The George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Crit Care Resusc. 2011 Dec;13(4):238-43.
To determine the attitudes of critical care clinicians in Australia and New Zealand towards fever management for critically ill patients with sepsis but without neurological injury.
Online scenario-based survey distributed to members of the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Clinical Trials Group and their intensive care colleagues.
The choice of intervention and preferred threshold temperature for modification of temperature in clinical practice and in a clinical trial.
Most respondents indicated a preference for the use of interventions to lower temperature at or below 39.0°C (80%; 337/423), with first-line preference being a combination of paracetamol and physical cooling. Secondline interventions included the addition of intensive physical cooling. Doctors chose higher temperature thresholds for intervention (32% [43/134] below 38.5°C and 27% [36/134] above 39.5°C) than nurses (78% [226/289] and 7% [19/289], respectively), who, in turn, indicated stronger preferences for the use of physical cooling. There is support (78%) for a clinical trial of fever management, with respondents suggesting randomising patients to a mean intensive control of temperature to 38.0°C versus a permissive approach with a threshold for intervention of between 38.8°×C (SD, 0.6°C) (nurses) and 39.5°C (SD, 0.7°C) (doctors).
There is considerable variability in attitudes to fever management with a reported tendency to act to reduce fever in febrile patients with sepsis. There was broad support for a clinical trial of fever management.
了解澳大利亚和新西兰重症监护临床医生对无神经损伤脓毒症危重症患者发热管理的态度。
在澳大利亚和新西兰重症监护学会临床试验组及其重症监护同事中进行基于在线情景的调查。
临床实践和临床试验中干预措施的选择和体温修正的理想温度阈值。
大多数受访者表示倾向于使用干预措施将体温降至 39.0°C 或以下(80%,337/423),一线治疗首选为对乙酰氨基酚联合物理降温。二线干预措施包括强化物理降温。与护士相比(分别为 32%[43/134]低于 38.5°C 和 27%[36/134]高于 39.5°C),医生选择的干预温度阈值更高(32%[43/134]低于 38.5°C 和 27%[36/134]高于 39.5°C),而护士则更倾向于使用物理降温(分别为 78%[226/289]和 7%[19/289])。大多数受访者支持开展发热管理的临床试验,建议将患者随机分为强化体温控制组(平均目标体温 38.0°C)和允许组(干预阈值为 38.8°C±0.6°C[护士]和 39.5°C±0.7°C[医生])。
在发热管理方面,态度存在较大差异,有报道称在脓毒症发热患者中存在积极退热的趋势。对于发热管理的临床试验,有广泛的支持。