Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35923594›Full record

ArticleCritical care explorations2022

Surviving Sepsis Guideline-Directed Fluid Resuscitation: An Assessment of Practice Patterns and Impact on Patient Outcomes.

Austin B Govero, Siva Naga S Yarrarapu, Michael F Harrison, Hassan Z Baig, Pramod Guru, Pablo Moreno Franco, Sean M Caples, Ami A Grek, Michael R Vizzini, Colleen T Ball and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care explorations, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

15 authors.

Austin B GoveroAll authors: Department of Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL.
Siva Naga S YarrarapuAll authors: Department of Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL.
Michael F HarrisonAll authors: Department of Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL.
Hassan Z BaigAll authors: Department of Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL.
Pramod GuruAll authors: Department of Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL.
Pablo Moreno FrancoAll authors: Department of Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL.
Sean M CaplesAll authors: Department of Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL.
Ami A GrekAll authors: Department of Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL.
Michael R VizziniAll authors: Department of Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL.
Colleen T BallAll authors: Department of Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL.
Syed A KhanAll authors: Department of Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL.
Katherine J HeiseAll authors: Department of Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL.
Hiroshi SekiguchiAll authors: Department of Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL.
Warren L CantrellAll authors: Department of Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL.
Devang K SanghaviAll authors: Department of Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

importanceAggressive fluid resuscitation remains a cornerstone of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guidelines, but there is growing controversy regarding the recommended 30 mL/kg IV fluid dosage. It is contended that, in selected patients, this volume confers an increased risk of volume overload without either concomitant benefit or strong evidence in support of the recommended IV fluid dosage.

objectivesAssessment of practice patterns and their impact on patient outcomes following the surviving sepsis guidelines for fluid resuscitation.

designLarge, multisite retrospective cohort study. SETTING AND

participantsThe retrospective study included all adult patients who presented to the emergency department at one of 19 different Mayo Clinic sites throughout the Midwest, Southeast, and Southwest from August 2018 to November 2020 with suspected sepsis. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Eight-thousand four-hundred fourteen patients suspected to have sepsis were assessed regarding fluid resuscitation and outcomes among patients receiving 30 mL/kg IV fluid dosing compared with patients who did not. Patient demographics and clinical information were collected via electronic health records. Patients were divided into two cohorts: those who received 0-29.9 mL/kg of IV fluid and those who received 30.0+ mL/kg of IV fluid. Statistical analyses were performed to evaluate the impact of fluid dose on in-hospital death, 30-day mortality, ICU admission after diagnosis, dialysis initiation after diagnosis, ventilator use, vasopressor use, as well as ICU and hospital length of stay.

resultsWe observed lower in-hospital mortality and 30-day mortality risk in the 30+ mL/kg dosing group. Increased fluid dosage did, however, carry a much greater chance of ICU admission. Most patients (72% after propensity score weighting) in our population received less than 30 mL/kg fluid (based on ideal body weight). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: IV fluid dosing for sepsis resuscitation greater than 30 mL/kg was associated with decreased risk of in-hospital mortality, 30-day mortality, and reduced risk of requiring mechanical ventilation. Our data does ultimately seem to support the SSC recommendation.

Indexed as

fluid dosein-hospital mortalityintensive care unit length of stayoutcomesresuscitationsepsis

Identifiers

PMID35923594
PMCPMC9329079

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.