Fluid resuscitation practice patterns in intensive care units of the USA: a cross-sectional survey of critical care physicians.

dc.contributor.author

Miller, Timothy E

dc.contributor.author

Bunke, Martin

dc.contributor.author

Nisbet, Paul

dc.contributor.author

Brudney, Charles S

dc.coverage.spatial

England

dc.date.accessioned

2016-08-01T16:41:14Z

dc.date.issued

2016

dc.description.abstract

BACKGROUND: Fluid resuscitation is a cornerstone of intensive care treatment, yet there is a lack of agreement on how various types of fluids should be used in critically ill patients with different disease states. Therefore, our goal was to investigate the practice patterns of fluid utilization for resuscitation of adult patients in intensive care units (ICUs) within the USA. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional online survey of 502 physicians practicing in medical and surgical ICUs. Survey questions were designed to assess clinical decision-making processes for 3 types of patients who need volume expansion: (1) not bleeding and not septic, (2) bleeding but not septic, (3) requiring resuscitation for sepsis. First-choice fluid used in fluid boluses for these 3 patient types was requested from the respondents. Descriptive statistics were performed using a Kruskal-Wallis test to evaluate differences among the physician groups. Follow-up tests, including t tests, were conducted to evaluate differences between ICU types, hospital settings, and bolus volume. RESULTS: Fluid resuscitation varied with respect to preferences for the factors to determine volume status and preferences for fluid types. The 3 most frequently preferred volume indicators were blood pressure, urine output, and central venous pressure. Regardless of the patient type, the most preferred fluid type was crystalloid, followed by 5 % albumin and then 6 % hydroxyethyl starches (HES) 450/0.70 and 6 % HES 600/0.75. Surprisingly, up to 10 % of physicians still chose HES as the first choice of fluid for resuscitation in sepsis. The clinical specialty and the practice setting of the treating physicians also influenced fluid choices. CONCLUSIONS: Practice patterns of fluid resuscitation varied in the USA, depending on patient characteristics, clinical specialties, and practice settings of the treating physicians.

dc.identifier

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27313844

dc.identifier

35

dc.identifier.uri

https://hdl.handle.net/10161/12551

dc.language

eng

dc.publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

dc.relation.ispartof

Perioper Med (Lond)

dc.relation.isversionof

10.1186/s13741-016-0035-2

dc.subject

Albumin

dc.subject

Bleeding

dc.subject

Colloids

dc.subject

Crystalloids

dc.subject

Fluid resuscitation

dc.subject

Intensive care unit

dc.subject

Sepsis

dc.subject

Survey

dc.title

Fluid resuscitation practice patterns in intensive care units of the USA: a cross-sectional survey of critical care physicians.

dc.type

Journal article

duke.contributor.orcid

Miller, Timothy E|0000-0001-8567-6680

pubs.author-url

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27313844

pubs.begin-page

15

pubs.organisational-group

Anesthesiology

pubs.organisational-group

Anesthesiology, General, Vascular, High Risk Transplant & Critical Care

pubs.organisational-group

Clinical Science Departments

pubs.organisational-group

Duke

pubs.organisational-group

School of Medicine

pubs.publication-status

Published online

pubs.volume

5

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Fluid resuscitation practice patterns in intensive care units of the USA: a cross-sectional survey of critical care physicians.pdf
Size:
889.37 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format