weigand; D Michalski; T Brenner Journal: Anaesthesist Date: 2018-09 Impact factor: 1.041
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: Adeel Abbasi; Nader Azab; Mohammed Nayeemuddin; Alexandra Schick; Thomas Lopardo; Gary S Phillips; Roland C Merchant; Mitchell M Levy; Michael Blaivas; Keith A Corl Journal: Ultrasound Med Biol Date: 2020-07-31 Impact factor: 2.998