English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Rationale  There remains significant controversy regarding the optimal approach to fluid resuscitation for patients in shock. The magnitude of care variability in shock resuscitation, the confounding effects of disease severity and comorbidity, and the relative impact on sepsis survival are poorly understood.    Objective  To evaluate usual care variability and determine the differential effect of observed and predicted fluid resuscitation volumes on risk-adjusted hospital mortality for mechanically ventilated patients in shock.    Methods  We performed a retrospective outcome analysis of mechanically ventilated patients admitted to intensive care units using the 2013 Premier Hospital Database (Premier, Inc.). Observed and predicted hospital mortality were evaluated by observed and predicted day 1 fluid administration, using the difference in predicted and observed outcomes to adjust for disease severity between groups. Both predictive models were validated using a second large administrative database (Truven Health Analytics Inc.). Secondary outcomes included duration of mechanical ventilation, hospital and ICU length of stay, and cost.    Results  Among 33,831 patients, observed hospital mortality was incrementally higher than predicted for each additional liter of day 1 fluid beginning at 7 L (40.9% vs. 37.2%,  p  = 0.008). Compared to patients that received expected (± 1.5 L predicted) day 1 fluid volumes, greater-than-expected fluid resuscitation was associated with increased risk-adjusted hospital mortality (52.3% vs. 45.0%,  p  < 0.0001) among all patients with shock and among a subgroup of shock patients with comorbid conditions predictive of lower fluid volume administration (47.1% vs. 41.5%,  p  < 0.0001). However, in patients with shock but without such conditions, both greater-than-expected (57.5% vs. 49.2%,  p  < 0.0001) and less-than-expected (52.1% vs. 49.2%,  p  = 0.037) day 1 fluid resuscitation were associated with increased risk-adjusted hospital mortality.    Conclusions  Highly variable day 1 fluid resuscitation was associated with a non-uniform impact on risk-adjusted hospital mortality among distinct subgroups of mechanically ventilated patients with shock. These findings support closer evaluation of fluid resuscitation strategies that include broadly applied fluid volume targets in the early phase of shock resuscitation.

Variability in usual care fluid resuscitation and risk-adjusted outcomes for mechanically ventilated patients in shock