Identifying factors associated with intravenous fluid administration in patients with sepsis presenting to the emergency department: a retrospective cohort study.
Barriers
Early fluids
Facilitators
Fluid therapy
Sepsis
Journal
BMC emergency medicine
ISSN: 1471-227X
Titre abrégé: BMC Emerg Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968543
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 06 2022
03 06 2022
Historique:
received:
07
02
2022
accepted:
18
05
2022
entrez:
6
6
2022
pubmed:
7
6
2022
medline:
9
6
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Appropriate and timely administration of intravenous fluids to patients with sepsis-induced hypotension is one of the mainstays of sepsis management in the emergency department (ED), however, fluid resuscitation remains an ongoing challenge in ED. Our study has been undertaken with two specific aims: firstly, for patients with sepsis, to identify factors associated with receiving intravenous fluids while in the ED; and, secondly to identify determinants associated with the actual time to fluid administration. We conducted a retrospective multicentre cohort study of adult ED presentations between October 2018 and May 2019 in four metropolitan hospitals in Western Sydney, Australia. Patients meeting pre-specified criteria for sepsis and septic shock and treated with antibiotics within the first 24 h of presentation were included. Multivariable models were used to identify factors associated with fluid administration in sepsis. Four thousand one hundred forty-six patients met the inclusion criteria, among these 2,300 (55.5%) patients with sepsis received intravenous fluids in ED. The median time to fluid administration from the time of diagnosis of sepsis was 1.6 h (Interquartile Range (IQR) 0.5 to 3.8), and the median volume of fluids administered was 1,100 mL (IQR 750 to 2058). Factors associated with patients receiving fluids were younger age (Odds Ratio (OR) 1.05, 95% Confidence Interval (CI (1.03 to 1.07), p < 0.001); lower systolic blood pressure (OR 1.11, 95% CI (1.08 to 1.13), p < 0.001); presenting to smaller hospital (OR 1.48, 95% CI (1.25 to 1.75, p < 0.001) and a Clinical Rapid Response alert activated (OR 1.64, 95% CI (1.28 to 2.11), p < 0.001). Patients with Triage Category 1 received fluids 101.22 min earlier (95% CI (59.3 to131.2), p < 0.001) and those with Category 2 received fluids 43.58 min earlier (95% CI (9.6 to 63.1), p < 0.001) compared to patients with Triage Category 3-5. Other factors associated with receiving fluids earlier included septic shock (-49.37 min (95% CI (-86.4 to -12.4), p < 0.001)); each mmol/L increase in serum lactate levels (-9.0 min, 95% CI (-15.7 to -2.3), p < 0.001) and presenting to smaller hospitals (-74.61 min, 95% CI (-94.0 to -55.3), p < 0.001). Younger age, greater severity of sepsis, and presenting to a smaller hospital increased the probability of receiving fluids and receiving it earlier. Recognition of these factors may assist in effective implementation of sepsis management guidelines which should translate into better patient outcomes. Future studies are needed to identify other associated factors that we have not explored.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Appropriate and timely administration of intravenous fluids to patients with sepsis-induced hypotension is one of the mainstays of sepsis management in the emergency department (ED), however, fluid resuscitation remains an ongoing challenge in ED. Our study has been undertaken with two specific aims: firstly, for patients with sepsis, to identify factors associated with receiving intravenous fluids while in the ED; and, secondly to identify determinants associated with the actual time to fluid administration.
METHODS
We conducted a retrospective multicentre cohort study of adult ED presentations between October 2018 and May 2019 in four metropolitan hospitals in Western Sydney, Australia. Patients meeting pre-specified criteria for sepsis and septic shock and treated with antibiotics within the first 24 h of presentation were included. Multivariable models were used to identify factors associated with fluid administration in sepsis.
RESULTS
Four thousand one hundred forty-six patients met the inclusion criteria, among these 2,300 (55.5%) patients with sepsis received intravenous fluids in ED. The median time to fluid administration from the time of diagnosis of sepsis was 1.6 h (Interquartile Range (IQR) 0.5 to 3.8), and the median volume of fluids administered was 1,100 mL (IQR 750 to 2058). Factors associated with patients receiving fluids were younger age (Odds Ratio (OR) 1.05, 95% Confidence Interval (CI (1.03 to 1.07), p < 0.001); lower systolic blood pressure (OR 1.11, 95% CI (1.08 to 1.13), p < 0.001); presenting to smaller hospital (OR 1.48, 95% CI (1.25 to 1.75, p < 0.001) and a Clinical Rapid Response alert activated (OR 1.64, 95% CI (1.28 to 2.11), p < 0.001). Patients with Triage Category 1 received fluids 101.22 min earlier (95% CI (59.3 to131.2), p < 0.001) and those with Category 2 received fluids 43.58 min earlier (95% CI (9.6 to 63.1), p < 0.001) compared to patients with Triage Category 3-5. Other factors associated with receiving fluids earlier included septic shock (-49.37 min (95% CI (-86.4 to -12.4), p < 0.001)); each mmol/L increase in serum lactate levels (-9.0 min, 95% CI (-15.7 to -2.3), p < 0.001) and presenting to smaller hospitals (-74.61 min, 95% CI (-94.0 to -55.3), p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
Younger age, greater severity of sepsis, and presenting to a smaller hospital increased the probability of receiving fluids and receiving it earlier. Recognition of these factors may assist in effective implementation of sepsis management guidelines which should translate into better patient outcomes. Future studies are needed to identify other associated factors that we have not explored.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35659554
doi: 10.1186/s12873-022-00650-4
pii: 10.1186/s12873-022-00650-4
pmc: PMC9166492
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
98Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Health Technol Assess. 2015 Nov;19(97):i-xxv, 1-150
pubmed: 26597979
Emerg Med Australas. 2022 Jun;34(3):361-369
pubmed: 34773387
Chest. 2018 Jan;153(1):39-45
pubmed: 28987477
Am J Emerg Med. 2016 Jan;34(1):1-9
pubmed: 26386734
J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373-83
pubmed: 3558716
BMC Emerg Med. 2017 Aug 30;17(1):27
pubmed: 28854874
Ann Emerg Med. 2016 Sep;68(3):298-311
pubmed: 27085369
Intensive Care Med. 2021 Nov;47(11):1181-1247
pubmed: 34599691
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016 Jun 1;193(11):1264-70
pubmed: 26695114
Intensive Care Med. 2017 May;43(5):625-632
pubmed: 28130687
N Engl J Med. 2014 May 1;370(18):1683-93
pubmed: 24635773
CJEM. 2017 Mar;19(2):112-121
pubmed: 27608524
Clin Med (Lond). 2018 Jun;18(3):263-264
pubmed: 29858442
N Engl J Med. 2001 Nov 8;345(19):1368-77
pubmed: 11794169
Med J Aust. 2016 Feb 1;204(2):73
pubmed: 26821106
JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):801-10
pubmed: 26903338
Int J Qual Health Care. 2018 Dec 01;30(10):802-809
pubmed: 29931166
N Engl J Med. 2017 Aug 3;377(5):414-417
pubmed: 28658587
J Emerg Nurs. 2020 Jan;46(1):91-98
pubmed: 31563282
BMJ. 2007 Oct 20;335(7624):806-8
pubmed: 17947786
Crit Care. 2020 Apr 7;24(1):137
pubmed: 32264936
Emerg Med Australas. 2017 Dec;29(6):626-634
pubmed: 29178274
BMC Emerg Med. 2022 Jan 11;22(1):3
pubmed: 35016638
Crit Care. 2013 Oct 06;17(5):R224
pubmed: 24093643
Int J Emerg Med. 2019 Jan 5;12(1):1
pubmed: 31179911
Emerg Med J. 2013 May;30(5):397-401
pubmed: 22753641
Intensive Care Med. 2017 Mar;43(3):304-377
pubmed: 28101605
World J Crit Care Med. 2012 Feb 04;1(1):23-30
pubmed: 24701398
Australas Emerg Care. 2021 Mar;24(1):67-72
pubmed: 32723674
Emerg Med Australas. 2020 Aug;32(4):586-598
pubmed: 32043315