Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31776712›Full record

ArticleAnnals of intensive care2019

Survey of non-resuscitation fluids administered during septic shock: a multicenter prospective observational study.

Anja Lindén-Søndersø, Mårten Jungner, Martin Spångfors, Mohammed Jan, Adam Oscarson, Sally Choi, Thomas Kander, Johan Undén, Donald Griesdale, John Boyd and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of intensive care, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Anja Lindén-SøndersøDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Helsingborg Hospital, Charlotte Yhlens gata 10, 251 87, Helsingborg, Sweden.
Mårten JungnerDepartment of Intensive and Perioperative Care, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden.
Martin SpångforsDepartment of Clinical Sciences Lund, Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Kristianstad Hospital, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Mohammed JanAnesthesia Department, College of Medicine, Taibah University, Madinah, Saudi Arabia.
Adam OscarsonDepartment of Operation and Intensive Care, Hallands Hospital, Halmstad, Sweden.
Sally ChoiFaculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Thomas KanderDepartment of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden.
Johan UndénDepartment of Operation and Intensive Care, Hallands Hospital, Halmstad, Sweden.
Donald GriesdaleDepartment of Anesthesiology, Pharmacology & Therapeutics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
John BoydCentre for Heart Lung Innovation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Peter BentzerDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Helsingborg Hospital, Charlotte Yhlens gata 10, 251 87, Helsingborg, Sweden. peter.bentzer@med.lu.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8783-3886

Funding

Region Skåne 18401
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe indication, composition and timing of administration of non-resuscitation fluid in septic shock have so far received little attention and accordingly the potential to reduce this source of fluid is unknown. The objective of the study was to quantify and characterize non-resuscitation fluid administered to patients with septic shock.

methodsThis prospective observational study was performed in eight intensive care units in Sweden and Canada during 4 months in 2018. Adult patients with septic shock within 24 h of admission to the intensive care unit were eligible for inclusion. Non-resuscitation fluids were defined as fluids other than colloids, blood products and crystalloids at a rate ≥ 5 ml/kg/h. Indication, volume and type of fluid were recorded during the first 5 days after admission. A maximum of 30 patients could be included per centre. To estimate the potential to reduce administration of non-resuscitation fluid, a pragmatic "restrictive" protocol for administration of non-resuscitation fluids was devised based on the most restrictive practice already in place for non-resuscitation fluids at any of the participating centres. Data are presented as median (interquartile range [IQR]).

resultsA total of 200 patients were included in the study and the 30-day mortality was 35%. Patients received a total of 7870 (4060-12,340) ml of non-resuscitation fluids and 2820 (1430-4580) of resuscitation fluids during the observation period. Median volumes of non-resuscitation and resuscitation fluids were similar at day 1 (1620 [710-2320] and 1590 [520-3000]) ml, respectively) and non-resuscitation fluids represented the largest source of fluid from day 2 and onwards after admission to the ICU. Vehicles for drugs such as vasoactive drugs and antibiotics constituted the largest fraction of non-resuscitation fluids (2400 [1270-4030] ml) during the 5-day observation period. Modelling suggested that volume of non-resuscitation fluids could be reduced by 2840 (1270-4900) ml during the first 5 days of admission to the ICU, mainly through reducing maintenance fluids.

conclusionsNon-resuscitation fluids constitute the major fraction of fluids administered in the ICU to patients suffering from septic shock and may represent the largest modifiable target to reduce fluid overload.

Indexed as

Fluid balanceNon-resuscitation fluidsSeptic shockVehicle

Identifiers

PMID31776712
PMCPMC6881490

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.