Does Point-of-Care Ultrasound Affect Fluid Resuscitation Volume in Patients with Septic Shock: A Retrospective Review

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q3 EMERGENCY MEDICINE Emergency Medicine International Pub Date : 2024-05-06 DOI:10.1155/2024/5675066
Enyo A. Ablordeppey, Amy Zhao, Jeffery Ruggeri, Ahmad Hassan, Laura Wallace, Mansi Agarwal, Sean P. Stickles, Christopher Holthaus, Daniel Theodoro
{"title":"Does Point-of-Care Ultrasound Affect Fluid Resuscitation Volume in Patients with Septic Shock: A Retrospective Review","authors":"Enyo A. Ablordeppey, Amy Zhao, Jeffery Ruggeri, Ahmad Hassan, Laura Wallace, Mansi Agarwal, Sean P. Stickles, Christopher Holthaus, Daniel Theodoro","doi":"10.1155/2024/5675066","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<i>Background</i>. Fixed, large volume resuscitation with intravenous fluids (IVFs) in septic shock can cause inadvertent hypervolemia, increased medical interventions, and death when unguided by point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS). The primary study objective was to evaluate whether total IVF volume differs for emergency department (ED) septic shock patients receiving POCUS versus no POCUS. <i>Methods</i>. We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study from 7/1/2018 to 8/31/2021 of atraumatic adult ED patients with septic shock. We agreed upon <i>a priori</i> variables and defined septic shock as lactate ≥4 and hypotension (SBP &lt;90 or MAP &lt;65). A sample size of 300 patients would provide 85% power to detect an IVF difference of 500 milliliters between POCUS and non-POCUS cohorts. Data are reported as frequencies, median (IQR), and associations from bivariate logistic models. <i>Results</i>. 304 patients met criteria and 26% (78/304) underwent POCUS. Cardiac POCUS demonstrated reduced ejection fraction in 15.4% of patients. Lung ultrasound showed normal findings in 53% of patients. The POCUS vs. non-POCUS cohorts had statistically significant differences for the following variables: higher median lactate (6.7 [IQR 5.2–8.7] vs. 5.6], <span><svg height=\"11.7782pt\" style=\"vertical-align:-3.42938pt\" version=\"1.1\" viewbox=\"-0.0498162 -8.34882 18.973 11.7782\" width=\"18.973pt\" xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\" xmlns:xlink=\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\"><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,0,0)\"></path></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,11.342,0)\"></path></g></svg><span></span><span><svg height=\"11.7782pt\" style=\"vertical-align:-3.42938pt\" version=\"1.1\" viewbox=\"22.555183800000002 -8.34882 28.184 11.7782\" width=\"28.184pt\" xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\" xmlns:xlink=\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\"><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,22.605,0)\"></path></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,28.845,0)\"></path></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,31.809,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-49\"></use></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,38.049,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-49\"></use></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,44.289,0)\"></path></g></svg>),</span></span> lower systolic blood pressure (77.5 [IQR 61–86] vs. 85.0, <span><svg height=\"11.7782pt\" style=\"vertical-align:-3.42938pt\" version=\"1.1\" viewbox=\"-0.0498162 -8.34882 18.973 11.7782\" width=\"18.973pt\" xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\" xmlns:xlink=\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\"><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,0,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-113\"></use></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,11.342,0)\"></path></g></svg><span></span><span><svg height=\"11.7782pt\" style=\"vertical-align:-3.42938pt\" version=\"1.1\" viewbox=\"22.555183800000002 -8.34882 28.184 11.7782\" width=\"28.184pt\" xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\" xmlns:xlink=\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\"><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,22.605,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-49\"></use></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,28.845,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-47\"></use></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,31.809,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-49\"></use></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,38.049,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-49\"></use></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,44.289,0)\"></path></g></svg>),</span></span> more vasopressor use (51% vs. 34%, <span><svg height=\"11.7782pt\" style=\"vertical-align:-3.42938pt\" version=\"1.1\" viewbox=\"-0.0498162 -8.34882 18.973 11.7782\" width=\"18.973pt\" xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\" xmlns:xlink=\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\"><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,0,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-113\"></use></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,11.342,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g117-34\"></use></g></svg><span></span><span><svg height=\"11.7782pt\" style=\"vertical-align:-3.42938pt\" version=\"1.1\" viewbox=\"22.555183800000002 -8.34882 28.184 11.7782\" width=\"28.184pt\" xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\" xmlns:xlink=\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\"><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,22.605,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-49\"></use></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,28.845,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-47\"></use></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,31.809,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-49\"></use></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,38.049,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-49\"></use></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,44.289,0)\"></path></g></svg>),</span></span> and more positive pressure ventilation (38% vs. 24%, <span><svg height=\"11.7782pt\" style=\"vertical-align:-3.42938pt\" version=\"1.1\" viewbox=\"-0.0498162 -8.34882 18.973 11.7782\" width=\"18.973pt\" xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\" xmlns:xlink=\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\"><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,0,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-113\"></use></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,11.342,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g117-34\"></use></g></svg><span></span><span><svg height=\"11.7782pt\" style=\"vertical-align:-3.42938pt\" version=\"1.1\" viewbox=\"22.555183800000002 -8.34882 28.184 11.7782\" width=\"28.184pt\" xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\" xmlns:xlink=\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\"><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,22.605,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-49\"></use></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,28.845,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-47\"></use></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,31.809,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-49\"></use></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,38.049,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-50\"></use></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,44.289,0)\"></path></g></svg>).</span></span> However, there were no statistically significant differences between POCUS and non-POCUS cohorts in total IVF volume ml/kg (33.02 vs. 32.1, <span><svg height=\"11.7782pt\" style=\"vertical-align:-3.42938pt\" version=\"1.1\" viewbox=\"-0.0498162 -8.34882 18.973 11.7782\" width=\"18.973pt\" xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\" xmlns:xlink=\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\"><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,0,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-113\"></use></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,11.342,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g117-34\"></use></g></svg><span></span><span><svg height=\"11.7782pt\" style=\"vertical-align:-3.42938pt\" version=\"1.1\" viewbox=\"22.555183800000002 -8.34882 21.921 11.7782\" width=\"21.921pt\" xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\" xmlns:xlink=\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\"><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,22.605,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-49\"></use></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,28.845,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-47\"></use></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,31.809,0)\"></path></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,38.049,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-56\"></use></g></svg>),</span></span> new oxygen requirement (68% vs. 59%, <span><svg height=\"11.7782pt\" style=\"vertical-align:-3.42938pt\" version=\"1.1\" viewbox=\"-0.0498162 -8.34882 18.973 11.7782\" width=\"18.973pt\" xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\" xmlns:xlink=\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\"><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,0,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-113\"></use></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,11.342,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g117-34\"></use></g></svg><span></span><span><svg height=\"11.7782pt\" style=\"vertical-align:-3.42938pt\" version=\"1.1\" viewbox=\"22.555183800000002 -8.34882 21.921 11.7782\" width=\"21.921pt\" xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\" xmlns:xlink=\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\"><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,22.605,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-49\"></use></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,28.845,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-47\"></use></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,31.809,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-50\"></use></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,38.049,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-55\"></use></g></svg>),</span></span> ED death (3% vs. 4%, <span><svg height=\"11.7782pt\" style=\"vertical-align:-3.42938pt\" version=\"1.1\" viewbox=\"-0.0498162 -8.34882 18.973 11.7782\" width=\"18.973pt\" xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\" xmlns:xlink=\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\"><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,0,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-113\"></use></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,11.342,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g117-34\"></use></g></svg><span></span><span><svg height=\"11.7782pt\" style=\"vertical-align:-3.42938pt\" version=\"1.1\" viewbox=\"22.555183800000002 -8.34882 21.921 11.7782\" width=\"21.921pt\" xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\" xmlns:xlink=\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\"><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,22.605,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-49\"></use></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,28.845,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-47\"></use></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,31.809,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-50\"></use></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,38.049,0)\"></path></g></svg>),</span></span> or hospital death (31% vs. 27%, <span><svg height=\"11.7782pt\" style=\"vertical-align:-3.42938pt\" version=\"1.1\" viewbox=\"-0.0498162 -8.34882 18.973 11.7782\" width=\"18.973pt\" xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\" xmlns:xlink=\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\"><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,0,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-113\"></use></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,11.342,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g117-34\"></use></g></svg><span></span><span><svg height=\"11.7782pt\" style=\"vertical-align:-3.42938pt\" version=\"1.1\" viewbox=\"22.555183800000002 -8.34882 21.921 11.7782\" width=\"21.921pt\" xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\" xmlns:xlink=\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\"><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,22.605,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-49\"></use></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,28.845,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-47\"></use></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,31.809,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-53\"></use></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,38.049,0)\"></path></g></svg>).</span></span> There were similar distributions of lactate, total fluids, and vasopressors in patients with CHF and severe renal failure. <i>Conclusions</i>. Among ED patients with septic shock, POCUS was more likely to be used in sicker patients. Patients who had POCUS were given similar volume of crystalloids although these patients were more critically ill. There were no differences in new oxygen requirement or mortality in the POCUS group compared to the non-POCUS group.","PeriodicalId":11528,"journal":{"name":"Emergency Medicine International","volume":"32 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emergency Medicine International","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/5675066","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background. Fixed, large volume resuscitation with intravenous fluids (IVFs) in septic shock can cause inadvertent hypervolemia, increased medical interventions, and death when unguided by point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS). The primary study objective was to evaluate whether total IVF volume differs for emergency department (ED) septic shock patients receiving POCUS versus no POCUS. Methods. We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study from 7/1/2018 to 8/31/2021 of atraumatic adult ED patients with septic shock. We agreed upon a priori variables and defined septic shock as lactate ≥4 and hypotension (SBP <90 or MAP <65). A sample size of 300 patients would provide 85% power to detect an IVF difference of 500 milliliters between POCUS and non-POCUS cohorts. Data are reported as frequencies, median (IQR), and associations from bivariate logistic models. Results. 304 patients met criteria and 26% (78/304) underwent POCUS. Cardiac POCUS demonstrated reduced ejection fraction in 15.4% of patients. Lung ultrasound showed normal findings in 53% of patients. The POCUS vs. non-POCUS cohorts had statistically significant differences for the following variables: higher median lactate (6.7 [IQR 5.2–8.7] vs. 5.6], ), lower systolic blood pressure (77.5 [IQR 61–86] vs. 85.0, ), more vasopressor use (51% vs. 34%, ), and more positive pressure ventilation (38% vs. 24%, ). However, there were no statistically significant differences between POCUS and non-POCUS cohorts in total IVF volume ml/kg (33.02 vs. 32.1, ), new oxygen requirement (68% vs. 59%, ), ED death (3% vs. 4%, ), or hospital death (31% vs. 27%, ). There were similar distributions of lactate, total fluids, and vasopressors in patients with CHF and severe renal failure. Conclusions. Among ED patients with septic shock, POCUS was more likely to be used in sicker patients. Patients who had POCUS were given similar volume of crystalloids although these patients were more critically ill. There were no differences in new oxygen requirement or mortality in the POCUS group compared to the non-POCUS group.
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
护理点超声是否影响脓毒性休克患者的液体复苏量:回顾性研究
背景。脓毒性休克患者在未经护理点超声检查(POCUS)指导的情况下,使用静脉输液(IVF)进行固定、大容量复苏可能会意外导致高血容量、增加医疗干预和死亡。本研究的主要目的是评估急诊科(ED)脓毒性休克患者接受 POCUS 与不接受 POCUS 的总静脉输液量是否存在差异。研究方法我们在 2018 年 7 月 1 日至 2021 年 8 月 31 日期间对脓毒性休克的非创伤性成人急诊科患者进行了一项回顾性观察队列研究。我们商定了先验变量,并将脓毒性休克定义为乳酸≥4 和低血压(SBP <90 或 MAP <65)。300 名患者的样本量将提供 85% 的功率,以检测 POCUS 和非 POCUS 组别之间 500 毫升的静脉输液量差异。数据以频率、中位数(IQR)和双变量逻辑模型的相关性形式报告。结果304 名患者符合标准,26%(78/304)的患者接受了 POCUS。心脏 POCUS 显示 15.4% 的患者射血分数降低。53%的患者肺部超声检查结果显示正常。POCUS 与非 POCUS 组群在以下变量上存在显著统计学差异:乳酸中位数更高(6.7 [IQR 5.2-8.7] vs. 5.6])、收缩压更低(77.5 [IQR 61-86] vs. 85.0,)、使用血管加压剂更多(51% vs. 34%,)、正压通气更多(38% vs. 24%,)。但是,POCUS 和非 POCUS 组群在总静脉输液量毫升/千克(33.02 对 32.1)、新氧需求(68% 对 59%)、急诊室死亡(3% 对 4%)或住院死亡(31% 对 27%)方面没有显著统计学差异。CHF和严重肾功能衰竭患者的乳酸、总液体和血管加压剂的分布情况相似。结论在急诊科脓毒性休克患者中,病情较重的患者更有可能使用 POCUS。虽然接受 POCUS 的患者病情更为危重,但他们获得的晶体液量相近。与非 POCUS 组相比,POCUS 组的新氧需求量和死亡率没有差异。
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
Emergency Medicine International
Emergency Medicine International EMERGENCY MEDICINE-
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
187
审稿时长
17 weeks
期刊介绍: Emergency Medicine International is a peer-reviewed, Open Access journal that provides a forum for doctors, nurses, paramedics and ambulance staff. The journal publishes original research articles, review articles, and clinical studies related to prehospital care, disaster preparedness and response, acute medical and paediatric emergencies, critical care, sports medicine, wound care, and toxicology.
期刊最新文献
Risk Factors of In-Hospital Venous Thromboembolism and Prognosis After Emergent Ventral Hernia Repair. Risk Factors for Refractory Anaphylaxis in the Emergency Department. Assessment of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Knowledge Among Physicians in the Pediatrics Department of an Urban Tertiary Referral Hospital in Ethiopia: A Cross-Sectional Study. YouTube as a Source of Information in Trauma Management for ATLS (10th Edition) Guidelines: Evaluation of Trauma Management Videos on YouTube. Comparison Between the Advanced Cardiac Life Support and Adult Advanced Life Support Protocols: A Simulation-Based Pilot Study.
×
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