Fluid resuscitation in sepsis: reexamining the paradigm

Editorial: The role of point-of-care echocardiography for assessing cirrhotic cardiomyopathy and predicting clinical outcomes in acute-on-chronic liver failure with severe sepsis

This article is linked to Kajal et al paper. To view this article, visit https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.17695

Emergency nurses' experiences of the implementation of early goal directed fluid resuscitation therapy in the management of sepsis: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Severe sepsis can lead to organ failure and death if immediate treatment, such as intravenous fluids and antibiotics, are not commenced within the first hour. Time - critical initiation of intravenous fluids which in other words is early goal directed fluid resuscitation has not always been given its clinical priority. This qualitative study aimed at exploring the experiences of emergency nurses initiating early goal directed fluid resuscitation in patients with sepsis.

METHODS

Using an exploratory approach, face - to - face semi - structured interviews were conducted with ten registered nurses working in emergency departments across New South Wales, Australia. Thematic analysis was used for data analysis.

FINDINGS

Participants described various factors that inhibited the timely initiation of early goal directed fluid resuscitation, some clinical practice challenges, and strategies to improve nursing practice. Most participants, particularly those practicing as Clinical Initiatives Nurses suggested the incorporation of nurse initiated early goal directed fluid resuscitation for patients with sepsis as part of their scope of practice.

CONCLUSION

Our findings identified several barriers that inhibit effective nurse - initiated early goal directed fluid resuscitation. It is anticipated that these findings will provide validation for the re-evaluation of the existing protocols and practice guidelines to increase the scope of practice of emergency nurses initiating early goal directed fluid resuscitation.

Does Gender Matter in Septic Patient Outcomes?

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to examine potential gender disparities in relation to factors associated with sepsis management among a cohort of patients admitted through an emergency department with a discharge diagnosis of severe sepsis or septic shock. Sepsis is one of the leading causes of death globally, with significant associated costs. Predictors of survival for those with sepsis-related diagnoses are complex.

DESIGN AND METHODS

The study had a retrospective, descriptive cross-sectional design. The sample (N = 482) included patients 18 years of age or older who presented to the emergency department of a nonprofit, Magnet-recognized, acute care hospital located in southern California. Subjects included those who subsequently met the criteria for a discharge diagnosis of severe sepsis or septic shock as defined by the Surviving Sepsis Campaign. Patient characteristics, clinical variables, care management processes, and outcomes were extracted from the electronic health record. A multivariate model was analyzed.

FINDINGS

The sample included 234 women (48.5%) and 248 men (51.5%). Logistic regression with eight independent variables (discharge diagnosis, age, comorbidities, length of hospital stay, source of infection, first serum lactate level measured, recommended fluids administered, and gender) reliably predicted odds for patient survival, ϰ² (12) = 118.38, p < .001, and correctly classified 77.3% of cases. All eight independent variables significantly contributed to the model. Men had a higher likelihood of hospital survival than women (odds ratio 1.68; 95% confidence interval 1.01-2.79; p = .045).

CONCLUSIONS

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign has provided a clear pathway for care of patients with sepsis-related diagnoses. Therapeutic strategies should be developed to address differences in outcome by gender. The adoption of more aggressive applications of evidence-based interventions for these patients may result in better patient outcomes.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Providers should understand the importance of adhering to sepsis protocols, minimizing treatment disparities, and recognizing gender differences.

Assessment of hemodynamic response to fluid resuscitation of patients with intra-abdominal sepsis in low- and middle-income countries

BACKGROUND

Patients with intra-abdominal infections need to achieve adequate hemodynamic status before being taken to the operating room. Multiple parameters (urinary output [UOP], vital signs, inferior vena cava collapsibility index, and central venous pressure) may be used to assess hemodynamic response to fluid resuscitation, but the options are few in limited-resource settings. This study aimed at assessing if a bedside-performed ultrasound to assess the inferior vena cava collapsibility index is superior to UOP in assessing hemodynamic response to fluid resuscitation.

METHODS

All adult patients presenting to a tertiary referral hospital in the capital city of Rwanda with intra-abdominal infection requiring intravenous fluid (IVF) resuscitation before operation were included in this study. Before IVF administration, the baseline inferior vena cava collapsibility index (IVC-CI) and vital parameters were recorded. After initiation of IVF resuscitation, serial measurements of IVC-CI and UOP were recorded every 2 h until the decision was made to take the patient to the operating room.

RESULTS

Twenty-four patients were enrolled. The mean duration of symptoms was 4.7 days. Four patients (16%) had altered mental status as a presenting symptom. Half of all patients had generalized peritonitis due to gangrenous bowel as the primary diagnosis (n = 12). The mean difference between time of hemodynamic response based on IVC-CI versus UOP was 2 h (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Measurement of the IVC-CI can provide early detection of hemodynamic response to fluid therapy in patients with intra-abdominal infection with spontaneous breathing compared to UOP. Future research should utilize this parameter in the preoperative management of hemodynamically unstable patients.

Challenges in Sepsis Care: New Sepsis Definitions and Fluid Resuscitation Beyond the Central Venous Pressure

There are two important recent changes in sepsis care. The first key change is the 2016 Sepsis-3 definitions from the recent consensus workgroup with new sepsis and septic shock definitions. Useful tools for assessing patients that have a greater risk of mortality include Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) in intensive care units and quick SOFA outside intensive care units. The second change involves management of fluid resuscitation and measures of volume responsiveness. Measures such as blood pressure and central venous pressure are not reliable. Fluid challenges and responsiveness should be based on stroke volume change of greater than 10%.

The Diagnosis and Hemodynamic Monitoring of Circulatory Shock: Current and Future Trends

Circulatory shock is a complex clinical syndrome encompassing a group of conditions that can arise from different etiologies and presented by several different hemodynamic patterns. If not corrected, cell dysfunction, irreversible multiple organ insufficiency, and death may occur. The four basic types of shock, hypovolemic, cardiogenic, obstructive and distributive, have features similar to that of hemodynamic shock. It is therefore essential, when monitoring hemodynamic shock, to making accurate clinical assessments which will guide and dictate appropriate management therapy. The European Society of Intensive Care has recently made recommendations for monitoring hemodynamic shock. The present paper discusses the issues raised in the new statements, including individualization of blood pressure targets, prediction of fluid responsiveness, and the use of echocardiography as the first means during the initial evaluation of circulatory shock. Also, the place of more invasive hemodynamic monitoring techniques and future trends in hemodynamic and metabolic monitoring in circulatory shock, will be debated.

Estimating Ten-Year Trends in Septic Shock Incidence and Mortality in United States Academic Medical Centers Using Clinical Data

BACKGROUND

Reports that septic shock incidence is rising and mortality rates declining may be confounded by improving recognition of sepsis and changing coding practices. We compared trends in septic shock incidence and mortality in academic hospitals using clinical vs claims data.

METHODS

We identified all patients with concurrent blood cultures, antibiotics, and vasopressors for ≥ two consecutive days, and all patients with International Classification of Diseases, 9th edition (ICD-9) codes for septic shock, at 27 academic hospitals from 2005 to 2014. We compared annual incidence and mortality trends. We reviewed 967 records from three hospitals to estimate the accuracy of each method.

RESULTS

Of 6.5 million adult hospitalizations, 99,312 (1.5%) were flagged by clinical criteria, 82,350 (1.3%) by ICD-9 codes, and 44,651 (0.7%) by both. Sensitivity for clinical criteria was higher than claims (74.8% vs 48.3%; P < .01), whereas positive predictive value was comparable (83% vs 89%; P = .23). Septic shock incidence, based on clinical criteria, rose from 12.8 to 18.6 cases per 1,000 hospitalizations (average, 4.9% increase/y; 95% CI, 4.0%-5.9%), while mortality declined from 54.9% to 50.7% (average, 0.6% decline/y; 95% CI, 0.4%-0.8%). In contrast, septic shock incidence, based on ICD-9 codes, increased from 6.7 to 19.3 per 1,000 hospitalizations (19.8% increase/y; 95% CI, 16.6%-20.9%), while mortality decreased from 48.3% to 39.3% (1.2% decline/y; 95% CI, 0.9%-1.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

A clinical surveillance definition based on concurrent vasopressors, blood cultures, and antibiotics accurately identifies septic shock hospitalizations and suggests that the incidence of patients receiving treatment for septic shock has risen and mortality rates have fallen, but less dramatically than estimated on the basis of ICD-9 codes.