Suppr超能文献

严重脓毒症和脓毒性休克的限制液体复苏试验(RIFTS):一项随机初步研究。

The Restrictive IV Fluid Trial in Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock (RIFTS): A Randomized Pilot Study.

机构信息

Department of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary Critical Care and Sleep, Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI.

Department of Emergency Medicine, Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI.

出版信息

Crit Care Med. 2019 Jul;47(7):951-959. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000003779.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

It is unclear if a low- or high-volume IV fluid resuscitation strategy is better for patients with severe sepsis and septic shock.

DESIGN

Prospective randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

Two adult acute care hospitals within a single academic system.

PATIENTS

Patients with severe sepsis and septic shock admitted from the emergency department to the ICU from November 2016 to February 2018.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomly assigned to a restrictive IV fluid resuscitation strategy (≤ 60 mL/kg of IV fluid) or usual care for the first 72 hours of care.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

We enrolled 109 patients, of whom 55 were assigned to the restrictive resuscitation group and 54 to the usual care group. The restrictive group received significantly less resuscitative IV fluid than the usual care group (47.1 vs 61.1 mL/kg; p = 0.01) over 72 hours. By 30 days, there were 12 deaths (21.8%) in the restrictive group and 12 deaths (22.2%) in the usual care group (odds ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.41-2.53). There were no differences between groups in the rate of new organ failure, hospital or ICU length of stay, or serious adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot study demonstrates that a restrictive resuscitation strategy can successfully reduce the amount of IV fluid administered to patients with severe sepsis and septic shock compared with usual care. Although limited by the sample size, we observed no increase in mortality, organ failure, or adverse events. These findings further support that a restrictive IV fluid strategy should be explored in a larger multicenter trial.

摘要

目的

目前尚不清楚低容量还是高容量静脉补液复苏策略对严重脓毒症和脓毒性休克患者更有益。

设计

前瞻性随机对照试验。

地点

单个学术系统内的 2 家成人急性护理医院。

患者

2016 年 11 月至 2018 年 2 月从急诊科收入 ICU 的严重脓毒症和脓毒性休克患者。

干预

患者被随机分配至限制型静脉补液复苏策略(≤60mL/kg 的静脉补液)或前 72 小时接受常规护理。

测量和主要结果

我们共纳入 109 例患者,其中 55 例被分配至限制型复苏组,54 例被分配至常规护理组。限制型组在 72 小时内接受的复苏性静脉补液显著少于常规护理组(47.1 比 61.1mL/kg;p=0.01)。30 天时,限制型组有 12 例(21.8%)死亡,常规护理组有 12 例(22.2%)死亡(比值比,1.02;95%CI,0.41-2.53)。两组新发器官衰竭、医院或 ICU 住院时间或严重不良事件发生率无差异。

结论

这项初步研究表明,与常规护理相比,限制型复苏策略可成功减少严重脓毒症和脓毒性休克患者的静脉补液量。尽管受到样本量限制,但我们未观察到死亡率、器官衰竭或不良事件增加。这些发现进一步支持在更大的多中心试验中探索限制型静脉补液策略。

相似文献

4
Moderate IV Fluid Resuscitation Is Associated With Decreased Sepsis Mortality.中度静脉输液复苏与降低脓毒症死亡率相关。
Crit Care Med. 2024 Nov 1;52(11):e557-e567. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000006394. Epub 2024 Aug 23.

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

2
Balanced Crystalloids versus Saline in Critically Ill Adults.重症成年患者中平衡晶体液与生理盐水的比较
N Engl J Med. 2018 Mar 1;378(9):829-839. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1711584. Epub 2018 Feb 27.
3
The dark sides of fluid administration in the critically ill patient.重症患者液体输注的弊端
Intensive Care Med. 2018 Jul;44(7):1138-1140. doi: 10.1007/s00134-017-4989-4. Epub 2017 Nov 11.
7
Fluid resuscitation in human sepsis: Time to rewrite history?人类脓毒症中的液体复苏:是时候改写历史了?
Ann Intensive Care. 2017 Dec;7(1):4. doi: 10.1186/s13613-016-0231-8. Epub 2017 Jan 3.
10
A rational approach to fluid therapy in sepsis.脓毒症液体治疗的合理方法。
Br J Anaesth. 2016 Mar;116(3):339-49. doi: 10.1093/bja/aev349. Epub 2015 Oct 27.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验