Adherence to fluid resuscitation guidelines and outcomes in patients with septic shock: Reassessing the "one-size-fits-all" approach

Effectiveness of a Novel Rapid Infusion Device and Clinician Education for Early Fluid Therapy by Emergency Medical Services in Sepsis Patients: A Pre-Post Observational Study

OBJECTIVE

Emergency medical services (EMS) clinicians are tasked with early fluid resuscitation for patients with sepsis. Traditional methods for prehospital fluid delivery are limited in speed and ease-of-use. We conducted a comparative effectiveness study of a novel rapid infusion device for prehospital fluid delivery in suspected sepsis patients.

METHODS

This pre-post observational study evaluated a hand-operated, rapid infusion device in a single large EMS system from July 2021-July 2022. Prior to device deployment, EMS clinicians completed didactic and simulation-based device training. Data were extracted from the EMS electronic health record. Eligible patients included adults with suspected sepsis treated by EMS with intravenous fluids. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients receiving goal fluid volume (at least 500 mL) prior to hospital arrival. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital mortality, disposition, and length of stay. Multivariable logistic regression was used to compare outcomes between 6-month pre- and post-implementation periods (July-December 2021 and February-July 2022, respectively), adjusting for patient demographics, abnormal prehospital vital signs, and EMS transport interval.

RESULTS

Of 1,180 eligible patients (552 in the pre-implementation period; 628 in the post-implementation period), the mean age was 72 years old, 45% were female, and 25% were minority race-ethnicity. Median (interquartile range) fluid volume (in mL) increased between the pre- and post-implementation periods (600 [400,1,000] and 850 [500-1,000], respectively). Goal fluid volume was achieved in 70% of pre-implementation patients and 82% of post-implementation patients. In adjusted analysis, post-implementation patients were significantly more likely to receive goal fluid volume than pre-implementation patients (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 2.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.51-2.66). Pre-post in-hospital mortality was not significantly different (aOR 0.91, 95% CI 0.59-1.39).

CONCLUSION

In a single EMS system, sepsis education and introduction of a rapid infusion device was associated with achieving goal fluid volume for suspected sepsis. Further research is needed to assess the clinical effectiveness of infusion device implementation to improve sepsis patient outcomes.

The Role and Initiatives Led by the Sepsis Coordinator to Improve Sepsis Bundle Compliance and Care Across the Continuum

A dedicated sepsis coordinator role at Penn Medicine Lancaster General Hospital led initiatives to improve sepsis core measure compliance by 40% during the course of 4 years with submission of all sepsis cases. Chart abstraction and analysis of noncompliant cases identified areas for improvement: early recognition education, order set revisions, documentation support, and the implementation of a nurse-driven 24/7 sepsis monitoring process. The cooperative work with Penn Medicine affiliates, sharing best practices, improves overall sepsis bundle compliance and transitions of care. Ongoing achievements acknowledge the value of building relationships and leading improvements through the collaborative efforts of interprofessional teams.

Effect of a quality improvement program on compliance to the sepsis bundle in non-ICU patients: a multicenter prospective before and after cohort study

Objective

Sepsis and septic shock are major challenges and economic burdens to healthcare, impacting millions of people globally and representing significant causes of mortality. Recently, a large number of quality improvement programs focused on sepsis resuscitation bundles have been instituted worldwide. These educational initiatives have been shown to be associated with improvements in clinical outcomes. We aimed to evaluate the impact of a multi-faceted quality implementing program (QIP) on the compliance of a "simplified 1-h bundle" (Sepsis 6) and hospital mortality of severe sepsis and septic shock patients out of the intensive care unit (ICU).

Methods

Emergency departments (EDs) and medical wards (MWs) of 12 academic and non-academic hospitals in the Lombardy region (Northern Italy) were involved in a multi-faceted QIP, which included educational and organizational interventions. Patients with a clinical diagnosis of severe sepsis or septic shock according to the Sepsis-2 criteria were enrolled in two different periods: from May 2011 to November 2011 (before-QIP cohort) and from August 2012 to June 2013 (after-QIP cohort).

Measurements and main results

The effect of QIP on bundle compliance and hospital mortality was evaluated in a before-after analysis. We enrolled 467 patients in the before-QIP group and 656 in the after-QIP group. At the time of enrollment, septic shock was diagnosed in 50% of patients, similarly between the two periods. In the after-QIP group, we observed increased compliance to the "simplified rapid (1 h) intervention bundle" (the Sepsis 6 bundle - S6) at three time-points evaluated (1 h, 13.7 to 18.7%, p = 0.018, 3 h, 37.1 to 48.0%, p = 0.013, overall study period, 46.2 to 57.9%, p < 0.001). We then analyzed compliance with S6 and hospital mortality in the before- and after-QIP periods, stratifying the two patients' cohorts by admission characteristics. Adherence to the S6 bundle was increased in patients with severe sepsis in the absence of shock, in patients with serum lactate <4.0 mmol/L, and in patients with hypotension at the time of enrollment, regardless of the type of admission (from EDs or MWs). Subsequently, in an observational analysis, we also investigated the relation between bundle compliance and hospital mortality by logistic regression. In the after-QIP cohort, we observed a lower in-hospital mortality than that observed in the before-QIP cohort. This finding was reported in subgroups where a higher adherence to the S6 bundle in the after-QIP period was found. After adjustment for confounders, the QIP appeared to be independently associated with a significant improvement in hospital mortality. Among the single S6 procedures applied within the first hour of sepsis diagnosis, compliance with blood culture and antibiotic therapy appeared significantly associated with reduced in-hospital mortality.

Conclusion

A multi-faceted QIP aimed at promoting an early simplified bundle of care for the management of septic patients out of the ICU was associated with improved compliance with sepsis bundles and lower in-hospital mortality.

The Effect of Fluid Resuscitation Timing in Early Sepsis Resuscitation

PURPOSE

The dose and timing of early fluid resuscitation in sepsis remains a debated topic. The objective of this study is to evaluate the effect of fluid timing in early sepsis management on mortality and other clinical outcomes.

METHODS

Single-center, retrospective cohort study of emergency-department-treated adults (>18 years, n = 1032) presenting with severe sepsis or septic shock. Logistic regression evaluating the impact of 30 mL/kg crystalloids timing and mortality-versus-time plot controlling for mortality in emergency department sepsis score, lactate, antibiotic timing, obesity, sex, systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria, hypotension, and heart and renal failures. This study is a subanalysis of a previously published investigation.

RESULTS

Mortality was 17.1% (n = 176) overall and 20.4% (n = 133 of 653) among those in septic shock. 30 mL/kg was given to 16.9%, 32.2%, 16.2%, 14.5%, and 20.3% of patients within ≤1, 1 ≤ 3, 3 ≤ 6, 6 ≤ 24, and not reached within 24 h, respectively. A 24-h plot of adjusted mortality versus time did not reach significance, but within the first 12 h, the linear function showed a per-hour mortality increase (odds ratio [OR] 1.29, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02-1.67) which peaks around 5h, although the quadratic function does not reach significance (P = .09). When compared to patients receiving 30 mL/kg within 1 h, increased mortality was observed when not reached within 24 h (OR 2.69, 95% CI 1.37-5.37) but no difference when receiving this volume between 1 and 3 (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.62-2.01), 3 and 6 (OR 1.83, 95% CI 0.97-3.52), or 6 and 24 h (OR 1.51, 95% CI 0.75-3.06). Receiving 30 mL/kg between 1 and 3 versus <1 h increased the incidence of delayed hypotension (OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.23-2.72) but did not impact need for intubation, intensive care unit admission, or vasopressors.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed weak evidence that supports that earlier is better for survival when reaching fluid goals of 30 mL/kg, but benefits may wane at later time points. These findings should be viewed as hypothesis generating.

Therapeutic Dilemmas in Mixed Septic-Cardiogenic Shock

Sepsis is an increasing cause of decompensation in patients with chronic heart failure with reduced or preserved ejection fraction. Sepsis and decompensated heart failure results in a mixed septic-cardiogenic shock that poses several therapeutic dilemmas: Rapid fluid resuscitation is the cornerstone of sepsis management, while loop diuretics are the main stay of decompensated heart failure treatment. Whether inotropic therapy with dobutamine or inodilators improves microvascular alterations remains unsettled in sepsis. When to resume loop diuretic therapy in patients with sepsis and decompensated heart failure is unclear. In the absence of relevant guidelines, we review vasopressor therapy, the timing and volume of fluid resuscitation, and the need for inotropic therapy in patients who, with sepsis and decompensated heart failure, present with a mixed septic-cardiogenic shock.

Association Between Preexisting Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction and Fluid Administration Among Patients With Sepsis

Importance

Intravenous fluid administration is recommended to improve outcomes for patients with septic shock. However, there are few data on fluid administration for patients with preexisting heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

Objective

To evaluate the association between preexisting HFrEF, guideline-recommended intravenous fluid resuscitation, and mortality among patients with community-acquired sepsis and septic shock.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A cohort study was conducted of adult patients hospitalized in an integrated health care system from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2015, with community-acquired sepsis and preexisting assessment of cardiac function. Follow-up occurred through July 1, 2016. Data analyses were performed from November 1, 2020, to August 8, 2022.

Exposures

Preexisting heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (≤40%) measured by transthoracic echocardiogram within 1 year prior to hospitalization for sepsis.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Multivariable models were adjusted for patient factors and sepsis severity and clustered at the hospital level to generate adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% CIs. The primary outcome was the administration of 30 mL/kg of intravenous fluid within 6 hours of sepsis onset. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital mortality, intensive care unit admission, rate of invasive mechanical ventilation, and administration of vasoactive medications.

Results

Of 5278 patients with sepsis (2673 men [51%]; median age, 70 years [IQR, 60-81 years]; 4349 White patients [82%]; median Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, 4 [IQR, 3-5]), 884 (17%) had preexisting HFrEF, and 2291 (43%) met criteria for septic shock. Patients with septic shock and HFrEF were less likely to receive guideline-recommended intravenous fluid than those with septic shock without HFrEF (96 of 380 [25%] vs 699 of 1911 [37%]; P < .001), but in-hospital mortality was similar (47 of 380 [12%] vs 244 of 1911 [13%]; P = .83). In multivariable models, HFrEF was associated with a decreased risk-adjusted odds of receiving 30 mL/kg of intravenous fluid within the first 6 hours of sepsis onset (aOR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.47-0.85; P = .002). The risk-adjusted mortality was not significantly different among patients with HFrEF (aOR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.69-1.24; P = .59) compared with those without, and there was no interaction with intravenous fluid volume (aOR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.98-1.03; P = .72).

Conclusions and Relevance

The results of this cohort study of patients with community-acquired septic shock suggest that preexisting HFrEF was common and was associated with reduced odds of receiving guideline-recommended intravenous fluids.

Intravenous fluid therapy in perioperative and critical care setting-Knowledge test and practice: An international cross-sectional survey

PURPOSE

In the absence of recent international recommendations supported by scientific societies like Anesthesiology or Intensive Care Medicine, healthcare professionals (HCP) knowledge on IV fluid is expected to vary. We undertook a cross-sectional survey, aiming to assess prescription patterns and test the knowledge of HCP for IV fluid use in the operating room (OR) and intensive care unit (ICU).

METHODS

An online international cross-sectional survey was conducted between October 20, 2019, and November 27, 2021. The survey included multiple-choice questions on demographics, practice patterns and knowledge of IV fluids, and a hemodynamically unstable patient assessment.

RESULTS

1045 HCP, from 97 countries responded to the survey. Nearly three-quarters reported the non-existence of internal hospital or ICU-based guidelines on IV fluids. The respondents' mean score on the knowledge assessment questions was 46.4 ± 14.4. The cumulative mean scores were significantly higher among those supervising trainees (p = 0.02), specialists (p < 0.001) and those working in high-income (p < 0.001) countries. Overall performance of respondents on the knowledge testing for IV fluid was unsatisfactory with only 6.5% respondents performed above average.

CONCLUSION

There is a wide difference in the knowledge and prescription of IV fluids among the HCP surveyed. These findings reflect the urgent need for education on IV fluids.

Restrictive fluids versus standard care in adults with sepsis in the emergency department (REFACED): A multicenter, randomized feasibility trial

BACKGROUND

Fluid treatment in sepsis is a challenge and clinical equipoise exists regarding intravenous (IV) volumes. We aimed to determine whether a 24-h protocol restricting IV fluid was feasible in adult patients with sepsis without shock presenting to the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

The REFACED Sepsis trial is an investigator-initiated, multicenter, randomized, open-label, feasibility trial, assigning sepsis patients without shock to 24 h of restrictive, crystal IV fluid administration or standard care. In the IV fluid restriction group fluid boluses were only permitted if predefined criteria for hypoperfusion occurred. Standard care was at the discretion of the treating team. The primary outcome was total IV crystalloid fluid volumes at 24 h after randomization. Secondary outcomes included total fluid volumes, feasibility measures, and patient-centered outcomes.

RESULTS

We included 123 patients (restrictive 61 patients and standard care 62 patients) in the primary analysis. A total of 32% (95% confidence interval [CI] 28%-37%) of eligible patients meeting all inclusion criteria and no exclusion criteria were included. At 24 h, the mean (±SD) IV crystalloid fluid volumes were 562 (±1076) ml versus 1370 (±1438) ml in the restrictive versus standard care group (mean difference -801 ml, 95% CI -1257 to -345 ml, p = 0.001). Protocol violations occurred in 21 (34%) patients in the fluid-restrictive group. There were no differences between groups in adverse events, use of mechanical ventilation or vasopressors, acute kidney failure, length of stay, or mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

A protocol restricting IV crystalloid fluids in ED patients with sepsis reduced 24-h fluid volumes compared to standard care. A future trial powered toward patient-centered outcomes appears feasible.

Fluid resuscitation of at least 30 mL/kg was not associated with decreased mortality in patients with infection, signs of hypoperfusion, and a do-not-intubate order

Aim

Administration of at least 30 mL/kg of fluid as fluid resuscitation is recommended for patients with sepsis and signs of hypoperfusion. However, it is not clear whether this is appropriate for patients with a do‐not‐intubate (DNI) order. This study evaluated the association between volume of fluid resuscitation and outcomes in patients with infection, signs of hypoperfusion, and a DNI order in an emergency department.

Methods

This was a single‐center retrospective cohort study. We classified the infected patients with signs of hypoperfusion and a DNI order seen in our emergency department between April 1, 2015 and November 31, 2020 into the standard fluid resuscitation group (≥30 mL/kg) and the restricted fluid resuscitation group (<30 mL/kg). We compared with in‐hospital mortality and the rate of discharge to home in two groups.

Results

Of 367 patients, 149 received standard fluid resuscitation and 218 received restricted fluid resuscitation. In‐hospital mortality was similar in each group (40/149 and 62/218, respectively). Standard fluid resuscitation was not associated with in‐hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62–1.77, P = 0.86), but was associated with a significantly lower rate of discharge to home (aOR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.30–0.98, P = 0.043). There was no significant difference in respiratory rate or need for oxygen therapy post‐resuscitation between the two groups.

Conclusion

This study suggests that fluid resuscitation may be not beneficial for infected patients with signs of hypoperfusion and a DNI order. Further studies should be conducted on the options for resuscitation management for these patients.

The Effect of Fluid Initiation Timing on Sepsis Mortality: A Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Current guidelines suggest the immediate initiation of crystalloid for sepsis-induced hypoperfusion but note that supporting evidence is low quality. The aim of this study is to examine the effect of timing of fluid initiation on mortality for adults with sepsis.

DATA SOURCES

Two authors independently reviewed relevant articles and extracted study details from PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, Google Scholar, and previous relevant systematic reviews from 1-1-2000 to 1-6-2022. Registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021245431) and bias assessed using CLARITY.

STUDY SELECTION

A minimum of severe sepsis (Sepsis-2) or sepsis (Sepsis-3) for patients ≥18 years old. Fluid initiation timing ranging from prehospital to 120 min within sepsis onset defined as "early" initiation.

DATA EXTRACTION

Included studies providing mortality-based odds ratios (or comparable) adjusting for confounders or prospective trials.

DATA SYNTHESIS

From 1643 citations, five retrospective cohort studies were included (n = 20,209) with in-hospital mortality of 21.8%. A pooled analysis (odds ratio = OR [95% CI]) did not observe an impact on mortality for the early initiation of fluids among all patients, OR = 0.79 [0.62-1.02]; heterogeneity: I² = 86% [70-94%], but when studies analyzed cases of hypotension where available, a survival benefit was observed, OR = 0.74 [0.61-0.90]. Initiation of fluids in two prehospital studies did not impact mortality, OR = 0.82 [0.27-2.43]. However, both prehospital cohorts observed benefit among hypotensive patients individually, although heterogenous results precluded significance when pooled, OR = 0.50 [0.21-1.18]. Three hospital-based studies with initiation stratified at 30, 100, and 120 min, observed survival benefit both individually and when pooled, OR = 0.78 [0.63-0.97]. No differences were observed between prehospital versus hospital subgroups.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis supports the guideline recommendations for early fluid initiation once sepsis is recognized, especially in cases of hypotension. Findings are limited by the small number, heterogeneity, and retrospective nature of available studies. Further retrospective investigations may be worthwhile as randomized studies on fluid initiation are unlikely.

Risk factors for mortality from sepsis in an intensive care unit in Ecuador: A prospective study

ABSTRACT

To investigate risk factors for mortality from sepsis in an intensive care unit (ICU) in Quito-Ecuador and their association to adherence to Surviving Sepsis Campaign recommendations.Prospective cohort study of patients with severe sepsis/septic shock admitted to the ICU of a public Ecuadorian hospital from March, 2018 to March, 2019. Demographic, clinical, treatment, and outcome data were collected from patients' health records. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to ICU survival or death. Log-binomial regression models were used to identify risk factors for mortality.In total, 154 patients were included. Patients who died in the ICU (n = 42; 27.3%) had higher sequential organ failure assessment score (median 11.5 vs 9; P<.01), more organ dysfunction (median 4 vs 3; P<.0001), and received greater volumes of fluid resuscitation in the first 6 hours (median 800 vs 600 mL; P = .01). Dysfunction of > 2 organs was a risk factor for mortality (relative risks [RR] 3.80, 95% CI 1.33-10.86), while successful early resuscitation (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.15-0.70), successful empirical antibiotic treatment (RR 0.38, 95%CI 0.18-0.82), and antibiotic de-escalation (RR 0.28, 95%CI 0.13-0.61) were protective factors.Dysfunction of >2 organs was a risk factor for mortality from sepsis while successful early resuscitation and appropriate antibiotic treatment were protective.

Early fluid bolus in adults with sepsis in the emergency department: a systematic review, meta-analysis and narrative synthesis

Background

Early intravenous fluids for patients with sepsis presenting with hypoperfusion or shock in the emergency department remains one of the key recommendations of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines to reduce mortality. However, compliance with the recommendation remains poor. While several interventions have been implemented to improve early fluid administration as part of sepsis protocols, the extent to which they have improved compliance with fluid resuscitation is unknown. The factors associated with the lack of compliance are also poorly understood.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review, meta-analysis and narrative review to investigate the effectiveness of interventions in emergency departments in improving compliance with early fluid administration and examine the non-interventional facilitators and barriers that may influence appropriate fluid administration in adults with sepsis. We searched MEDLINE Ovid/PubMed, Ovid EMBASE, CINAHL, and SCOPUS databases for studies of any design to April 2021. We synthesised results from the studies reporting effectiveness of interventions in a meta-analysis and conducted a narrative synthesis of studies reporting non-interventional factors.

Results

We included 31 studies out of the 825 unique articles identified in the systematic review of which 21 were included in the meta-analysis and 11 in the narrative synthesis. In meta-analysis, interventions were associated with a 47% improvement in the rate of compliance [(Random Effects (RE) Relative Risk (RR) = 1.47, 95% Confidence Interval (CI), 1.25–1.74, p-value < 0.01)]; an average 24 min reduction in the time to fluids [RE mean difference = − 24.11(95% CI − 14.09 to − 34.14 min, p value < 0.01)], and patients receiving an additional 575 mL fluids [RE mean difference = 575.40 (95% CI 202.28–1353.08, p value < 0.01)]. The compliance rate of early fluid administration reported in the studies included in the narrative synthesis is 48% [RR = 0.48 (95% CI 0.24–0.72)].

Conclusion

Performance improvement interventions improve compliance and time and volume of fluids administered to patients with sepsis in the emergency department. While patient-related factors such as advanced age, co-morbidities, cryptic shock were associated with poor compliance, important organisational factors such as inexperience of clinicians, overcrowding and inter-hospital transfers were also identified. A comprehensive understanding of the facilitators and barriers to early fluid administration is essential to design quality improvement projects.

PROSPERO Registration ID

CRD42021225417.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12873-021-00558-5.

Optimizing Fluid Resuscitation and Preventing Fluid Overload in Patients with Septic Shock

Intravenous fluid administration remains an important component in the care of patients with septic shock. A common error in the treatment of septic shock is the use of excessive fluid in an effort to overcome both hypovolemia and vasoplegia. While fluids are necessary to help correct the intravascular depletion, vasopressors should be concomitantly administered to address vasoplegia. Excessive fluid administration is associated with worse outcomes in septic shock, so great care should be taken when deciding how much fluid to give these vulnerable patients. Simple or strict "recipes" which mandate an exact amount of fluid to administer, even when weight based, are not associated with better outcomes and therefore should be avoided. Determining the correct amount of fluid requires the clinician to repeatedly assess and consider multiple variables, including the fluid deficit, organ dysfunction, tolerance of additional fluid, and overall trajectory of the shock state. Dynamic indices, often involving the interaction between the cardiovascular and respiratory systems, appear to be superior to traditional static indices such as central venous pressure for assessing fluid responsiveness. Point-of-care ultrasound offers the bedside clinician a multitude of applications which are useful in determining fluid administration in septic shock. In summary, prevention of fluid overload in septic shock patients is extremely important, and requires the careful attention of the entire critical care team.

Fluid resuscitation and outcomes in heart failure patients with severe sepsis or septic shock: A retrospective case-control study

BACKGROUND

The use of ≥30 mL/Kg fluid bolus in congestive heart failure (CHF) patients presenting with severe sepsis or septic shock remained controversial due to the paucity of data.

METHODS

The retrospective case-control study included 671 adult patients who presented to the emergency department of a tertiary care hospital from January 01, 2017 to December 31, 2019 with severe sepsis or septic shock. Patients were categorized into the CHF group and the non-CHF group. The primary outcome was to evaluate the compliance with ≥30 mL/Kg fluid bolus within 6 hours of presentation. The comparison of baseline characteristics and secondary outcomes were done between the groups who received ≥30 mL/Kg fluid bolus. For the subgroup analysis of the CHF group, it was divided based on if they received ≥30 mL/Kg fluid bolus or not, and comparison was done for baseline characteristics and secondary outcomes. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed to explore the differences between the groups for in-hospital mortality and mechanical ventilation.

RESULTS

The use of ≥30 mL/Kg fluid bolus was low in both the CHF and non-CHF groups [39% vs. 66% (p<0.05)]. Mortality was higher in the CHF group [33% vs 18% (p<0.05)]. Multivariable analysis revealed that the use of ≥30 mL/Kg fluid bolus decreased the chances of mortality by 12% [OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.82-0.95 (p<0.05)]. The use of ≥30 mL/Kg fluid bolus did not increase the odds of mechanical ventilation [OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93-1.05 (p = 0.78)]. In subgroup analysis, the use of ≥30 mL/Kg fluid bolus decreased the chances of mortality by 5% [OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.90-0.99, (p<0.05)] and did not increase the odds of mechanical ventilation. The presence of the low ejection fraction did not influence the chance of getting fluid bolus.

CONCLUSION

The use of ≥30 mL/Kg fluid bolus seems to confer protection against in-hospital mortality and is not associated with increased chances of mechanical ventilation in heart failure patients presenting with severe sepsis or septic shock.

Design and Implementation of a Real-time Monitoring Platform for Optimal Sepsis Care in an Emergency Department: Observational Cohort Study

Background

Sepsis is the leading cause of death in US hospitals. Compliance with bundled care, specifically serial lactates, blood cultures, and antibiotics, improves outcomes but is often delayed or missed altogether in a busy practice environment.

Objective

This study aims to design, implement, and validate a novel monitoring and alerting platform that provides real-time feedback to frontline emergency department (ED) providers regarding adherence to bundled care.

Methods

This single-center, prospective, observational study was conducted in three phases: the design and technical development phase to build an initial version of the platform; the pilot phase to test and refine the platform in the clinical setting; and the postpilot rollout phase to fully implement the study intervention.

Results

During the design and technical development, study team members and stakeholders identified the criteria for patient inclusion, selected bundle measures from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Sepsis Core Measure for alerting, and defined alert thresholds, message content, delivery mechanisms, and recipients. Additional refinements were made based on 70 provider survey results during the pilot phase, including removing alerts for vasopressor initiation and modifying text in the pages to facilitate patient identification. During the 48 days of the postpilot rollout phase, 15,770 ED encounters were tracked and 711 patient encounters were included in the active monitoring cohort. In total, 634 pages were sent at a rate of 0.98 per attending physician shift. Overall, 38.3% (272/711) patients had at least one page. The missing bundle elements that triggered alerts included: antibiotics 41.6% (136/327), repeat lactate 32.4% (106/327), blood cultures 20.8% (68/327), and initial lactate 5.2% (17/327). Of the missing Sepsis Core Measures elements for which a page was sent, 38.2% (125/327) were successfully completed on time.

Conclusions

A real-time sepsis care monitoring and alerting platform was created for the ED environment. The high proportion of patients with at least one alert suggested the significant potential for such a platform to improve care, whereas the overall number of alerts per clinician suggested a low risk of alarm fatigue. The study intervention warrants a more rigorous evaluation to ensure that the added alerts lead to better outcomes for patients with sepsis.

Comparison of fluid resuscitation weight-based dosing strategies in obese patients with severe sepsis

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to compare the composite outcome of progression to septic shock between 30 mL/kg/ideal body weight (IBW) versus 30 mL/kg/non-IBW fluid resuscitation dosing strategies in obese patients with severe sepsis.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated obese patients admitted to an academic tertiary care center for the management of severe sepsis. Patients were included if they had a fluid bolus order placed using the sepsis order set between Oct 2018 and Sept 2019. The primary objective was the composite of progression to septic shock, defined as either persistent hypotension within 3 h after the conclusion of the 30 mL/kg fluid bolus administration or the initiation of vasopressor(s) within 6 h of the bolus administration.

RESULTS

Of 72 included patients, 49 (68%) were resuscitated using an IBW-based and 23 (32%) using a non-IBW-based dosing strategy. There were similar rates of progression to septic shock in the IBW and non-IBW groups (18% vs. 26%; p = 0.54). Median ICU and hospital LOS in the IBW group versus non-IBW group were (0 [IQR 0] vs. 0 [IQR 0 to 4] days; p = 0.13) and (6 [IQR 3 to 10] vs. 8 [IQR 5 to 12] days; p = 0.07), respectively. In-hospital mortality rates were similar between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study results suggest that in obese septic patients, fluid administration using an IBW-dosing strategy did not affect the progression to septic shock.

Sepsis Fluid Metric Compliance and its Impact on Outcomes of Patients with Congestive Heart Failure, End-Stage Renal Disease or Obesity

BACKGROUND

Emergency physicians express concern administering a 30-cc/kg fluid bolus to septic shock patients with pre-existing congestive heart failure (CHF), end-stage renal disease (ESRD), or obesity, due to the perceived risk of precipitating a fluid overload state.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to determine whether there is a difference in fluid administration to septic shock patients with these pre-existing conditions in the emergency department (ED). Secondary objectives focused on whether compliance impacts mortality, need for intubation, and length of stay.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective chart review of 470,558 ED patient encounters at a single urban academic center during a 5-year period.

RESULTS

Of 847 patients with septic shock, 308 (36.36%) had no pre-existing condition and 199 (23.49%), 17 (2.01%), and 154 (18.18%) had the single pre-existing condition of CHF, ESRD, and obesity, respectively, and 169 (19.95%) had multiple pre-existing conditions. Weight-based fluid compliance was achieved in 460 patients (54.31%). There was a lower likelihood of compliance among patients with CHF (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.35; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.24-0.52; p < 0.001), ESRD (aOR 0.11, 95% CI 0.04-0.32; p < 0.001), and obesity (aOR 0.29, 95% CI 0.19-0.44; p < 0.001) compared with patients with no pre-existing conditions. Compliance decreased further in patients with multiple pre-existing conditions (aOR 0.49, 95% CI 0.33-0.72; p < 0.001). Compliance was not associated with mortality in patients with CHF and ESRD, but was protective in patients with obesity and those with no pre-existing conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

Septic shock patients with pre-existing CHF, ESRD, or obesity are less likely to achieve compliance with a 30-cc/kg weight-based fluid goal compared with those without these pre-existing conditions.

Infectious Diseases Society of America Position Paper: Recommended Revisions to the National Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock Early Management Bundle (SEP-1) Sepsis Quality Measure

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock Early Management Bundle (SEP-1) measure has appropriately established sepsis as a national priority. However, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA and five additional endorsing societies) is concerned about SEP-1's potential to drive antibiotic overuse because it does not account for the high rate of sepsis overdiagnosis and encourages aggressive antibiotics for all patients with possible sepsis, regardless of the certainty of diagnosis or severity of illness. IDSA is also concerned that SEP-1's complex "time zero" definition is not evidence-based and is prone to inter-observer variation. In this position paper, IDSA outlines several recommendations aimed at reducing the risk of unintended consequences of SEP-1 while maintaining focus on its evidence-based elements. IDSA's core recommendation is to limit SEP-1 to septic shock, for which the evidence supporting the benefit of immediate antibiotics is greatest. Prompt empiric antibiotics are often appropriate for suspected sepsis without shock, but IDSA believes there is too much heterogeneity and difficulty defining this population, uncertainty about the presence of infection, and insufficient data on the necessity of immediate antibiotics to support a mandatory treatment standard for all patients in this category. IDSA believes guidance on managing possible sepsis without shock is more appropriate for guidelines that can delineate the strengths and limitations of supporting evidence and allow clinicians discretion in applying specific recommendations to individual patients. Removing sepsis without shock from SEP-1 will mitigate the risk of unnecessary antibiotic prescribing for noninfectious syndromes, simplify data abstraction, increase measure reliability, and focus attention on the population most likely to benefit from immediate empiric broad-spectrum antibiotics.

An Evaluation of the Use of Aggressive Fluid Resuscitation in the Early Treatment of Sepsis Patients

Introduction

Fluid resuscitation is a critical aspect of the sepsis protocol with the usual initial dose being 30 mL per kilogram. Although this dose is well accepted in patients with normal cardiac function, there is some significant variation in clinical practice concerning the optimal fluid resuscitation in septic patients with underlying congestive heart failure (CHF). Many different approaches have been tried to best treat these patients by using lesser volumes of fluid. The purpose of this retrospective study is to attempt to better define optimal fluid resuscitation in congestive heart failure patients and whether standard fluid resuscitation exacerbates CHF in these cases.

Methods

This was a retrospective study involving patients admitted to the Emergency Department (ED) during the time period of September of 2016 through March of 2019 with a primary diagnosis of sepsis and pre-existing CHF. Data collected from the data warehouse and patient charts included demographics, total amount of fluid received in the ED and outcome data. Evidence of fluid overload (chest X-ray [CXR] evidence, rising B-type natriuretic peptide [BNP], or use of diuretics), was evaluated with respect to in-hospital mortality, white blood cell (WBC) count and comorbidities (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD], hypertension and coronary artery disease).

Results

There were 422 patients included in the cohort. Of the 422, 113 (26.8%) patients showed evidence of fluid overload on CXR during hospital stay and received diuretics and therefore considered in the CHF exacerbation group. The patients that experienced CHF exacerbation were significantly older (mean ± SD, 70.9 ± 11.8 years versus 67.4 ± 15.1 years, p=0.014). Patients with exacerbation also received more fluid (median and interquartile range, 3.0, 2:5.5 L versus 2.0, 1:4.3 L, p=0.017). The receiver operating characteristic curve analysis for fluid to predict exacerbation resulted in an area under the curve of 0.59 with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 0.52 to 0.65, p=0.012. The Youden Index was used to determine an optimal cutoff value of 2.6 L. The percentage of patients in the exacerbation group above the threshold was significantly higher (57.3%) than those without exacerbation (43.3%), p=0.019. Following multivariate analysis, age greater than 60 (odds ratio [OR]: 2.5; CI: 1.4-4.6, p=0.003) and fluid cutoff of 2.6 L (OR: 1.9; CI: 1.2-3.1, p=0.007) were both found to be independent predictors of CHF exacerbation. There was no significant difference in mortality based on the total fluid received in the ED.

Conclusion

The findings of this study showed that septic patients with pre-existing CHF who received more than 2.6 L of fluid in the ED were 90% more likely to develop symptoms of CHF exacerbation with no evidence of lowering mortality compared to the group that received less than 2.6 L. Our data supports the practice of limiting total fluid resuscitation in CHF to 2.6 L and reconfirms the idea that fluid resuscitation for patients with CHF needs to be individualized.

Individualized Care Is Superior to Standardized Care for the Majority of Critically Ill Patients

Tools for standardizing patient care can take many forms, including but not limited to, bundles, quality improvement and performance measures, guidelines, and protocols. Each is intended to improve compliance with interventions believed to be supported by the best available evidence, ensuring consistency of management across all patients with the ultimate goal of improving outcomes. However, in the ICU, patients typically present with complex acute illnesses and accompanying comorbidities, requiring careful tailoring of interventions and treatments for each individual patient. The rapidly changing nature of the underlying conditions also demands continuous reassessment and modification of each patient’s management on a frequent and sometimes moment-by-moment basis. Disrupting this individualized treatment approach by imposing prescriptive, overly restrictive, “one-size-fits-all” standardized treatments in the critical care setting may prevent the clinician from meeting individual patients’ needs and decrease care quality (1 ). This problem is compounded if the standardization tools adopted are not only inflexible but also have a poorly supported or entirely absent scientific basis. Importantly, identifiable patient subcategories often exist that fit poorly into the populations for which many interventions were developed and tested. Of equal concern, critical care trainees may become dependent on a standardized/cookbook approach to care and fail to recognize and learn how treatments must be tailored for the unique needs of each critically ill patient. Rather than rigidly standardizing critical care, approaches that recognize this complexity and are both scientifically sound and responsive to patient differences should be readily available to critical care clinicians without replacing sensible clinical judgment. Such strategies that acknowledge the limitations of available evidence hold more hope of improving, rather than inadvertently worsening, the outcome.

Association of an Emergency Department-embedded Critical Care Unit with Hospital Outcomes and Intensive Care Unit Use

Rationale: A small but growing number of hospitals are experimenting with emergency department-embedded critical care units (CCUs) in an effort to improve the quality of care for critically ill patients with sepsis and acute respiratory failure (ARF).Objectives: To evaluate the potential impact of an emergency department-embedded CCU at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania among patients with sepsis and ARF admitted from the emergency department to a medical ward or intensive care unit (ICU) from January 2016 to December 2017.Methods: The exposure was eligibility for admission to the emergency department-embedded CCU, which was defined as meeting a clinical definition for sepsis or ARF and admission to the emergency department during the intervention period on a weekday. The primary outcome was hospital length of stay (LOS); secondary outcomes included total emergency department plus ICU LOS, hospital survival, direct admission to the ICU, and unplanned ICU admission. Primary interrupted time series analyses were performed using ordinary least squares regression comparing monthly means. Secondary retrospective cohort and before-after analyses used multivariable Cox proportional hazard and logistic regression.Results: In the baseline and intervention periods, 3,897 patients met the inclusion criteria for sepsis and 1,865 patients met the criteria for ARF. Among patients admitted with sepsis, opening of the emergency department-embedded CCU was not associated with hospital LOS (β = -1.82 d; 95% confidence interval [CI], -4.50 to 0.87; P = 0.17 for the first month after emergency department-embedded CCU opening compared with baseline; β = -0.26 d; 95% CI, -0.58 to 0.06; P = 0.10 for subsequent months). Among patients admitted with ARF, the emergency department-embedded CCU was not associated with a significant change in hospital LOS for the first month after emergency department-embedded CCU opening (β = -3.25 d; 95% CI, -7.86 to 1.36; P = 0.15) but was associated with a 0.64 d/mo shorter hospital LOS for subsequent months (β = -0.64 d; 95% CI, -1.12 to -0.17; P = 0.01). This result persisted among higher acuity patients requiring ventilatory support but was not supported by alternative analytic approaches. Among patients admitted with sepsis who did not require mechanical ventilation or vasopressors in the emergency department, the emergency department-embedded CCU was associated with an initial 9.9% reduction in direct ICU admissions in the first month (β = -0.099; 95% CI, -0.153 to -0.044; P = 0.002), followed by a 1.1% per month increase back toward baseline in subsequent months (β = 0.011; 95% CI, 0.003-0.019; P = 0.009). This relationship was supported by alternative analytic approaches and was not seen in ARF. No associations with emergency department plus ICU LOS, hospital survival, or unplanned ICU admission were observed among patients with sepsis or ARF.Conclusions: The emergency department-embedded CCU was not associated with clinical outcomes among patients admitted with sepsis or ARF. Among less sick patients with sepsis, the emergency department-embedded CCU was initially associated with reduced rates of direct ICU admission from the emergency department. Additional research is necessary to further evaluate the impact and utility of the emergency department-embedded CCU model.

Aggressive versus conservative fluid resuscitation in septic hemodialysis patients

PURPOSE

Sepsis and bacterial infections are common in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). We aimed to compare patients with ESRD on hemodialysis presenting to hospital with severe sepsis or septic shock who received <20 ml/kg of intravenous fluid to those who received ≥20 ml/kg during initial resuscitation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective chart review of adult patients with ICD codes for discharge diagnosis of sepsis, severe sepsis, septic shock, ESRD, and hemodialysis admitted to our institution between 2015 and 2018.

RESULTS

We present outcomes for a total of 104 patients - 51 patients in conservative group and 53 in aggressive group. The mean age was 69.5 ± 11.2 years and 71 ± 11.5 years in the conservative group and aggressive group, respectively. There was no significant difference in the rate of ICU admission, and ICU or hospital length of stay between the two groups. Complications such as volume overload, rate of intubation, and urgent dialysis were not found to be significantly different.

CONCLUSION

We found that aggressive fluid resuscitation with ≥20 ml/kg may not be detrimental in the initial resuscitation of ESRD patients with SeS or SS. However, a clinical decision of volume responsiveness should be made on a case-by-case basis rather than a universal approach for fluid resuscitation in ESRD patients.

Review of Sepsis in Burn Patients in 2020

Background: Severe burn injury results in substantial damage to the skin, inhibiting its ability to perform as the primary barrier to infection. Additionally, severe burn injury can lead to critical illness and extensive time in the intensive care unit (ICU). These two factors work to increase the risk of sepsis in the burn patient compared with other hospitalized patients. The increased risk of sepsis is compounded by the difficulty of diagnosing sepsis in severely burned patients because the pathophysiology of large burns mimics sepsis, leading to possible delay in diagnosis and initiation of treatment. Methods: A literature review was performed to discuss and review the diagnostic difficulties and criteria used to identify patients with sepsis. Additionally, the most current management of sepsis was reviewed and described in caring for burn patients with sepsis. Results: The incidence of sepsis in patients with more than 20% total body surface area (TBSA) burns is between 3% and 30% and is the most common cause of death in the burn patient, with pneumonia being the most common etiology. Several different diagnostic criteria for diagnosing sepsis in burn patients exist, however, none of these criteria have proven to be superior to clinical diagnosis by an experienced burn surgeon. As with sepsis in other patient populations, prompt diagnosis, initiation of antibiotic agents, and source control remain the standard management of sepsis in the burn patient. Conclusions: Because of the loss of the primary infection barrier function of the skin after a substantial burn injury, this patient population is at increased risk for sepsis. Because of the pathophysiology of burn injuries, diagnosing sepsis in the burn population remains challenging. Understanding the most common etiologies of sepsis in burn patients may help with more expedient diagnosis and initiation of treatment.

Assessment of fluid resuscitation on time to hemodynamic stability in obese patients with septic shock

PURPOSE

Assess time to hemodynamic stability (HDS) in obese patients with septic shock who received <30 vs. ≥30 ml/kg of initial fluid resuscitation based on actual body weight (ABW).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Multicenter, retrospective, cohort analysis of 322 patients.

RESULTS

Overall 216 (67%) patients received <30 ml/kg of initial fluid resuscitation. Initial fluid received was lower in the <30 ml/kg vs. ≥30 ml/kg group (16 vs. 37 ml/kg). The ≥30 ml/kg group had shorter time to HDS (multivariable p = 0.038) and lower riskof in-hospital death (multivariable p = 0.038). An exploratory subgroup analysis (n = 227) was performed, classifying patients by dosing strategy [ABW, adjusted body weight (AdjBW), ideal body weight (IBW)] based on fluid received at 3 h divided by 30 ml/kg. ABW dosed patients had a shorter time to HDS (multivariable p = 0.013) and lower risk of in-hospital death (multivariable p = 0.008) vs. IBW. Similar outcomes were observed between ABW vs. AdjBW.

CONCLUSIONS

Obese patients given ≥30 ml/kg based on ABW had a shorter time to HDS and a lower risk of in-hospital death. Exploratory results suggest improved outcomes resuscitating by ABW vs. IBW; ABW showed no strong benefit over AdjBW. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm the optimal fluid dosing in obese patients.

Assessing the impact of CKD on outcomes in septic shock patients receiving standard Vs reduced initial fluid volume

OBJECTIVE

To determine if following fluid resuscitation recommendations in the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines affects hospital length of stay (LOS) in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients who present to the emergency department with sepsis-induced hypotension or septic shock.

DESIGN

Retrospective, single center, cohort study.

SETTING

433-bed community hospital with a 35-bed emergency department in central Kentucky.

PATIENTS

Adults (≥18 years of age) who presented to the emergency department with severe sepsis or septic shock, as defined by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), with documented CKD and at least one episode of hypotension within 6 h of presentation. A total of 106 patients were included in the study.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Patients were stratified into two groups based on the total volume of weight-based crystalloid fluid bolus initiated within the first three hours of hypotension onset (<27 mL/kg and ≥ 27 mL/kg). There was a statistically significant reduction in the primary outcome of median LOS among patients who received less than 27 mL/kg of a crystalloid fluid bolus (5.1 vs 7.7 days, p = .003). Likewise, there was a statistically significant reduction in the secondary outcome of total cost per case in the reduced fluid volume cohort (p = .019. No significant differences were found in other secondary outcomes, including vasopressor requirements, ICU admission rate, and normalization of MAP at 6 h.

CONCLUSION

The results of this single-center, retrospective study indicate that CKD patients who receive guideline-directed fluid resuscitation (≥27 mL/kg) for sepsis-induced hypotension or septic shock experience a longer hospital LOS compared to those who receive a reduced initial fluid volume.

Sepsis With Preexisting Heart Failure: Management of Confounding Clinical Features

Preexisting heart failure (HF) in patients with sepsis is associated with worse clinical outcomes. Core sepsis management includes aggressive volume resuscitation followed by vasopressors (and potentially inotropes) if fluid is inadequate to restore perfusion; however, large fluid boluses and vasoactive agents are concerning amid the cardiac dysfunction of HF. This review summarizes evidence regarding the influence of HF on sepsis clinical outcomes, pathophysiologic concerns, resuscitation targets, hemodynamic interventions, and adjunct management (ie, antiarrhythmics, positive pressure ventilatory support, and renal replacement therapy) in patients with sepsis and preexisting HF. Patients with sepsis and preexisting HF receive less fluid during resuscitation; however, evidence suggests traditional fluid resuscitation targets do not increase the risk of adverse events in HF patients with sepsis and likely improve outcomes. Norepinephrine remains the most well-supported vasopressor for patients with sepsis with preexisting HF, while dopamine may induce more cardiac adverse events. Dobutamine should be used cautiously given its generally detrimental effects but may have an application when combined with norepinephrine in patients with low cardiac output. Management of chronic HF medications warrants careful consideration for continuation or discontinuation upon development of sepsis, and β-blockers may be appropriate to continue in the absence of acute hemodynamic decompensation. Optimal management of atrial fibrillation may include β-blockers after acute hemodynamic stabilization as they have also shown independent benefits in sepsis. Positive pressure ventilatory support and renal replacement must be carefully monitored for effects on cardiac function when HF is present.

Characteristics of resuscitation, and association between use of dynamic tests of fluid responsiveness and outcomes in septic patients: results of a multicenter prospective cohort study in Argentina

BACKGROUND

Resuscitation of septic patients regarding goals, monitoring aspects and therapy is highly variable. Our aim was to characterize cardiovascular and fluid management of sepsis in Argentina, a low and middle-income country (LMIC). Furthermore, we sought to test whether the utilization of dynamic tests of fluid responsiveness, as a guide for fluid therapy after initial resuscitation in patients with persistent or recurrent hypoperfusion, was associated with decreased mortality.

METHODS

Secondary analysis of a national, multicenter prospective cohort study (n = 787) fulfilling Sepsis-3 definitions. Epidemiological characteristics, hemodynamic management data, type of fluids and vasopressors administered, physiological variables denoting hypoperfusion, use of tests of fluid responsiveness, and outcomes, were registered. Independent predictors of mortality were identified with logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Initially, 584 of 787 patients (74%) had mean arterial pressure (MAP) < 65 mm Hg and/or signs of hypoperfusion and received 30 mL/kg of fluids, mostly normal saline (53%) and Ringer lactate (35%). Vasopressors and/or inotropes were administered in 514 (65%) patients, mainly norepinephrine (100%) and dobutamine (9%); in 22%, vasopressors were administered before ending the fluid load. After this, 413 patients (53%) presented persisting or recurrent hypotension and/or hypoperfusion, which prompted administration of additional fluid, based on: lactate levels (66%), urine output (62%), heart rate (54%), central venous O₂ saturation (39%), central venous-arterial PCO₂ difference (38%), MAP (31%), dynamic tests of fluid responsiveness (30%), capillary-refill time (28%), mottling (26%), central venous pressure (24%), cardiac index (13%) and/or pulmonary wedge pressure (3%). Independent predictors of mortality were SOFA and Charlson scores, lactate, requirement of mechanical ventilation, and utilization of dynamic tests of fluid responsiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

In this prospective observational study assessing the characteristics of resuscitation of septic patients in Argentina, a LMIC, the prevalent use of initial fluid bolus with normal saline and Ringer lactate and the use of norepinephrine as the most frequent vasopressor, reflect current worldwide practices. After initial resuscitation with 30 mL/kg of fluids and vasopressors, 413 patients developed persistent or recurrent hypoperfusion, which required further volume expansion. In this setting, the assessment of fluid responsiveness with dynamic tests to guide fluid resuscitation was independently associated with decreased mortality.

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

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.

Driving blind: instituting SEP-1 without high quality outcomes data

In 2015, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) instituted an all-or-none sepsis performance measure bundle (SEP-1) to promote high-quality, cost-effective care. Systematic reviews demonstrated only low-quality evidence supporting most of SEP-1's interventions. CMS has removed some but not all of these unproven components. The current SEP-1 version requires patients with suspected sepsis have a lactate level, blood cultures, broad-spectrum antibiotics and, if hypotensive, a fixed 30 mL/kg fluid infusion within 3 hours, and a repeat lactate if initially elevated within 6 hours. Experts have continued to raise concerns that SEP-1 remains overly prescriptive, lacks a sound scientific basis and presents risks (overuse of antibiotics and inappropriate fluids not titrated to need). To incentivize compliance with SEP-1, CMS now publicly publishes how often hospitals complete all interventions in individual patients. However, compliance measured across hospitals (5 studies, 48-2,851 hospitals) or patients (three studies, 110-851 patients) has been low (approximately 50%) which is not surprising given SEP-1's lack of scientific basis. The largest observational study (1,738 patients) reporting survival rates employing SEP-1 found they were not significantly improved with the measure (P=0.53) as did the next largest study (851 patients, adjusted survival odds ratio 1.36, 95% CI, 0.85 to 2.18). Two smaller observational studies (158 and 450 patients) reported SEP-1 improved unadjusted survival (P≤0.05) but were confounded either by baseline imbalances or by simultaneous introduction of a code sepsis protocol to improve compliance. Regardless, retrospective studies have well known biases related to non-randomized designs, uncontrolled data collection and failure to adjust for unrecognized influential variables. Such low-quality science should not be the basis for a national mandate compelling care for a rapidly lethal disease with a high mortality rate. Instead, SEP-1 should be based on high quality reproducible evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCT) demonstrating its benefit and thereby safety. Otherwise we risk not only doing harm but standardizing it.