Dataset Information

Fluid resuscitation in sepsis: the great 30 mL per kg hoax.

ABSTRACT: Large volume fluid resuscitation is currently viewed as the cornerstone of the treatment of septic shock. The surviving sepsis campaign (SSC) guidelines provide a strong recommendation to rapidly administer a minimum of 30 mL/kg crystalloid solution intravenously in all patients with septic shock and those with elevated blood lactate levels. However, there is no credible evidence to support this recommendation. In fact, recent findings from experimental, observational and randomized clinical trials demonstrate improved outcomes with a more restrictive approach to fluid resuscitation. Accumulating evidence suggests that aggressive fluid resuscitation is harmful. Paradoxically, excess fluid administration may worsen shock. In this review, we critically evaluate the scientific evidence for a weight-based fluid resuscitation approach. Furthermore, the potential mechanisms and consequences of harm associated with fluid resuscitation are discussed. Finally, we recommend an individualized, conservative and physiologic guided approach to fluid resuscitation.

SUBMITTER: Marik PE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7024756 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Fluid resuscitation in sepsis: the great 30 mL per kg hoax.

Marik Paul E PE Byrne Liam L van Haren Frank F

Journal of thoracic disease 20200201 Suppl 1

Large volume fluid resuscitation is currently viewed as the cornerstone of the treatment of septic shock. The surviving sepsis campaign (SSC) guidelines provide a strong recommendation to rapidly administer a minimum of 30 mL/kg crystalloid solution intravenously in all patients with septic shock and those with elevated blood lactate levels. However, there is no credible evidence to support this recommendation. In fact, recent findings from experimental, observational and randomized clinical tri ...[more]

PMID: 32148924

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesSignificant practice variation exists in the amount of resuscitative IV fluid given to patients with sepsis. Current research suggests equipoise between a tightly restrictive or more liberal strategy but data is lacking on a wider range of resuscitation practices. We sought to examine the relationship between a wide range of fluid resuscitation practices and sepsis mortality and then identify the primary driver of this practice variation.DesignRetrospective analysis of the Premier Healthcare Database.SettingSix hundred twelve U.S. hospitals.PatientsPatients with sepsis and septic shock admitted from the emergency department to the ICU from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2019.InterventionsThe volume of resuscitative IV fluid administered before the end of hospital day- 1 and mortality.Measurements and main resultsIn total, 190,682 patients with sepsis and septic shock were included in the analysis. Based upon patient characteristics and illness severity, we predicted that physicians should prescribe patients with sepsis a narrow mean range of IV fluid (95% range, 3.6-4.5 L). Instead, we observed wide variation in the mean IV fluids administered (95% range, 1.7-7.4 L). After splitting the patients into five groups based upon attending physician practice, we observed patients in the moderate group (4.0 L; interquartile range [IQR], 2.4-5.1 L) experienced a 2.5% reduction in risk-adjusted mortality compared with either the very low (1.6 L; IQR, 1.0-2.5 L) or very high (6.1 L; IQR, 4.0-9.0 L) fluid groups p < 0.01). An analysis of within- and between-hospital IV fluid resuscitation practices showed that physician variation within hospitals instead of practice differences between hospitals accounts for the observed variation.ConclusionsIndividual physician practice drives excess variation in the amount of IV fluid given to patients with sepsis. A moderate approach to IV fluid resuscitation is associated with decreased sepsis mortality and should be tested in future randomized controlled trials.

Project description:RationaleThe feasibility and clinical outcomes of conservative fluid management after sepsis resuscitation remain unknown.ObjectivesTo evaluate the effect of a conservative fluid management protocol on fluid balance and intensive care unit (ICU)-free days among patients with sepsis.MethodsIn a single-center phase II/III randomized trial, we enrolled adults with suspected infection, ≥2 systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria, and either shock (mean arterial pressure <60 mm Hg or vasopressors) or respiratory insufficiency (mechanical ventilation or oxygen saturation <97% and fraction of inspired oxygen ≥0.3). Patients were randomized 1:1 to usual care or a conservative fluid management protocol. The protocol restricted intravenous fluid administration during shock to treatment of oliguria or increasing vasopressor requirement. In the absence of shock, loop diuretic infusion targeted equal fluid input and output each study day. The primary outcomes were mean daily fluid balance (phase II) and ICU-free days (phase III).ResultsAt the completion of phase II (n = 30), the difference in mean daily fluid balance between groups (-398 mL) was less than the prespecified threshold (-500 mL) and the trial was stopped. Patients in the conservative fluid management (n = 15) and usual care (n = 15) groups experienced similar cumulative fluid input (8450 mL vs 7049 mL; P = .90) of which only 14% was intravenous crystalloid or colloid. Loop diuretic infusion occurred more frequently in the conservative fluid management group (40% vs 0%; P = .02), and cumulative fluid output was 10 645 mL in the conservative fluid management group compared to 6286 mL in the usual care group (P = .39). Hemodynamic, respiratory, and renal function did not differ between the groups.ConclusionsIn this phase II trial, a conservative fluid management protocol did not decrease mean daily fluid balance by more than 500 mL among patients with sepsis.RegistrationClinicaltrials.gov; NCT02159079.

Project description:BackgroundFluid administration and resuscitation of patients with sepsis admitted through emergency departments (ED) remains a challenge, and evidence is sparse especially in sepsis patients without shock. We aimed to investigate emergency medicine physicians' and nurses' perceptions, self-reported decision-making and daily behavior, and challenges in fluid administration of ED sepsis patients.MethodsWe developed and conducted a multicenter, web-based, cross-sectional survey focusing on fluid administration to ED patients with sepsis sent to all nurses and physicians from the five EDs in the Central Denmark Region. The survey consisted of three sections: (1) baseline information; (2) perceptions of fluid administration and daily practice; and (3) clinical scenarios about fluid administration. The survey was performed from February to June, 2021.ResultsIn total, 138 of 246 physicians (56%) and 382 of 595 nurses (64%) responded to the survey. Of total, 94% of physicians and 97% of nurses regarded fluid as an important part of sepsis treatment. Of total, 80% of physicians and 61% of nurses faced challenges regarding fluid administration in the ED, and decisions were usually based on clinical judgment. The most common challenge was the lack of guidelines for fluid administration. Of total, 96% agreed that they would like to learn more about fluid administration, and 53% requested research in fluid administration of patients with sepsis. For a normotensive patient with sepsis, 46% of physicians and 44% of nurses administered 1000 ml fluid in the first hour. Of total, 95% of physicians and 89% of nurses preferred to administer ≥1000 ml within an hour if the patients' blood pressure was 95/60 at admission. There was marked variability in responses. Blood pressure was the most commonly used trigger for fluid administration. Respondents preferred to administer less fluid if the patient in the scenario had known renal impairment or heart failure. Normal saline was the preferred fluid.ConclusionFluid administration is regarded as an important but challenging aspect of sepsis management. Responses to scenarios revealed variability in fluid volumes. Blood pressure was the most used trigger. ED nurses and physicians request evidence-based guidelines to improve fluid administration.

Project description:IntroductionSeveral recent studies have shown that a positive fluid balance in critical illness is associated with worse outcome. We tested the effects of moderate vs. high-volume resuscitation strategies on mortality, systemic and regional blood flows, mitochondrial respiration, and organ function in two experimental sepsis models.Methods48 pigs were randomized to continuous endotoxin infusion, fecal peritonitis, and a control group (n = 16 each), and each group further to two different basal rates of volume supply for 24 hours [moderate-volume (10 ml/kg/h, Ringer's lactate, n = 8); high-volume (15 + 5 ml/kg/h, Ringer's lactate and hydroxyethyl starch (HES), n = 8)], both supplemented by additional volume boli, as guided by urinary output, filling pressures, and responses in stroke volume. Systemic and regional hemodynamics were measured and tissue specimens taken for mitochondrial function assessment and histological analysis.ResultsMortality in high-volume groups was 87% (peritonitis), 75% (endotoxemia), and 13% (controls). In moderate-volume groups mortality was 50% (peritonitis), 13% (endotoxemia) and 0% (controls). Both septic groups became hyperdynamic. While neither sepsis nor volume resuscitation strategy was associated with altered hepatic or muscle mitochondrial complex I- and II-dependent respiration, non-survivors had lower hepatic complex II-dependent respiratory control ratios (2.6 +/- 0.7, vs. 3.3 +/- 0.9 in survivors; P = 0.01). Histology revealed moderate damage in all organs, colloid plaques in lung tissue of high-volume groups, and severe kidney damage in endotoxin high-volume animals.ConclusionsHigh-volume resuscitation including HES in experimental peritonitis and endotoxemia increased mortality despite better initial hemodynamic stability. This suggests that the strategy of early fluid management influences outcome in sepsis. The high mortality was not associated with reduced mitochondrial complex I- or II-dependent muscle and hepatic respiration.

Dataset Information

Fluid resuscitation in sepsis: the great 30 mL per kg hoax.

Publications

Fluid resuscitation in sepsis: the great 30 mL per kg hoax.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets