Cargando…
Extensive Variability in Vasoactive Agent Therapy: A Nationwide Survey in Chinese Intensive Care Units
BACKGROUND: Inconsistencies in the use of the vasoactive agent therapy to treat shock are found in previous studies. A descriptive study was proposed to investigate current use of vasoactive agents for patients with shock in Chinese intensive care settings. METHODS: A nationwide survey of physicians...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4832938/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25881592 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0366-6999.155064 |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND: Inconsistencies in the use of the vasoactive agent therapy to treat shock are found in previous studies. A descriptive study was proposed to investigate current use of vasoactive agents for patients with shock in Chinese intensive care settings. METHODS: A nationwide survey of physicians was conducted from August 17 to December 30, 2012. Physicians were asked to complete a questionnaire which focused on the selection of vasoactive agents, management in the use of vasopressor/inotropic therapy, monitoring protocols when using these agents, and demographic characteristics. RESULTS: The response rate was 65.1% with physicians returning 586 valid questionnaires. Norepinephrine was the first choice of a vasopressor used to treat septic shock by 70.8% of respondents; 73.4% of respondents favored dopamine for hypovolemic shock; and 68.3% of respondents preferred dopamine for cardiogenic shock. Dobutamine was selected by 84.1%, 64.5%, and 60.6% of respondents for septic, hypovolemic, and cardiogenic shock, respectively. Vasodilator agents were prescribed by physicians in the management of cardiogenic shock (67.1%) rather than for septic (32.3%) and hypovolemic shock (6.5%). A significant number of physicians working in teaching hospitals were using vasoactive agents in an appropriate manner when compared to physicians in nonteaching hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Vasoactive agent use for treatment of shock is inconsistent according to self-report by Chinese intensive care physicians; however, the variation in use depends upon the form of shock being treated and the type of hospital; thus, corresponding educational programs about vasoactive agent use for shock management should be considered. |
---|