Gabriel Wardi1,2, Ian Joel2, Julian Villar3, Michael Lava4, Eric Gross5, Vaishal Tolia1, Raghu R Seethala6, Robert L Owens2, Rebecca E Sell2, Sydney B Montesi7, Farbod N Rahaghi8, Somnath Bose9, Ashish Rai10, Elizabeth K Stevenson10, Jakob McSparron11, Vaishal Tolia1, Jeremy R Beitler12. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, 8784University of California, San Diego, CA, USA. 2. Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, 8784University of California, San Diego, CA, USA. 3. Department of Emergency Medicine, Kaiser Oakland, CA, USA. 4. 194441Wellstar Medical Group Pulmonary Medicine, Marietta, GA, USA. 5. Department of Emergency Medicine, 8784University of California, Davis, CA, USA. 6. Department of Emergency Medicine, 1861Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 7. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 8. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, 1861Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 9. Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care, and Pain Medicine, 1859Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 10. Department of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, 25218North Shore Medical Center, MA, USA. 11. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, 1259University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 12. Center for Acute Respiratory Failure and Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine, 5798Columbia University, New York, NY.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Svetolik Djurkovic; Juan C Baracaldo; Jose A Guerra; Jennifer Sartorius; Marilyn T Haupt Journal: J Crit Care Date: 2010-06-19 Impact factor: 3.425
Authors: Donald M Yealy; John A Kellum; David T Huang; Amber E Barnato; Lisa A Weissfeld; Francis Pike; Thomas Terndrup; Henry E Wang; Peter C Hou; Frank LoVecchio; Michael R Filbin; Nathan I Shapiro; Derek C Angus Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-03-18 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Kathryn Maitland; Sarah Kiguli; Robert O Opoka; Charles Engoru; Peter Olupot-Olupot; Samuel O Akech; Richard Nyeko; George Mtove; Hugh Reyburn; Trudie Lang; Bernadette Brent; Jennifer A Evans; James K Tibenderana; Jane Crawley; Elizabeth C Russell; Michael Levin; Abdel G Babiker; Diana M Gibb Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-05-26 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Reimar W Thomsen; Nongyao Kasatpibal; Anders Riis; Mette Nørgaard; Henrik T Sørensen Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2008-06-24 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Anand Kumar; Ramon Anel; Eugene Bunnell; Kalim Habet; Sergio Zanotti; Stephanie Marshall; Alex Neumann; Amjad Ali; Mary Cheang; Clifford Kavinsky; Joseph E Parrillo Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Ben Andrews; Matthew W Semler; Levy Muchemwa; Paul Kelly; Shabir Lakhi; Douglas C Heimburger; Chileshe Mabula; Mwango Bwalya; Gordon R Bernard Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-10-03 Impact factor: 56.272