Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Multicountry survey of emergency and critical care medicine physicians’ fluid resuscitation practices for adult patients with early septic shock
  1. Lauralyn McIntyre1,2,3,
  2. Brian H Rowe4,5,
  3. Timothy S Walsh6,
  4. Alasdair Gray7,
  5. Yaseen Arabi8,
  6. Anders Perner9,
  7. Anthony Gordon10,
  8. John Marshall11,
  9. Deborah Cook12,
  10. Alison Fox-Robichaud13,
  11. Sean M Bagshaw14,
  12. Robert Green15,
  13. Irwin Schweitzer2,
  14. Alexis Turgeon16,17,
  15. Ryan Zarychanski18,
  16. Shane English1,2,3,
  17. Michaël Chassé2,3,
  18. Ian Stiell2,3,
  19. Dean Fergusson2,3
  20. for the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group
  1. 1Department of Medicine (Division of Critical Care), University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
  2. 2The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
  3. 3Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
  4. 4Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
  5. 5School of Public Health, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
  6. 6Department of Anaesthetics, Critical Care, and Pain Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
  7. 7Department of Emergency Medicine, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
  8. 8King Saud Bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences and King Abdullah International Medical Research Center, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
  9. 9Department of Intensive Care, Ringshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark
  10. 10Department of Anaesthesia, Pain Medicine and Intensive Care, Imperial College London, London, UK
  11. 11Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  12. 12Departments of Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
  13. 13Department of Medicine and Thrombosis and Atherosclerosis Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
  14. 14Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
  15. 15Department of Critical Care Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
  16. 16Division of Critical Care Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Université Laval, Québec City, Québec, Canada
  17. 17Population Health and Optimal Health Practice Research Unit (Trauma—Emergency—Critical Care Medicine), CHU de Québec Research Center, CHU de Québec (Hôpital de l'Enfant-Jésus), Laval, Québec City, Québec, Canada
  18. 18CancerCare Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
  1. Correspondence to Dr Lauralyn McIntyre; lmcintyre{at}ohri.ca

Abstract

Objectives Evidence to guide fluid resuscitation evidence in sepsis continues to evolve. We conducted a multicountry survey of emergency and critical care physicians to describe current stated practice and practice variation related to the quantity, rapidity and type of resuscitation fluid administered in early septic shock to inform the design of future septic shock fluid resuscitation trials.

Methods Using a web-based survey tool, we invited critical care and emergency physicians in Canada, the UK, Scandinavia and Saudi Arabia to complete a self-administered electronic survey.

Results A total of 1097 physicians’ responses were included. 1 L was the most frequent quantity of resuscitation fluid physicians indicated they would administer at a time (46.9%, n=499). Most (63.0%, n=671) stated that they would administer the fluid challenges as quickly as possible. Overall, normal saline and Ringer's solutions were the preferred crystalloid fluids used ‘often’ or ‘always’ in 53.1% (n=556) and 60.5% (n=632) of instances, respectively. However, emergency physicians indicated that they would use normal saline ‘often’ or ‘always’ in 83.9% (n=376) of instances, while critical care physicians said that they would use saline ‘often’ or ‘always’ in 27.9% (n=150) of instances. Only 1.0% (n=10) of respondents indicated that they would use hydroxyethyl starch ‘often’ or ‘always’; use of 5% (5.6% (n=59)) or 20–25% albumin (1.3% (n=14)) was also infrequent. The majority (88.4%, n=896) of respondents indicated that a large randomised controlled trial comparing 5% albumin to a crystalloid fluid in early septic shock was important to conduct.

Conclusions Critical care and emergency physicians stated that they rapidly infuse volumes of 500–1000 mL of resuscitation fluid in early septic shock. Colloid use, specifically the use of albumin, was infrequently reported. Our survey identifies the need to conduct a trial on the efficacy of albumin and crystalloids on 90-day mortality in patients with early septic shock.

  • Septic shock
  • Fluid resuscitation
  • Survey
  • Adults
  • Critical Care
  • Emergency Medicine

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.