Dataset Information

Normal saline versus Normosol™-R in sepsis resuscitation: A retrospective cohort study.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To determine the effect of Normosol™-R as compared to normal saline on the outcomes of acute kidney injury and the need for renal replacement therapy in the resuscitation phase of sepsis.

Design

Our study is a retrospective before-and-after cohort study.

Setting

The study occurred at a 700-bed tertiary academic level 1-trauma center.

Patients

A total of 1218 patients were enrolled through emergency department admissions. The normal saline (before) cohort was defined as the dates between 1 March and 30 September 2014 and the Normosol™-R (after) cohort was assessed from 1 March to 30 September 2015.

Interventions

None.

Measurements and main results

Intravenous fluid volumes received during the first 24 h, 72 h, and total hospital stays were compared. Sodium, chloride, potassium, and bicarbonate levels at 72 h were also compared. The medical coded diagnosis of acute kidney failure, need for renal replacement therapy, hospital LOS, ICU admission, ICU LOS, in-hospital mortality, and need for mechanical ventilation were all compared. There was no significant difference in intravenous fluid volumes between groups. Regression modelling controlling for baseline characteristics and 24-h fluid intake volume found no differences between groups for the primary outcomes of acute kidney injury (P = 0.99) and renal replacement therapy (P = 0.88). Patients in the Normosol™-R cohort were found to have a lower rate of hyperchloremia at 72 h post-admission (28% vs. 13%, P < 0.0001). There was a trend toward a decrease in the hospital and ICU LOS in the Normosol™-R cohort; however, the data were not statistically significant.

Conclusions

This study was unable to detect any difference in outcomes between sepsis patients who received intravenous fluid resuscitation with either a balanced crystalloid (Normosol™-R) or normal saline, except for a decreased rate of hyperchloremia.

SUBMITTER: Duffy RA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6693108 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Normal saline versus Normosol™-R in sepsis resuscitation: A retrospective cohort study.

Duffy Ryan A RA Foroozesh Mathab B MB Loflin Robert D RD Ie Susanti R SR Icard Bradley L BL Tegge Allison N AN Nogueira Jonathan R JR Kuehl Damon R DR Smith Dan C DC Loschner Anthony L AL

Journal of the Intensive Care Society 20180705 3

<h4>Objective</h4>To determine the effect of Normosol™-R as compared to normal saline on the outcomes of acute kidney injury and the need for renal replacement therapy in the resuscitation phase of sepsis.<h4>Design</h4>Our study is a retrospective before-and-after cohort study.<h4>Setting</h4>The study occurred at a 700-bed tertiary academic level 1-trauma center.<h4>Patients</h4>A total of 1218 patients were enrolled through emergency department admissions. The normal saline (before) cohort wa ...[more]

PMID: 31447915

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDifferences between hospital-presenting sepsis (HPS) and emergency department-presenting sepsis (EDPS) are not well described.ObjectivesWe aimed to (1) quantify the prevalence of HPS versus EDPS cases and outcomes; (2) compare HPS versus EDPS characteristics at presentation; (3) compare HPS versus EDPS in process and patient outcomes; and (4) estimate risk differences in patient outcomes attributable to initial resuscitation disparities.DesignRetrospective consecutive-sample cohort.SettingNine hospitals from October 1, 2014, to March 31, 2016.PatientsAll hospitalized patients with sepsis or septic shock, as defined by simultaneous (1) infection, (2) ≥2 Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) criteria, and (3) ≥1 acute organ dysfunction criterion. EDPS met inclusion criteria while physically in the emergency department (ED). HPS met the criteria after leaving the ED.MeasurementsWe assessed overall HPS versus EDPS contributions to case prevalence and outcomes, and then compared group differences. Process outcomes included 3-hour bundle compliance and discrete bundle elements (eg, time to antibiotics). The primary patient outcome was hospital mortality.ResultsOf 11,182 sepsis hospitalizations, 2,509 (22.4%) were hospital-presenting. HPS contributed 785 (35%) sepsis mortalities. HPS had more frequent heart failure (OR: 1.31, CI: 1.18-1.47), renal failure (OR: 1.62, CI: 1.38-1.91), gastrointestinal source of infection (OR: 1.84, CI: 1.48-2.29), euthermia (OR: 1.45, CI: 1.10-1.92), hypotension (OR: 1.85, CI: 1.65-2.08), or impaired gas exchange (OR: 2.46, CI: 1.43-4.24). HPS were admitted less often from skilled nursing facilities (OR: 0.44, CI: 0.32-0.60), had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR: 0.53, CI: 0.36-0.78), tachypnea (OR: 0.76, CI: 0.58-0.98), or acute kidney injury (OR: 0.82, CI: 0.68-0.97). In a propensity-matched cohort (n = 3,844), HPS patients had less than half the odds of 3-hour bundle compliant care (17.0% vs 30.3%, OR: 0.47, CI: 0.40-0.57) or antibiotics within three hours (66.2% vs 83.8%, OR: 0.38, CI: 0.32-0.44) vs EDPS. HPS was associated with higher mortality (31.2% vs 19.3%, OR: 1.90, CI: 1.64-2.20); 23.3% of this association was attributable to differences in initial resuscitation (resuscitation-adjusted OR: 1.69, CI: 1.43-2.00).ConclusionsHPS differed from EDPS by admission source, comorbidities, and clinical presentation. These patients received markedly less timely initial resuscitation; this disparity explained a moderate proportion of mortality differences.

Project description:BackgroundResuscitation with crystalloid fluid is a cornerstone of pediatric septic shock treatment. However, the optimal type of crystalloid fluid is unknown. We aimed to determine the feasibility of conducting a pragmatic randomized trial to compare balanced (lactated Ringer's [LR]) with 0.9% normal saline (NS) fluid resuscitation in children with suspected septic shock.MethodsOpen-label pragmatic randomized controlled trial at a single academic children's hospital from January to August 2018. Eligible patients were >6 months to <18 years old who were treated in the emergency department for suspected septic shock, operationalized as blood culture, parenteral antibiotics, and fluid resuscitation for abnormal perfusion. Screening, enrollment, and randomization were carried out by the clinical team as part of routine care. Patients were randomized to receive either LR or NS for up to 48 hours following randomization. Other than fluid type, all treatment decisions were at the clinical team's discretion. Feasibility outcomes included proportion of eligible patients enrolled, acceptability of enrollment via the U.S. federal exception from informed consent (EFIC) regulations, and adherence to randomized study fluid administration.ResultsOf 59 eligible patients, 50 (85%) were enrolled and randomized. Twenty-four were randomized to LR and 26 to NS. Only one (2%) of 44 patients enrolled using EFIC withdrew before study completion. Total median (interquartile range [IQR]) crystalloid fluid volume received during the intervention window was 107 (60 to 155) mL/kg and 98 (63 to 128) mL/kg in the LR and NS arms, respectively (p = 0.50). Patients randomized to LR received a median (IQR) of only 20% (13 to 32) of all study fluid as NS compared to 99% (64% to 100%) of study fluid as NS in the NS arm (absolute difference = 79%, 95% CI = 48% to 85%).ConclusionsA pragmatic study design proved feasible to study comparative effectiveness of LR versus NS fluid resuscitation for pediatric septic shock.

Dataset Information

Normal saline versus Normosol™-R in sepsis resuscitation: A retrospective cohort study.

Objective

Design

Setting

Patients

Interventions

Measurements and main results

Conclusions

Publications

Normal saline versus Normosol™-R in sepsis resuscitation: A retrospective cohort study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets