Clinical Factors and Outcomes of Dialysis-Dependent End-Stage Renal Disease Patients with Emergency Department Septic Shock

Fluid Resuscitation Dilemma in End-stage Renal Disease Patients Presenting with Sepsis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background: This study aims to investigate the safety and efficacy of guideline-directed fluid resuscitation (GDFR) compared with conservative fluid management in end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients with sepsis by evaluating 90-day mortality and intubation rate. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review was conducted across multiple databases using specific keywords and controlled vocabulary. The search strategy, implemented until October 1, 2023, aimed to identify studies examining fluid resuscitation in ESRD patients with sepsis. The review process was streamlined using Covidence software. A fourth reviewer resolved discrepancies in study inclusion. A random-effects model with the generic Mantel-Haenszel method was preferred for integrating odds ratios (ORs). Sensitivity analysis and publication bias analysis were performed. Results: Of the 1274 identified studies, 10 were selected for inclusion, examining 1184 patients, 593 of whom received GDFR. Four studies were selected to investigate the intubation rate, including 304 patients. No significant mortality or intubation rate difference was spotted between both groups [OR = 1.23; confidence interval (CI) = 0.92-1.65; I2 = 0% and OR = 1.91; CI = 0.91-4.04]. In most studies, sensitivity analysis using the leave-one-out approach revealed higher mortality and intubation rates. The Egger test results indicated no statistically significant publication bias across the included studies. Conclusion: Our research contradicts the common assumption about the effectiveness of GDFR for sepsis patients with ESRD. It suggests that this approach, while not superior to the conservative strategy, may potentially be harmful.

Fluid Resuscitation and Sepsis Management in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease or End-Stage Renal Disease: Scoping Review

Managing sepsis and fluid resuscitation in patients with chronic kidney disease or end-stage renal disease is challenging for health care providers. Nurses are essential for early identification and treatment of these patients. Nurse education on assessing perfusion and implementing 3-hour bundled care can improve mortality rates in patients with sepsis. In this scoping review, initial screening identified 1176 articles published from 2015 through 2023 in the National Library of Medicine database; 29 articles were included in the literature summary and evidence synthesis. A systematic review meta-analysis was not possible because of data heterogeneity. The review revealed that most patients with chronic kidney disease or end-stage renal disease received more conservative resuscitation than did the general population, most likely because of concerns about volume overload. However, patients with chronic kidney disease or end-stage renal disease could tolerate the standard initial fluid resuscitation bolus of 30 mL/kg for sepsis. Outcomes in patients with chronic kidney disease or end-stage renal disease were similar to outcomes in patients without those conditions, whether they received standard or conservative fluid resuscitation. Patients who received the standard (higher) fluid resuscitation volume did not have increased rates of complications such as longer duration of mechanical ventilation, increased mortality, or prolonged length of stay. Using fluid responsiveness to guide resuscitation was associated with improved outcomes. The standard initial fluid resuscitation bolus of 30 mL/kg may be safe for patients with chronic kidney disease or end-stage renal disease and sepsis. Fluid responsiveness could be a valuable resuscitation criterion, promoting better decision-making by multidisciplinary teams. Further research is required.

Sepsis in end-stage renal disease patients: are they at an increased risk of mortality?

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to examine the outcome of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients admitted with sepsis to the intensive care unit (ICU).

DESIGN

Single centre, retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

The study was conducted in the Intensive Care Department of King Abdulaziz Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

PARTICIPANTS

Data were extracted from a prospectively collected ICU database from 2002 to 2017. Patients were considered to have sepsis based on the sepsis-3 definition and were stratified into 2 groups based on the presence or absence of ESRD.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES

The primary outcome of the study was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included ICU mortality, ICU and hospital lengths of stay, and mechanical ventilation duration.

RESULTS

A total of 8803 patients were admitted to the ICU with sepsis during the study period. 730 (8.3%) patients had ESRD. 49.04% of ESRD patients with sepsis died within their hospital stay vs. 31.78% of non-ESRD patients. ESRD septic patients had 1.44 greater odds of dying within their hospital stay as compared to septic non-ESRD patients (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.03-1.53). Finally, the predictors of hospital mortality in septic ESRD patients were found to be mechanical ventilation (OR 3.36; 95% CI 2.27-5.00), a history of chronic liver disease (OR 2.26; 95% CI 1.26-4.07), and use of vasopressors (OR 1.74; 95% CI 1.19-2.54). Among patients with ESRD, hospital mortality was higher in subgroups of patients with chronic cardiac (OR 1.86 (1.36-2.53) vs. 1.19 (0.96-1.47)) and chronic respiratory illnesses (OR 2.20 (1.52-3.20) vs. 1.21 (0.99-1.48)).

CONCLUSION

ESRD patients admitted to the intensive care unit with sepsis are at greater odds of mortality compared to patients with non-ESRD. This risk is particularly increased if these patients have a concomitant history of chronic cardiac and respiratory illnesses.Key MessagesSepsis and bacterial infections are very common in ESRD patients and following cardiovascular disease; sepsis is the second leading cause of death in patients with ESRD.This study aims to examine the outcome of patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients admitted with sepsis to the intensive care unit (ICU).The results of this study have shown that end-stage renal disease is associated with greater odds of ICU and hospital mortality among septic patients admitted to an intensive care unit.ESRD patients were also more likely to be started on vasopressors and mechanical ventilation.

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.

The timing of last hemodialysis influences the prognostic value of serum lactate levels in predicting mortality of end-stage renal disease patients with sepsis in the emergency department

Sepsis is a life-threatening condition, and serum lactate levels have been used to predict patient prognosis. Studies on serum lactate levels in patients undergoing regular hemodialysis who have sepsis are limited. This study aimed to determine the predictive value of serum lactate levels for sepsis-related mortality among patients who underwent last hemodialysis at three different times before admission to the emergency department (ED).This retrospective cohort study was conducted from January 2007 to December 2013 in southern Taiwan. All hemodialysis patients with sepsis, receiving antibiotics within 24 hours of sepsis confirmation, admitted for at least 3 days, and whose serum lactate levels were known were examined to determine the difference in the serum lactate levels of patients who underwent last hemodialysis within 4 hours (Groups A), in 4-12 hours (Group B), and beyond 12 hours (Group C) before visited to the ED. All the continuous variables, categorical variables and mortality were compared by using Kruskal-Wallis test or Mann-Whitney test, the χ2 or Fisher exact tests, and multiple logistic regression model, respectively.A total of 490 patients were enrolled in the study, and 8.0% (39), 21.5% (84), and 74.9% (367) of the patients were in Group A, Group B and Group C, respectively; the serum lactate levels (2.91 vs 2.13 vs 2.79 mmol/L, respectively; P = .175) and 28-day in-hospital mortality (17.9% vs 14.6% vs 22.9%) showed no statistically significant difference between 3 groups. The association between serum lactate levels and 28-day in-hospital mortality was reliable in Group B (P = .002) and Group C (P < .001), but it was unreliable in Group A (P = .629).Serum lactate level has acceptable sensitivity in predicting 28-day in-hospital mortality among patients with sepsis who undergo last hemodialysis after 4 hours, but is not reliable when the last hemodialysis takes place within 4 hours.

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.

Hemodynamic Effects of Propofol and Dexmedetomidine in Septic Patients Without Shock

Background: Use of nonbenzodiazepine agents propofol and dexmedetomidine are first line for sedation in the intensive care unit (ICU). These agents have been implicated in the development of bradycardia and hypotension in critical illness. Objectives: To compare the development of clinically significant hypotension and/or bradycardia (ie, negative hemodynamic event) in adults with sepsis yet to require vasopressors receiving either propofol or dexmedetomidine for continuous sedation. Methods: This was a retrospective multicenter cohort study of adults with non-vasopressor-dependent sepsis admitted to an ICU at two academic medical centers between July 2013-September 2017. Results: Patients in the propofol (n = 64) and dexmedetomidine (n = 31) groups developed a clinically significant negative hemodynamic event at statistically similar frequencies (34.4% vs 16.1%, P = 0.065). Patients receiving propofol developed a larger degree of hypotension (47.3 vs 34.7 mm Hg reduction, P = 0.031). In multivariable logistic regression modeling, independent predictors of a negative hemodynamic event were a past medical history of chronic kidney disease (odds ratio [OR] = 3.8; 95% CI = 1.17-12.2; P = 0.027) and baseline heart rate (OR = 1.02; 95% CI = 1.00-1.10; P = 0.036). Conclusions and Relevance: A minority of patients with sepsis who received either propofol or dexmedetomidine experienced an event. Patients with sepsis without shock receiving continuous infusions of propofol and dexmedetomidine experienced a negative hemodynamic event at similar frequencies, though the degree of hypotension seen with propofol was greater. The clinical significance of these adverse effects requires cautious use in sepsis and further investigation.

Fluid resuscitation in patients with end-stage renal disease on hemodialysis presenting with severe sepsis or septic shock: A case control study

Due to the potential risk of volume overload, physicians are hesitant to aggressively fluid-resuscitate septic patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) on hemodialysis (HD). Primary objective: To calculate the percentage of ESRD patients on HD (Case) who received ≥30 mL/Kg fluid resuscitation within the first 6 h compared to non-ESRD patients (Control) that presented with severe sepsis (SeS) or septic shock (SS). Secondary objectives: Effect of fluid resuscitation on intubation rate, need for urgent dialysis, hospital length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit (ICU) admission and LOS, need for vasopressors, and hospital mortality. Medical records of 715 patients with sepsis, SeS, SS, and ESRD were reviewed. We identified 104 Case and 111 Control patients. In the Case group, 23% of patients received ≥30 mL/Kg fluids compared to 60% in the Control group (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality, need for urgent dialysis, intubation rates, ICU LOS, or hospital LOS between the two groups. Subgroup analysis between ESRD patients who received ≥30 mL/Kg (N = 80) vs those who received <30 mL/Kg (N = 24) showed no significant difference in any of the secondary outcomes. Compliance with 30 mL/Kg fluids was low for all patients but significantly lower for ESRD patients. Aggressive fluid resuscitation appears to be safe in ESRD patients.