在外科重症监护室创伤患者的液体复苏中评估血浆-赖特与乳酸林格氏液的效果。

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Accounts of Chemical Research Pub Date : 2024-10-15 DOI:10.1177/08971900241287854
Anna DeFrank, Shan Wang, Shahidul Islam, Kim Asmus, D'Andrea Joseph
{"title":"在外科重症监护室创伤患者的液体复苏中评估血浆-赖特与乳酸林格氏液的效果。","authors":"Anna DeFrank, Shan Wang, Shahidul Islam, Kim Asmus, D'Andrea Joseph","doi":"10.1177/08971900241287854","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In critically ill patients, fluid resuscitation with balanced crystalloids close to plasma osmolarity have a lower risk of electrolyte imbalances and demonstrated better clinical outcomes compared to normal saline (NS). While lactated ringer's (LR) has shown benefit over NS, plasma-lyte (PL) with a higher osmolarity and different electrolyte formulation is hypothesized to be superior. We performed a retrospective observational cohort study over 37 months at a tertiary hospital. Inclusion criteria were hospitalization in the surgical intensive care unit (SICU), trauma indication, ≥18 years old, and received either PL or LR. All PL administrations and every fifth patient with LR as resuscitation were included in order to match the sample size in each group. Primary outcomes were SICU length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, and mortality. Secondary outcomes were biomarker changes from baseline. There were 113 patients in both PL and LR groups. The PL arm had higher APACHE II scores (16 vs 13, <i>P</i> = .033) and were more likely ventilated (39.3% vs 20.4%, <i>P</i> = .002) compared to LR. Median hospital LOS (12.0 vs 8.0, <i>P</i> < .001) and SICU LOS (6.0 vs 3.0, <i>P</i> < .001) are significantly longer in PL group compared to the LR group. However, there was no difference in in-hospital mortality (5.3% vs 3.5% <i>P</i> = .519) and SICU mortality (9.7% vs 5.3%, <i>P</i> > .208) between PL and LR. Overall, PL use was associated with prolonged hospital and SICU LOS. PL use did not demonstrate mortality benefit. However, patients were more critically ill in PL group based on higher APACHE II scores and higher rates of mechanical ventilation, which could be contributing to these unfavorable outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of Plasma-Lyte Versus Lactated Ringer's in Surgical Intensive Care Unit Trauma Patients as Fluid Resuscitation.\",\"authors\":\"Anna DeFrank, Shan Wang, Shahidul Islam, Kim Asmus, D'Andrea Joseph\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/08971900241287854\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In critically ill patients, fluid resuscitation with balanced crystalloids close to plasma osmolarity have a lower risk of electrolyte imbalances and demonstrated better clinical outcomes compared to normal saline (NS). While lactated ringer's (LR) has shown benefit over NS, plasma-lyte (PL) with a higher osmolarity and different electrolyte formulation is hypothesized to be superior. We performed a retrospective observational cohort study over 37 months at a tertiary hospital. Inclusion criteria were hospitalization in the surgical intensive care unit (SICU), trauma indication, ≥18 years old, and received either PL or LR. All PL administrations and every fifth patient with LR as resuscitation were included in order to match the sample size in each group. Primary outcomes were SICU length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, and mortality. Secondary outcomes were biomarker changes from baseline. There were 113 patients in both PL and LR groups. The PL arm had higher APACHE II scores (16 vs 13, <i>P</i> = .033) and were more likely ventilated (39.3% vs 20.4%, <i>P</i> = .002) compared to LR. Median hospital LOS (12.0 vs 8.0, <i>P</i> < .001) and SICU LOS (6.0 vs 3.0, <i>P</i> < .001) are significantly longer in PL group compared to the LR group. However, there was no difference in in-hospital mortality (5.3% vs 3.5% <i>P</i> = .519) and SICU mortality (9.7% vs 5.3%, <i>P</i> > .208) between PL and LR. Overall, PL use was associated with prolonged hospital and SICU LOS. PL use did not demonstrate mortality benefit. However, patients were more critically ill in PL group based on higher APACHE II scores and higher rates of mechanical ventilation, which could be contributing to these unfavorable outcomes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":1,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":16.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/08971900241287854\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"化学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08971900241287854","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在重症患者中,使用接近血浆渗透压的平衡晶体液进行液体复苏与使用生理盐水(NS)相比,电解质失衡的风险更低,临床效果更好。虽然乳酸林格氏液(LR)比正常生理盐水(NS)更有优势,但假设渗透压更高且电解质配方不同的血浆电解质(PL)更胜一筹。我们在一家三级医院进行了一项为期 37 个月的回顾性队列观察研究。纳入标准为外科重症监护室(SICU)住院、创伤指征、年龄≥18 岁、接受过 PL 或 LR。为了使每组的样本量相匹配,纳入了所有接受过 PL 治疗的患者和每五名接受过 LR 作为复苏手段的患者。主要结果是重症监护病房(SICU)的住院时间(LOS)、住院时间和死亡率。次要结果为生物标志物与基线相比的变化。PL 组和 LR 组均有 113 名患者。与LR组相比,PL组的APACHE II评分更高(16分 vs 13分,P = .033),更有可能通气(39.3% vs 20.4%,P = .002)。与 LR 组相比,PL 组的中位住院时间(12.0 vs 8.0,P < .001)和 SICU 住院时间(6.0 vs 3.0,P < .001)明显更长。但是,PL 组和 LR 组的院内死亡率(5.3% 对 3.5%,P = .519)和重症监护室死亡率(9.7% 对 5.3%,P > .208)没有差异。总体而言,使用 PL 与住院时间和重症监护室 LOS 延长有关。使用 PL 并未对死亡率产生益处。然而,根据较高的 APACHE II 评分和较高的机械通气率,PL 组患者的病情更为危重,这可能是导致这些不利结果的原因之一。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Evaluation of Plasma-Lyte Versus Lactated Ringer's in Surgical Intensive Care Unit Trauma Patients as Fluid Resuscitation.

In critically ill patients, fluid resuscitation with balanced crystalloids close to plasma osmolarity have a lower risk of electrolyte imbalances and demonstrated better clinical outcomes compared to normal saline (NS). While lactated ringer's (LR) has shown benefit over NS, plasma-lyte (PL) with a higher osmolarity and different electrolyte formulation is hypothesized to be superior. We performed a retrospective observational cohort study over 37 months at a tertiary hospital. Inclusion criteria were hospitalization in the surgical intensive care unit (SICU), trauma indication, ≥18 years old, and received either PL or LR. All PL administrations and every fifth patient with LR as resuscitation were included in order to match the sample size in each group. Primary outcomes were SICU length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, and mortality. Secondary outcomes were biomarker changes from baseline. There were 113 patients in both PL and LR groups. The PL arm had higher APACHE II scores (16 vs 13, P = .033) and were more likely ventilated (39.3% vs 20.4%, P = .002) compared to LR. Median hospital LOS (12.0 vs 8.0, P < .001) and SICU LOS (6.0 vs 3.0, P < .001) are significantly longer in PL group compared to the LR group. However, there was no difference in in-hospital mortality (5.3% vs 3.5% P = .519) and SICU mortality (9.7% vs 5.3%, P > .208) between PL and LR. Overall, PL use was associated with prolonged hospital and SICU LOS. PL use did not demonstrate mortality benefit. However, patients were more critically ill in PL group based on higher APACHE II scores and higher rates of mechanical ventilation, which could be contributing to these unfavorable outcomes.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
期刊最新文献
Intentions to move abroad among medical students: a cross-sectional study to investigate determinants and opinions. The change process questionnaire (CPQ): A psychometric validation. Prevalence and predictors of hand hygiene compliance in clinical, surgical and intensive care unit wards: results of a second cross-sectional study at the Umberto I teaching hospital of Rome. The prevention of medication errors in the home care setting: a scoping review. Differential Costs of Raising Grandchildren on Older Mother-Adult Child Relations in Black and White Families.
×
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