4.7 Article

Haemoglobin concentration and volume of intravenous fluids in septic shock in the ARISE trial

期刊

CRITICAL CARE
卷 22, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13054-018-2029-6

关键词

Septic shock; Haemoglobin; Fluids; Haemodilution; Resuscitation

资金

  1. Australian National Health and Medical Research Council [491075, 1021165]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Intravenous fluids may contribute to lower haemoglobin levels in patients with septic shock. We sought to determine the relationship between the changes in haemoglobin concentration and the volume of intravenous fluids administered during resuscitation from septic shock. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients enrolled in the Australasian Resuscitation in Sepsis Evaluation (ARISE) trial who were not transfused red blood cells (N = 1275). We determined the relationship between haemoglobin concentration, its change over time and volume of intravenous fluids administered over 6, 24 and 72 h using univariate and multivariate analysis. Results: Median (IQR) haemoglobin concentration at baseline was 133 (118-146) g/L and decreased to 115 (102-127) g/L within the first 6 h of resuscitation (P < 0.001), 110 (99-122) g/L after 24 h, and 109 (97-121) g/L after 72 h. At the corresponding time points, the cumulative volume of intravenous fluid administered was 1.3 (0.7-2.2) L, 2.9 (1.8-4.3) L and 4.6 (2.7-7.1) L. Haemoglobin concentration and its change from baseline had an independent but weak association with intravenous fluid volume at each time point (R-2 < 20%, P < 0.001). After adjusting for covariates, each litre of intravenous fluid administered was associated with a change in haemoglobin concentration of -1.0 g/L (95% CI -1.5 to -0.6, P < 0.001) at 24 h and-1.3 g/L (-1.6 to -0.9, P < 0.001) at 72 h. Conclusions: Haemoglobin concentration decreases during resuscitation from septic shock, and has a significant but weak association with the volume of intravenous fluids administered.

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

4.7
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