Effect of prehospital transportation on 24-h fluid volume, a post hoc analysis of a multicenter, prospective, observational study on fluid volumes in patients with suspected infection.

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Frontiers in Medicine Pub Date : 2022-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fmed.2022.1052071
Marie Egebjerg Jensen, Jens Aage Kølsen-Petersen, Hans Kirkegaard, Marie Kristine Jessen
{"title":"Effect of prehospital transportation on 24-h fluid volume, a <i>post hoc</i> analysis of a multicenter, prospective, observational study on fluid volumes in patients with suspected infection.","authors":"Marie Egebjerg Jensen,&nbsp;Jens Aage Kølsen-Petersen,&nbsp;Hans Kirkegaard,&nbsp;Marie Kristine Jessen","doi":"10.3389/fmed.2022.1052071","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Infections, including sepsis, are leading causes of death and fluid administration is part of the treatment. The optimal fluid therapy remains controversial. If the patient is transported by Emergency Medical Services (EMS), fluids can be initiated during transportation, which may result in increased overall fluid administration and fluid overload, which may be harmful. The aim of the study was to investigate the effect of EMS transportation on 24-h fluid administration in patients with suspected infection.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a <i>post hoc</i> study of a prospective, multicenter, observational study, conducted in three Danish Emergency Departments (EDs), 20 January-2 March 2020, aiming at describing fluid administration in patients with suspected infection. Patients were stratified into the groups: simple infection or sepsis, in accordance with SEPSIS-3-guidelines. The primary outcome of the current study was 24-h total fluid volume (oral and intravenous) stratified by transportation mode to the EDs.</p><p><strong>Main results: </strong>Total 24-h fluids were registered for 734 patients. Patients with simple infection or sepsis arriving by EMS (<i>n</i> = 388, 54%) received mean 3,774 ml (standard deviation [SD]: 1900) and non-EMS received 3,627 ml (SD: 1568); mean difference (MD) was 303 ml [95% CI: 32; 573] adjusted for age, site, and total SOFA-score. Patients brought in by EMS received more intravenous fluids (MD: 621 ml [95% CI: 378; 864]) and less oral fluids (MD: -474 ml [95% CI: -616; -333]) than non-EMS patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Patients transported by EMS received more intravenous fluids and less oral fluids but overall, more fluid in total in the first 24-h than non-EMS after adjusting for age, site and SOFA-score.</p>","PeriodicalId":12488,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Medicine","volume":"9 ","pages":"1052071"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9810619/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2022.1052071","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Infections, including sepsis, are leading causes of death and fluid administration is part of the treatment. The optimal fluid therapy remains controversial. If the patient is transported by Emergency Medical Services (EMS), fluids can be initiated during transportation, which may result in increased overall fluid administration and fluid overload, which may be harmful. The aim of the study was to investigate the effect of EMS transportation on 24-h fluid administration in patients with suspected infection.

Methods: This is a post hoc study of a prospective, multicenter, observational study, conducted in three Danish Emergency Departments (EDs), 20 January-2 March 2020, aiming at describing fluid administration in patients with suspected infection. Patients were stratified into the groups: simple infection or sepsis, in accordance with SEPSIS-3-guidelines. The primary outcome of the current study was 24-h total fluid volume (oral and intravenous) stratified by transportation mode to the EDs.

Main results: Total 24-h fluids were registered for 734 patients. Patients with simple infection or sepsis arriving by EMS (n = 388, 54%) received mean 3,774 ml (standard deviation [SD]: 1900) and non-EMS received 3,627 ml (SD: 1568); mean difference (MD) was 303 ml [95% CI: 32; 573] adjusted for age, site, and total SOFA-score. Patients brought in by EMS received more intravenous fluids (MD: 621 ml [95% CI: 378; 864]) and less oral fluids (MD: -474 ml [95% CI: -616; -333]) than non-EMS patients.

Conclusion: Patients transported by EMS received more intravenous fluids and less oral fluids but overall, more fluid in total in the first 24-h than non-EMS after adjusting for age, site and SOFA-score.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
院前转运对24小时体液容量的影响:一项对疑似感染患者体液容量的多中心前瞻性观察性研究的事后分析
简介:感染,包括败血症,是死亡的主要原因,输液是治疗的一部分。最佳的液体疗法仍有争议。如果病人是由紧急医疗服务(EMS)运送的,在运送过程中可能会开始输液,这可能会导致整体输液增加和液体过载,这可能是有害的。本研究的目的是探讨EMS运输对疑似感染患者24小时液体给药的影响。方法:这是一项前瞻性、多中心、观察性研究的事后研究,于2020年1月20日至3月2日在丹麦的三个急诊科(ed)进行,旨在描述疑似感染患者的液体给药。根据脓毒症-3指南,将患者分为单纯感染组和脓毒症组。本研究的主要结果是24小时总液体体积(口服和静脉注射)按输送方式分层到急诊科。主要结果:734例患者登记了24小时总液体。通过EMS到达的单纯感染或败血症患者(n = 388, 54%)平均为3774 ml(标准差[SD]: 1900),非EMS患者平均为3627 ml (SD: 1568);平均差(MD)为303 ml [95% CI: 32;[573]调整年龄,地点和总sofa分数。EMS带来的患者接受了更多的静脉输液(MD: 621 ml [95% CI: 378;[864])和更少的口服液(MD: -474 ml [95% CI: -616;-333])比非ems患者。结论:经EMS转运的患者静脉输液较多,口服输液较少,但在调整年龄、部位和sofa评分后,总体而言,前24小时的总输液量高于非EMS转运的患者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Frontiers in Medicine
Frontiers in Medicine Medicine-General Medicine
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
5.10%
发文量
3710
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Frontiers in Medicine publishes rigorously peer-reviewed research linking basic research to clinical practice and patient care, as well as translating scientific advances into new therapies and diagnostic tools. Led by an outstanding Editorial Board of international experts, this multidisciplinary open-access journal is at the forefront of disseminating and communicating scientific knowledge and impactful discoveries to researchers, academics, clinicians and the public worldwide. In addition to papers that provide a link between basic research and clinical practice, a particular emphasis is given to studies that are directly relevant to patient care. In this spirit, the journal publishes the latest research results and medical knowledge that facilitate the translation of scientific advances into new therapies or diagnostic tools. The full listing of the Specialty Sections represented by Frontiers in Medicine is as listed below. As well as the established medical disciplines, Frontiers in Medicine is launching new sections that together will facilitate - the use of patient-reported outcomes under real world conditions - the exploitation of big data and the use of novel information and communication tools in the assessment of new medicines - the scientific bases for guidelines and decisions from regulatory authorities - access to medicinal products and medical devices worldwide - addressing the grand health challenges around the world
期刊最新文献
Acupuncture for somatosensory deficits after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical study, network pharmacology, and molecular docking of Kunxian capsule in treating idiopathic membranous nephropathy. Commentary: From education to exploitation: the high price paid by resident physicians in Ecuador's medical specialization. Comparison of the risk of obesity in the FTO rs9939609 genotype in a multiethnic group in Asia systematic review and meta-analysis. Development and validation of a deep learning-enhanced prediction model for the likelihood of pulmonary embolism.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1