4.7 Article

Increased Fluid Administration in the First Three Hours of Sepsis Resuscitation Is Associated With Reduced Mortality A Retrospective Cohort Study

期刊

CHEST
卷 146, 期 4, 页码 908-915

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1378/chest.13-2702

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences [UL1 TR000135]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: The surviving sepsis guidelines recommend early aggressive fluid resuscitation within 6 h of sepsis onset. Although rapid fluid administration may off er benefit, studies on the timing of resuscitation are lacking. We hypothesized that there is an association between quicker, adequate fluid resuscitation and patient outcome from sepsis onset time. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of consecutive adults with severe sepsis and septic shock admitted to a quaternary care medical ICU between January 2007 and December 2009. Data were collected from a previously validated electronic medical database. Multivariate regression modeling was performed, adjusting for age, admission weight, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, APACHE (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Examination) III score, and total fluid administration within the first 6 h of sepsis onset time. RESULTS: Of 651 patients with severe sepsis and septic shock screened, 594 had detailed fluid data. In a univariate analysis, the median amount of fluid within the first 3 h for survivors at discharge was 2,085 mL (940-4,080 mL) and for nonsurvivors, 1,600 mL (600-3,010 mL; P = .007). In comparison, during the latter 3 h, the median amount was 660 mL (290-1,485 mL) vs 800 mL (360-1,680 mL; P = .09), respectively. Aft er adjusting for confounders, the higher proportion of total fluid received within the first 3 h was associated with decreased hospital mortality (OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.15-0.75; P = .008). CONCLUSIONS: Earlier fluid resuscitation (within the first 3 h) is associated with a greater number of survivors with severe sepsis and septic shock.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据