Jason N Mansoori1,2, Walter Linde-Zwirble3, Peter C Hou4, Edward P Havranek5,6, Ivor S Douglas7,8. 1. Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, Department of Medicine, Denver Health Medical Center, 601 Broadway, MC 4000, Denver, CO, 80203, USA. Jason.Mansoori@CUAnschutz.edu. 2. Division of Pulmonary Sciences and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, USA. Jason.Mansoori@CUAnschutz.edu. 3. Trexin Consulting, Minneapolis, USA. 4. Division of Emergency Care Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA. 5. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Denver Health Medical Center, Denver, USA. 6. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, USA. 7. Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, Department of Medicine, Denver Health Medical Center, 601 Broadway, MC 4000, Denver, CO, 80203, USA. 8. Division of Pulmonary Sciences and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, USA.
Abstract
RATIONALE: There remains significant controversy regarding the optimal approach to fluid resuscitation for patients in shock. The magnitude of care variability in shock resuscitation, the confounding effects of disease severity and comorbidity, and the relative impact on sepsis survival are poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate usual care variability and determine the differential effect of observed and predicted fluid resuscitation volumes on risk-adjusted hospital mortality for mechanically ventilated patients in shock. METHODS: We performed a retrospective outcome analysis of mechanically ventilated patients admitted to intensive care units using the 2013 Premier Hospital Database (Premier, Inc.). Observed and predicted hospital mortality were evaluated by observed and predicted day 1 fluid administration, using the difference in predicted and observed outcomes to adjust for disease severity between groups. Both predictive models were validated using a second large administrative database (Truven Health Analytics Inc.). Secondary outcomes included duration of mechanical ventilation, hospital and ICU length of stay, and cost. RESULTS: Among 33,831 patients, observed hospital mortality was incrementally higher than predicted for each additional liter of day 1 fluid beginning at 7 L (40.9% vs. 37.2%, p = 0.008). Compared to patients that received expected (± 1.5 L predicted) day 1 fluid volumes, greater-than-expected fluid resuscitation was associated with increased risk-adjusted hospital mortality (52.3% vs. 45.0%, p < 0.0001) among all patients with shock and among a subgroup of shock patients with comorbid conditions predictive of lower fluid volume administration (47.1% vs. 41.5%, p < 0.0001). However, in patients with shock but without such conditions, both greater-than-expected (57.5% vs. 49.2%, p < 0.0001) and less-than-expected (52.1% vs. 49.2%, p = 0.037) day 1 fluid resuscitation were associated with increased risk-adjusted hospital mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Highly variable day 1 fluid resuscitation was associated with a non-uniform impact on risk-adjusted hospital mortality among distinct subgroups of mechanically ventilated patients with shock. These findings support closer evaluation of fluid resuscitation strategies that include broadly applied fluid volume targets in the early phase of shock resuscitation.
RATIONALE: There remains significant controversy regarding the optimal approach to fluid resuscitation for patients in shock. The magnitude of care variability in shock resuscitation, the confounding effects of disease severity and comorbidity, and the relative impact on sepsis survival are poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate usual care variability and determine the differential effect of observed and predicted fluid resuscitation volumes on risk-adjusted hospital mortality for mechanically ventilated patients in shock. METHODS: We performed a retrospective outcome analysis of mechanically ventilated patients admitted to intensive care units using the 2013 Premier Hospital Database (Premier, Inc.). Observed and predicted hospital mortality were evaluated by observed and predicted day 1 fluid administration, using the difference in predicted and observed outcomes to adjust for disease severity between groups. Both predictive models were validated using a second large administrative database (Truven Health Analytics Inc.). Secondary outcomes included duration of mechanical ventilation, hospital and ICU length of stay, and cost. RESULTS: Among 33,831 patients, observed hospital mortality was incrementally higher than predicted for each additional liter of day 1 fluid beginning at 7 L (40.9% vs. 37.2%, p = 0.008). Compared to patients that received expected (± 1.5 L predicted) day 1 fluid volumes, greater-than-expected fluid resuscitation was associated with increased risk-adjusted hospital mortality (52.3% vs. 45.0%, p < 0.0001) among all patients with shock and among a subgroup of shockpatients with comorbid conditions predictive of lower fluid volume administration (47.1% vs. 41.5%, p < 0.0001). However, in patients with shock but without such conditions, both greater-than-expected (57.5% vs. 49.2%, p < 0.0001) and less-than-expected (52.1% vs. 49.2%, p = 0.037) day 1 fluid resuscitation were associated with increased risk-adjusted hospital mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Highly variable day 1 fluid resuscitation was associated with a non-uniform impact on risk-adjusted hospital mortality among distinct subgroups of mechanically ventilated patients with shock. These findings support closer evaluation of fluid resuscitation strategies that include broadly applied fluid volume targets in the early phase of shock resuscitation.
Authors: Andrew Hong; Nicholas Villano; William Toppen; Montoya Elizabeth Aquije; David Berlin; Maxime Cannesson; Igor Barjaktarevic Journal: J Acute Med Date: 2021-12-01