Indications for fluid resuscitation in patients with septic shock: Post-hoc analyses of the CLASSIC trial

Septic shock in obstetrics: guidelines of the All-Russian public organization “Federation of Anesthesiologists and Reanimatologists”

The article reflects the main provisions of the clinical guidelines on septic shock in obstetrics, approved by the All-Russian public organization “Federation of Anesthesiologists-Resuscitators” in 2022. The relevance of the problem is associated with high mortality and morbidity rates from sepsis and septic shock in obstetrics. The main issues of etiology, pathogenesis, clinical picture, methods of laboratory and instrumental diagnostics, features of using the qSOFA, SOFA, MOEWS, SOS, MEWC, IMEWS scales for sepsis verification are consistently presented. The article presents the starting intensive therapy (the first 6–12 hours) of the treatment of septic shock in obstetrics, taking into account the characteristics of the pregnant woman's body. The strategy of prescribing vasopressors (norepinephrine, phenylephrine, epinephrine), inotropic drugs (dobutamine) is described, antibiotics and optimal antibiotic therapy regimens, features of infusion and adjuvant therapy are presented. The issues of surgical treatment of the focus of infection and indications for hysterectomy, as well as the organization of medical care and rehabilitation of patients with sepsis and septic shock were discussed. The basic principles of prevention of sepsis and septic shock in obstetrics are described. The criteria for the quality of medical care for patients with septic shock and the algorithms of doctor's actions in the diagnosis and intensive care of patients with septic shock in obstetrics are presented.

Non-interventional follow-up versus fluid bolus in RESPONSE to oliguria in hemodynamically stable critically ill patients: a randomized controlled pilot trial

BACKGROUND

Fluid bolus therapy is a common intervention to improve urine output. Data concerning the effect of a fluid bolus on oliguria originate mainly from observational studies and remain controversial regarding the actual benefit of such therapy. We compared the effect of a follow-up approach without fluid bolus to a 500 mL fluid bolus on urine output in hemodynamically stable critically ill patients with oliguria at least for 2 h (urine output < 0.5 mL/kg/h) in randomized setting.

METHODS

We randomized 130 patients in 1:1 fashion to receive either (1) non-interventional follow-up (FU) for 2 h or (2) 500 mL crystalloid fluid bolus (FB) administered over 30 min. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who doubled their urine output, defined as 2-h urine output post-randomization divided by urine output 2 h pre-randomization. The outcomes were adjusted for the stratification variables (presence of sepsis or AKI) using two-tailed regression. Obtained odds ratios were converted to risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The between-group difference in the continuous variables was compared using mean or median regression and expressed with 95% CIs.

RESULTS

Altogether 10 (15.9%) of 63 patients in the FU group and 22 (32.8%) of 67 patients in FB group doubled their urine output during the 2-h period, RR (95% CI) 0.49 (0.23-0.71), P = 0.026. Median [IQR] change in individual urine output 2 h post-randomization compared to 2 h pre-randomization was - 7 [- 19 to 17] mL in the FU group and 19[0-53] mL in the FB group, median difference (95% CI) - 23 (- 36 to - 10) mL, P = 0.001. Median [IQR] duration of oliguria in the FU group was 4 [2-8] h and in the FB group 2 [0-6] h, median difference (95%CI) 2 (0-4) h, P = 0.038. Median [IQR] cumulative fluid balance on study day was lower in the FU group compared to FB group, 678 [518-1029] mL versus 1071 [822-1505] mL, respectively, median difference (95%CI) - 387 (- 635 to - 213) mL, P < 0.001.

CONCLUSIONS

Follow-up approach to oliguria compared to administering a fluid bolus of 500 mL crystalloid in oliguric patients improved urine output less frequently but lead to lower cumulative fluid balance. Trial registration clinical.

TRIALS

gov, NCT02860572. Registered 9 August 2016.

Fluid management of emergency department patients with sepsis-A survey of fluid resuscitation practices

BACKGROUND

Fluid 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.

METHODS

We 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.

RESULTS

In 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.

CONCLUSION

Fluid 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.

Conservative vs. liberal fluid therapy in septic shock - Protocol for secondary Bayesian analyses of the CLASSIC trial

BACKGROUND

Clinical equipoise exists regarding intravenous (IV) fluid volumes in sepsis. The Conservative vs. Liberal Approach to fluid therapy of Septic Shock in Intensive Care (CLASSIC) trial investigates the effect of restricted vs. standard IV fluid therapy in 1554 adult intensive care unit patients with septic shock.

METHODS

This protocol describes secondary Bayesian analyses of the primary outcome (90-day all-cause mortality) and three secondary outcomes at day 90. We will analyse all binary outcomes with adjusted Bayesian logistic regressions and present results as conditional relative risks and risk differences with 95% credibility intervals (CrIs). The secondary count outcome will be analysed using adjusted Bayesian linear regression with results summarised as conditional mean differences and ratios of means with 95% Crls. We will use weakly informative priors for the primary analyses, and sceptical and evidence-based priors in the sensitivity analyses. Exact probabilities will be presented for any benefit/harm, clinically important benefit/harm and no clinically important difference. We will assess whether heterogeneity of treatment effects on mortality is present using Bayesian hierarchical models in subgroups and on the continuous scale using models with interactions according to five baseline variables assessing the overall severity of illness and the degree of circulatory and renal impairment.

DISCUSSION

The outlined analyses will supplement the primary analysis of the CLASSIC trial by describing probabilities of beneficial and harmful effects and evaluating heterogeneity of treatment effects in a framework that may be easier to interpret for researchers and clinicians.

Fluid Overload Phenotypes in Critical Illness-A Machine Learning Approach

BACKGROUND

The detrimental impact of fluid overload (FO) on intensive care unit (ICU) morbidity and mortality is well known. However, research to identify subgroups of patients particularly prone to fluid overload is scarce. The aim of this cohort study was to derive "FO phenotypes" in the critically ill by using machine learning techniques.

METHODS

Retrospective single center study including adult intensive care patients with a length of stay of ≥3 days and sufficient data to compute FO. Data was analyzed by multivariable logistic regression, fast and frugal trees (FFT), classification decision trees (DT), and a random forest (RF) model.

RESULTS

Out of 1772 included patients, 387 (21.8%) met the FO definition. The random forest model had the highest area under the curve (AUC) (0.84, 95% CI 0.79-0.86), followed by multivariable logistic regression (0.81, 95% CI 0.77-0.86), FFT (0.75, 95% CI 0.69-0.79) and DT (0.73, 95% CI 0.68-0.78) to predict FO. The most important predictors identified in all models were lactate and bicarbonate at admission and postsurgical ICU admission. Sepsis/septic shock was identified as a risk factor in the MV and RF analysis.

CONCLUSION

The FO phenotypes consist of patients admitted after surgery or with sepsis/septic shock with high lactate and low bicarbonate.