Cargando…

Fluid resuscitation practice patterns in intensive care units of the USA: a cross-sectional survey of critical care physicians

BACKGROUND: Fluid resuscitation is a cornerstone of intensive care treatment, yet there is a lack of agreement on how various types of fluids should be used in critically ill patients with different disease states. Therefore, our goal was to investigate the practice patterns of fluid utilization for...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Miller, Timothy E., Bunke, Martin, Nisbet, Paul, Brudney, Charles S.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4910257/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27313844
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13741-016-0035-2
_version_ 1782437982424268800
author Miller, Timothy E.
Bunke, Martin
Nisbet, Paul
Brudney, Charles S.
author_facet Miller, Timothy E.
Bunke, Martin
Nisbet, Paul
Brudney, Charles S.
author_sort Miller, Timothy E.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Fluid resuscitation is a cornerstone of intensive care treatment, yet there is a lack of agreement on how various types of fluids should be used in critically ill patients with different disease states. Therefore, our goal was to investigate the practice patterns of fluid utilization for resuscitation of adult patients in intensive care units (ICUs) within the USA. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional online survey of 502 physicians practicing in medical and surgical ICUs. Survey questions were designed to assess clinical decision-making processes for 3 types of patients who need volume expansion: (1) not bleeding and not septic, (2) bleeding but not septic, (3) requiring resuscitation for sepsis. First-choice fluid used in fluid boluses for these 3 patient types was requested from the respondents. Descriptive statistics were performed using a Kruskal-Wallis test to evaluate differences among the physician groups. Follow-up tests, including t tests, were conducted to evaluate differences between ICU types, hospital settings, and bolus volume. RESULTS: Fluid resuscitation varied with respect to preferences for the factors to determine volume status and preferences for fluid types. The 3 most frequently preferred volume indicators were blood pressure, urine output, and central venous pressure. Regardless of the patient type, the most preferred fluid type was crystalloid, followed by 5 % albumin and then 6 % hydroxyethyl starches (HES) 450/0.70 and 6 % HES 600/0.75. Surprisingly, up to 10 % of physicians still chose HES as the first choice of fluid for resuscitation in sepsis. The clinical specialty and the practice setting of the treating physicians also influenced fluid choices. CONCLUSIONS: Practice patterns of fluid resuscitation varied in the USA, depending on patient characteristics, clinical specialties, and practice settings of the treating physicians. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13741-016-0035-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4910257
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-49102572016-06-17 Fluid resuscitation practice patterns in intensive care units of the USA: a cross-sectional survey of critical care physicians Miller, Timothy E. Bunke, Martin Nisbet, Paul Brudney, Charles S. Perioper Med (Lond) Research BACKGROUND: Fluid resuscitation is a cornerstone of intensive care treatment, yet there is a lack of agreement on how various types of fluids should be used in critically ill patients with different disease states. Therefore, our goal was to investigate the practice patterns of fluid utilization for resuscitation of adult patients in intensive care units (ICUs) within the USA. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional online survey of 502 physicians practicing in medical and surgical ICUs. Survey questions were designed to assess clinical decision-making processes for 3 types of patients who need volume expansion: (1) not bleeding and not septic, (2) bleeding but not septic, (3) requiring resuscitation for sepsis. First-choice fluid used in fluid boluses for these 3 patient types was requested from the respondents. Descriptive statistics were performed using a Kruskal-Wallis test to evaluate differences among the physician groups. Follow-up tests, including t tests, were conducted to evaluate differences between ICU types, hospital settings, and bolus volume. RESULTS: Fluid resuscitation varied with respect to preferences for the factors to determine volume status and preferences for fluid types. The 3 most frequently preferred volume indicators were blood pressure, urine output, and central venous pressure. Regardless of the patient type, the most preferred fluid type was crystalloid, followed by 5 % albumin and then 6 % hydroxyethyl starches (HES) 450/0.70 and 6 % HES 600/0.75. Surprisingly, up to 10 % of physicians still chose HES as the first choice of fluid for resuscitation in sepsis. The clinical specialty and the practice setting of the treating physicians also influenced fluid choices. CONCLUSIONS: Practice patterns of fluid resuscitation varied in the USA, depending on patient characteristics, clinical specialties, and practice settings of the treating physicians. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13741-016-0035-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2016-06-16 /pmc/articles/PMC4910257/ /pubmed/27313844 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13741-016-0035-2 Text en © Miller et al. 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Miller, Timothy E.
Bunke, Martin
Nisbet, Paul
Brudney, Charles S.
Fluid resuscitation practice patterns in intensive care units of the USA: a cross-sectional survey of critical care physicians
title Fluid resuscitation practice patterns in intensive care units of the USA: a cross-sectional survey of critical care physicians
title_full Fluid resuscitation practice patterns in intensive care units of the USA: a cross-sectional survey of critical care physicians
title_fullStr Fluid resuscitation practice patterns in intensive care units of the USA: a cross-sectional survey of critical care physicians
title_full_unstemmed Fluid resuscitation practice patterns in intensive care units of the USA: a cross-sectional survey of critical care physicians
title_short Fluid resuscitation practice patterns in intensive care units of the USA: a cross-sectional survey of critical care physicians
title_sort fluid resuscitation practice patterns in intensive care units of the usa: a cross-sectional survey of critical care physicians
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4910257/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27313844
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13741-016-0035-2
work_keys_str_mv AT millertimothye fluidresuscitationpracticepatternsinintensivecareunitsoftheusaacrosssectionalsurveyofcriticalcarephysicians
AT bunkemartin fluidresuscitationpracticepatternsinintensivecareunitsoftheusaacrosssectionalsurveyofcriticalcarephysicians
AT nisbetpaul fluidresuscitationpracticepatternsinintensivecareunitsoftheusaacrosssectionalsurveyofcriticalcarephysicians
AT brudneycharless fluidresuscitationpracticepatternsinintensivecareunitsoftheusaacrosssectionalsurveyofcriticalcarephysicians