4.5 Article

Positive fluid balance as a major predictor of clinical outcome of patients with sepsis/septic shock after ICU discharge

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE
卷 34, 期 11, 页码 2122-2126

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2016.07.058

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Sepsis and septic shock continue to be syndromes that carry a high mortality rate worldwide. Early aggressive fluid and vasopressor support have resulted in significant improvement in patient outcomes. The prognostic clinical significance of a positive fluid balance in septic intensive care unit (ICU) patients remains undetermined. Methods: We collected data from 297 septic patients hospitalized in our general and medical ICUs at Soroka Medical Center between January 2005 and June 2011 and divided the 4 study groups into the following 4 fluid balances: group 1, patients with fluid balance at discharge from ICU (FBD) less than 10 L; group 2, patients with an FBD of 10 to 20 L; group 3, patients with an FBD of 20 to 30 L; and group 4, patients with FBD in excess of 30 L. Results: The ICU and in-hospital mortality rate was also significantly higher in groups 2 to 4 as compared with group 1 (P < .001 for both ICU and in-hospital mortality). The positive cumulative FBD was found to be an independent predictor of ICU mortality (odds ratio [OR], 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.06; P < .001; Table 3) and in-hospital mortality (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.03-1.08; P < .001; Table 5) and also to constitute a risk factor for new organ system dysfunction at hospital discharge (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.01-1.013; P < .001; Table 6) in critically ill patients with severe sepsis/septic shock. Conclusions: Although it is a monocentric retrospective study, we suggest that positive cumulative fluid balance is one of the major factors that can predict the clinical outcome of critically ill patients during their ICU stay and after their discharge from the ICU. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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