Preferences for albumin use in adult intensive care unit patients with shock: An international survey

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Pub Date : 2024-06-22 DOI:10.1111/aas.14479
Praleene Sivapalan, Karen Louise Ellekjaer, Anders Perner, Morten Hylander Møller, Anders Granholm, Lasse Grønningsæter, Marlies Ostermann, Rob Mac Sweeney, Maria Cronhjort, Johanna Hästbacka, Carmen Pfortmueller, Jan De Waele, Marek Nalos, Tomas Jovaisa, Annika Reintam Blaser, Maurizio Cecconi, Begum Ergan, Abdulrahman Al‐Fares, Paul J. Young, Wojciech Szczeklik, Eric Keus, Fayez Alshamsi, Ashish K. Khanna, Martin Ingi Sigurdsson, Tomoko Fujii, Yaseen M. Arabi, Tine Sylvest Meyhoff
{"title":"Preferences for albumin use in adult intensive care unit patients with shock: An international survey","authors":"Praleene Sivapalan, Karen Louise Ellekjaer, Anders Perner, Morten Hylander Møller, Anders Granholm, Lasse Grønningsæter, Marlies Ostermann, Rob Mac Sweeney, Maria Cronhjort, Johanna Hästbacka, Carmen Pfortmueller, Jan De Waele, Marek Nalos, Tomas Jovaisa, Annika Reintam Blaser, Maurizio Cecconi, Begum Ergan, Abdulrahman Al‐Fares, Paul J. Young, Wojciech Szczeklik, Eric Keus, Fayez Alshamsi, Ashish K. Khanna, Martin Ingi Sigurdsson, Tomoko Fujii, Yaseen M. Arabi, Tine Sylvest Meyhoff","doi":"10.1111/aas.14479","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"IntroductionUse of albumin is suggested for some patients with shock, but preferences for its use may vary among intensive care unit (ICU) physicians.MethodsWe conducted an international online survey of ICU physicians with 20 questions about their use of albumin and their opinion towards a randomised trial among adults with shock comparing the use versus no use of albumin.ResultsA total of 1248 respondents participated, with a mean response rate of 37%, ranging from 18% to 75% across 21 countries. Respondents mainly worked in mixed ICUs and 92% were specialists in intensive care medicine. The reported use of albumin in general shock varied as 18% reported ‘almost never’, 22% ‘rarely’, 34% ‘occasionally’, 22% ‘frequently’ and 4% ‘almost always’ using albumin. In septic shock, 19% reported ‘almost never’, 22% ‘rarely’, 29% ‘occasionally’, 22% ‘frequently’ and 7% ‘almost always’ using albumin. Physicians’ preferences were more consistent for haemorrhagic‐ and cardiogenic shock, with more than 45% reporting ‘almost never’ using albumin. While the reported use of albumin for other purposes than resuscitation was infrequent (40%–85% reported ‘almost never’ for five other indications), the most frequent other indications were low serum albumin levels and improvement of the efficacy of diuretics. Most respondents (93%) would randomise adult ICU patients with shock to a trial of albumin versus no albumin.ConclusionsIn this international survey, the reported preferences for the use of albumin in adult ICU patients with shock varied considerably among surveyed ICU physicians. The support for a future randomised trial was high.","PeriodicalId":6909,"journal":{"name":"Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/aas.14479","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

IntroductionUse of albumin is suggested for some patients with shock, but preferences for its use may vary among intensive care unit (ICU) physicians.MethodsWe conducted an international online survey of ICU physicians with 20 questions about their use of albumin and their opinion towards a randomised trial among adults with shock comparing the use versus no use of albumin.ResultsA total of 1248 respondents participated, with a mean response rate of 37%, ranging from 18% to 75% across 21 countries. Respondents mainly worked in mixed ICUs and 92% were specialists in intensive care medicine. The reported use of albumin in general shock varied as 18% reported ‘almost never’, 22% ‘rarely’, 34% ‘occasionally’, 22% ‘frequently’ and 4% ‘almost always’ using albumin. In septic shock, 19% reported ‘almost never’, 22% ‘rarely’, 29% ‘occasionally’, 22% ‘frequently’ and 7% ‘almost always’ using albumin. Physicians’ preferences were more consistent for haemorrhagic‐ and cardiogenic shock, with more than 45% reporting ‘almost never’ using albumin. While the reported use of albumin for other purposes than resuscitation was infrequent (40%–85% reported ‘almost never’ for five other indications), the most frequent other indications were low serum albumin levels and improvement of the efficacy of diuretics. Most respondents (93%) would randomise adult ICU patients with shock to a trial of albumin versus no albumin.ConclusionsIn this international survey, the reported preferences for the use of albumin in adult ICU patients with shock varied considerably among surveyed ICU physicians. The support for a future randomised trial was high.
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
休克成人重症监护室患者使用白蛋白的偏好:一项国际调查
方法 我们对重症监护病房(ICU)的医生进行了一次国际在线调查,调查内容包括 20 个关于白蛋白使用情况的问题,以及他们对在成人休克患者中比较使用与不使用白蛋白的随机试验的看法。结果 共有 1248 名受访者参与了调查,平均回复率为 37%,在 21 个国家的回复率从 18% 到 75% 不等。受访者主要在混合重症监护室工作,92%为重症监护医学专家。白蛋白在一般休克中的使用情况各不相同,18%的受访者表示 "几乎从未 "使用白蛋白,22%表示 "很少 "使用,34%表示 "偶尔 "使用,22%表示 "经常 "使用,4%表示 "几乎总是 "使用。在脓毒性休克患者中,19% 表示 "几乎从不 "使用白蛋白,22% 表示 "很少 "使用,29% 表示 "偶尔 "使用,22% 表示 "经常 "使用,7% 表示 "几乎总是 "使用。医生对失血性休克和心源性休克的偏好较为一致,超过 45% 的医生表示 "几乎从不 "使用白蛋白。虽然白蛋白除用于复苏外的其他用途并不常见(40%-85% 的受访者表示 "几乎从不 "使用白蛋白用于其他五个适应症),但最常见的其他适应症是血清白蛋白水平过低和改善利尿剂的疗效。大多数受访者(93%)会对休克的成人 ICU 患者随机试用白蛋白与不使用白蛋白。对未来随机试验的支持率很高。
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
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
9.50%
发文量
157
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica publishes papers on original work in the fields of anaesthesiology, intensive care, pain, emergency medicine, and subjects related to their basic sciences, on condition that they are contributed exclusively to this Journal. Case reports and short communications may be considered for publication if of particular interest; also letters to the Editor, especially if related to already published material. The editorial board is free to discuss the publication of reviews on current topics, the choice of which, however, is the prerogative of the board. Every effort will be made by the Editors and selected experts to expedite a critical review of manuscripts in order to ensure rapid publication of papers of a high scientific standard.
期刊最新文献
Prevalence and etiology of ventilator-associated pneumonia during the COVID-19 pandemic in Denmark: Wave-dependent lessons learned from a mixed-ICU. Lack of correlation between biomarkers and acute kidney injury after pediatric cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass: Should be look for something else? Quantity: More markers, more merit Serious adverse events reporting in recent randomised clinical trials in intensive care medicine – A methodological study protocol In-hospital cardiac arrest registries and aetiology of cardiac arrest.
×
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