Cargando…

Net ultrafiltration prescription survey in Europe

BACKGROUND: Fluid overload is common in patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) and ultrafiltration (UF) is frequently required. There is lack of guidance on optimal UF practice. We aimed to explore patterns of UF practice, barriers to achieving UF targets, and concerns related to UF practice amon...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lumlertgul, Nuttha, Murugan, Raghavan, Seylanova, Nina, McCready, Patricia, Ostermann, Marlies
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7706211/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33256635
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12882-020-02184-y
_version_ 1783617107094667264
author Lumlertgul, Nuttha
Murugan, Raghavan
Seylanova, Nina
McCready, Patricia
Ostermann, Marlies
author_facet Lumlertgul, Nuttha
Murugan, Raghavan
Seylanova, Nina
McCready, Patricia
Ostermann, Marlies
author_sort Lumlertgul, Nuttha
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Fluid overload is common in patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) and ultrafiltration (UF) is frequently required. There is lack of guidance on optimal UF practice. We aimed to explore patterns of UF practice, barriers to achieving UF targets, and concerns related to UF practice among practitioners working in Europe. METHODS: This was a sub-study of an international open survey with focus on adult intensivists and nephrologists, advanced practice providers, and ICU and dialysis nurses working in Europe. RESULTS: Four hundred eighty-five practitioners (75% intensivists) from 31 countries completed the survey. The most common criteria for UF initiation was persistent oliguria/anuria (45.6%), followed by pulmonary edema (16.7%). Continuous renal replacement therapy was the preferred initial modality (90.0%). The median initial and maximal rate of net ultrafiltration (UF(NET)) prescription in hemodynamically stable patients were 149 mL/hr. (IQR 100–200) and 300 mL/hr. (IQR 201–352), respectively, compared to a median UF(NET) rate of 98 mL/hr. (IQR 51–108) in hemodynamically unstable patients and varied significantly between countries. Two-thirds of nurses and 15.5% of physicians reported assessing fluid balance hourly. When hemodynamic instability occurred, 70.1% of practitioners reported decreasing the rate of fluid removal, followed by starting or increasing the dose of a vasopressor (51.3%). Most respondents (90.7%) believed in early fluid removal and expressed willingness to participate in a study comparing protocol-based fluid removal versus usual care. CONCLUSIONS: There was a significant variation in UF practice and perception among practitioners in Europe. Future research should focus on identifying the best strategies of prescribing and managing ultrafiltration in critically ill patients. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12882-020-02184-y.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7706211
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77062112020-12-02 Net ultrafiltration prescription survey in Europe Lumlertgul, Nuttha Murugan, Raghavan Seylanova, Nina McCready, Patricia Ostermann, Marlies BMC Nephrol Research Article BACKGROUND: Fluid overload is common in patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) and ultrafiltration (UF) is frequently required. There is lack of guidance on optimal UF practice. We aimed to explore patterns of UF practice, barriers to achieving UF targets, and concerns related to UF practice among practitioners working in Europe. METHODS: This was a sub-study of an international open survey with focus on adult intensivists and nephrologists, advanced practice providers, and ICU and dialysis nurses working in Europe. RESULTS: Four hundred eighty-five practitioners (75% intensivists) from 31 countries completed the survey. The most common criteria for UF initiation was persistent oliguria/anuria (45.6%), followed by pulmonary edema (16.7%). Continuous renal replacement therapy was the preferred initial modality (90.0%). The median initial and maximal rate of net ultrafiltration (UF(NET)) prescription in hemodynamically stable patients were 149 mL/hr. (IQR 100–200) and 300 mL/hr. (IQR 201–352), respectively, compared to a median UF(NET) rate of 98 mL/hr. (IQR 51–108) in hemodynamically unstable patients and varied significantly between countries. Two-thirds of nurses and 15.5% of physicians reported assessing fluid balance hourly. When hemodynamic instability occurred, 70.1% of practitioners reported decreasing the rate of fluid removal, followed by starting or increasing the dose of a vasopressor (51.3%). Most respondents (90.7%) believed in early fluid removal and expressed willingness to participate in a study comparing protocol-based fluid removal versus usual care. CONCLUSIONS: There was a significant variation in UF practice and perception among practitioners in Europe. Future research should focus on identifying the best strategies of prescribing and managing ultrafiltration in critically ill patients. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12882-020-02184-y. BioMed Central 2020-12-01 /pmc/articles/PMC7706211/ /pubmed/33256635 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12882-020-02184-y Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. 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 in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Lumlertgul, Nuttha
Murugan, Raghavan
Seylanova, Nina
McCready, Patricia
Ostermann, Marlies
Net ultrafiltration prescription survey in Europe
title Net ultrafiltration prescription survey in Europe
title_full Net ultrafiltration prescription survey in Europe
title_fullStr Net ultrafiltration prescription survey in Europe
title_full_unstemmed Net ultrafiltration prescription survey in Europe
title_short Net ultrafiltration prescription survey in Europe
title_sort net ultrafiltration prescription survey in europe
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7706211/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33256635
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12882-020-02184-y
work_keys_str_mv AT lumlertgulnuttha netultrafiltrationprescriptionsurveyineurope
AT muruganraghavan netultrafiltrationprescriptionsurveyineurope
AT seylanovanina netultrafiltrationprescriptionsurveyineurope
AT mccreadypatricia netultrafiltrationprescriptionsurveyineurope
AT ostermannmarlies netultrafiltrationprescriptionsurveyineurope